<< November 2004 >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30




Contact Me

If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:


rss feed

Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Who After Arafat?

Life After Arafat
Palestinians' choice of a new leader, if they can agree on one, will determine the future of the peace process.

Jeff Fleischer
November 06 , 2004

While reports of Yasser Arafat’s medical condition have varied in the past few days, the seriousness of his illness and the likelihood of his imminent death mean the Palestinian Authority is arriving at a crossroads. For the first time since the peace process began, someone other than Arafat will be heading the Palestinian cause, and how that vacuum is filled will determine the future of statehood.

So far, the transition away from Arafat has occurred without major incident. On Wednesday, the PLO executive committee transferred more authority to Ahmed Qurei, giving the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority some of Arafat’s responsibilities for administrative, financial, and security concerns. At this point, former prime minister Mahmoud Abbas is in line to succeed Arafat as head of the PLO, and is expected to handle political negotiations once he is allowed to. (Under the law, no such negotiations can occur while the president is abroad, and Arafat is still the president). In the event Arafat dies, the Palestinian Basic Law requires the speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council would fill his role on an interim basis until a new president is elected. As the Council on Foreign Relations notes, "the current speaker is Rawhi Fattouh, a little-known politician who experts say is unlikely to exert much power if he ascends to the post," leaving Qurei and Abbas to handle the most high-profile decisions.

There will soon be an election to replace Arafat, but little about it is certain (Arafat never named a chosen successor). A general Authority election, including one for the presidency, was already scheduled for the spring, and that will be moved up. Qurei and Abbas -- both experienced politicians from the first generation of Palestinian leaders -- are expected to run, and both have gained some international currency with their calls for reform within the leadership. But as the CFR points out, "neither Abbas nor Qurei -- both of whom have long operated in Arafat’s shadow -- is considered a popular figure among the Palestinian people."

One danger for the future of Israeli/Palestinian relations is the probable entry of more radical elements into the electoral fray. One likely candidate is PLO foreign minister Farouk Kaddoumi, who stayed behind in Tunis when the rest of the PLO leadership relocated to the West Bank and Gaza in 1994. The Jerusalem Post reports Kaddoumi issued a warning this week "to ambitious Palestinian officials, who are jockeying for power" (ostensibly meaning Abbas and Qurei), and wants to succeed Arafat himself. That would be disastrous for peace prospects. Kaddoumi views the two-state solution of the Oslo accords as a "betrayal," has voiced support for Hamas, is ambivalent about statehood and reportedly has close ties to Syria and Iran.

Another possibility is Marwan Barghouti, who the Council on Foreign Relations calls the most popular politician other than Arafat, according to polls. He’s a member of Arafat’s Fatah party, and is a generation younger than the aforementioned men. The problem here is Barghouti was convicted in May for three terrorist attacks, and is serving five consecutive life terms (plus 40 years) in Israeli prison. Not only would he have to govern from prison if elected, but his long record of anti-Israel violence (he has been acquitted of 33 other murders because of a lack of evidence, and was a leader of the first intifada) would be a severe barrier to any sensible negotiations.

There’s also the possibility that an Islamist group like Hamas could take power. As al-Jazeera reports, Hamas official Ismail Haniya has already requested the formation of a "collective" Palestinian leadership to replace Arafat until elections are held:

"We will not allow any chaos or disunity to occur and the best way to realize this goal is by formulating a united national leadership that would lead the Palestinian people to the safety shore and prepare for elections in which all Palestinians would participate."

What Haniya’s plea doesn’t mention is that the current Palestinian leadership has nothing to gain by inviting Hamas into such a coalition, other than sparking Israeli anger and/or giving Hamas leaders governing credibility they could use in the coming election. Hamas has become an increasingly powerful political force, particularly in Gaza, and a split vote among more moderate candidates could provide an opportunity for Hamas. While Hamas officials told al-Jazeera the organization

No matter who becomes the new Palestinian leader, he won’t have the same often-teflon authority Arafat commanded as the "father of the nation." There’s a danger that Palestinian leadership could undergo the same wild back-and-forth swings from pro-peace prime ministers to hardliners that have marked Israeli leadership since a right-wing extremist assassinated Yitzhak Rabin in 1995.

There’s also the issue of how Israel and the Ariel Sharon government respond to the transition of power, as Sharon has long argued he has "no partner for peace" with Arafat at the helm. Sharon’s plan of withdawl from the occupied territories could be affected, with speculation that Israeli conservatives will use the transition as an excuse to push for delay -- and that the Isralei left will see it as an opportunity to push for a full peace plan instead of the withdrawal détente. As policy analyst Ze’ve Schiff argues in Ha’aretz:

"Arafat's demise will certainly increase the pressure on Israel to put off the disengagement plan from Gaza and northern Samaria. The reality after Arafat requires the opposite response -- to keep or even escalate the disengagement timetable.

"Even more important, Arafat's departure opens a possibility to turn the disengagement from a unilateral Israeli move into a fully coordinated one with the new Palestinian leadership. Israel does not know whether the new reality will cause a deterioration and anarchy in the territories. Such deterioration could strengthen Hamas and turn it into the only Palestinian address."

To this point, Sharon has ordered members of his Cabinet to avoid public speculation on Arafat’s health. As noted here this summer, Israel officials have already studied a list of worst-case scenarios for what might happen after Arafat’s death. Now that the moment seems on its way, and the whole world is watching what happens next. Israel (and the United States) have refused to deal with Arafat in recent years, and should take the transition as a fresh opportunity to negotiate a fair, peaceful two-state solution. Palestinians’ choice of leadership will play a large part in whether that’s possible.


Posted at 03:04 pm by Psychomike
Make a comment

What Osama bin Laden Wants

what does Laden want?
Last held by the Ottoman Prince abdul Mejid II, the Caliphate has been empty since its abolishment in 1924. Caliphate (khalifa) literally means "Successor of the Prophet", but the position of primary Caliphate is that of ruler of a unified Islamic nation. It is the goal of Al-Qaeda and the various terrorist organizations working either under the umbrella of Al-Qaeda or in concert with it to fill this void. And if Al-Qaeda has their way, the position will be filled by a Wahabbi Caliphate, Osama bin Laden.

In order to understand that the militance and radicalism perpetuated by groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Islamic Front of Salvation is not representative of modern-day Islam, one must come to understand that just as there are different "denominations" of Christianity, there too is such in the Islamic religion. Just as the Catholicism that fueled the Crusades was not indicative of all Christian believers at the time, the fanatical Islamists do not represent all Islamic believers.

The radical Islamic beliefs followed and taught by Al-Qaeda are considered part of Islamism. Islamism is a broad term encompassing all forms of Islamic fundamentalism. Included in these movements are the Shi'ites, certain Wahhabis (in particular in Saudi Arabia), certain Deobandis (in India), the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Hamas, the Hizbulla, Islamic Jihad, Jama'at Islamia and Sunni Islamists. Al-Qaeda represents a conjoining of the Saudi Wahabbis, via Osama bin Laden, and the Sunni Islamists.

Unlike the tolerance and coexistence which can be found in the modern -day Islamic world, Islamists believe that Islam requires a theocratic political structure which dictates all aspects of life. They believe in an Islamic state in which all are governed by Sha'ria, which is Islamic law, with strict observance of the Qur'an and religous observances. They believe there should be no foreign presence ( nonbelievers) within this Islamic state, and that this unified Islamic nation should be ruled under a re-established Caliphate. In order to re-establish the unified Islamic nation and the Caliphate, Jihad is necessary to free the believers of Islam currently ruled by "non- Islamic" rulers. (To be clear, a "non-Islamic ruler" is defined as any ruler who is not currently ruling his country in accordance with Sha'ria.) Any country previously under Islamic rule should be brought back under Sha'ria and the Caliphate by Jihad. This Jihad, they believe, is mandatory and actually can be viewed as a sixth pillar of Islam, according to the Islamists.

quote:
The ultimate goal of al-Qaida is to establish a Wahhabi Caliphate across the entire Islamic world, by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems "non-Islamic" (ie non-Wahhabi Islamist).(3)


quote:
The organization's main immediate goal is the overthrow of what it sees as the corrupt and heretical governments of Muslim states, and their replacement with the rule of Shari'a (Islamic law). Al-Qaeda is intensely anti-Western, and views the United States in particular as the prime enemy of Islam. Bin Laden has issued several "fatwas" or religious rulings calling upon Muslims to take up arms against the United States.(4)


In order to understand the regions that could fall into the category of "previously ruled by Islam" it is necessary to examine the boundaries of the prior Caliphates.

First the Arab Empire of c. 750:



And the Ottoman Empire of around 1580:



But it should be noted that substantial regions of India also can be considered previously under Muslim rule and therefore fall into the regions targeted in a Caliphate-driven Jihad.

quote:
“If the disbelievers occupy a territory belonging to the Muslims, it is incumbent upon the Muslims to drive them out, and to restore the land back to themselves; Spain had been a Muslim territory for more than eight hundred years, before it was captured by the Christians. They [i.e., the Christians] literally, and practically wiped out the whole Muslim population. And now, it is our duty to restore Muslim rule to this land of ours. The whole of India, including Kashmir, Hyderabad, Assam, Nepal, Burma, Behar, and Junagadh was once a Muslim territory. But we lost this vast territory, and it fell into the hands of the disbelievers simply because we abandoned Jihad. And Palestine, as is well-known, is currently under the occupation of the Jews. Even our First Qibla, Bait-ul-Muqaddas is under their illegal possession.” - Jihaad ul-Kuffaari wal- Munaafiqeen


As pointed out by Dr. Nayyer Ali in an article written in June of 2004 in the PakistanLink, the Jihadis have evolved from the heroic fight against invading Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the 1980's through a phase of "fighting the corrupt regimes" in the 1990's that targeted the Egyptian government, the Saud Family, and the rulers in Sudan. By the late 1990's the focus of attention of Al-Qaeda, the prominent jihadist force in the region, had become "the presence of US forces in Saudi Arabia, the sanctions on Iraq, and the occupation of Palestine."

But according to Dr. Ali, after 2001 the jihadist movement transitioned to nihilistic tactics aimed at any one who opposes it, including westerners, Shias and moderate Muslims. They have been consumed with the teachings of Khomeini, Mawdudi and Qutb and the goal of re-establishing the Khalifa which will rule with Sharia.

In an August, 2002 review of Peter Bergen's Holy War Inc: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden Parshotam Mehra states:

quote:
Bin Laden has two principal grouses against the USA. First, the very mention of the name, he admitted, provoked "disgust and revulsion." To start with, by aligning itself with the Saudi regime, Washington had committed "an act against Islam." He was determined to unseat the Saudis and, by implication, beat down the Americans.

That was not all. The USA was responsible for all those killed in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. It was against these acts of "aggression and injustice" that he had declared jihad. The end-goal was to drive Uncle Sam away from all Muslim lands.

Bin Laden was convinced that the end of the Cold War and the eclipse of the Soviet Union had made the USA "ever more haughty and arrogant." Not that this deterred him in the least. His answer to globalisation was the restoration of the Khalifa and the caliphate. Which, ominously, was to begin from Afghanistan with the swath of green eventually spreading all the way from Tunisia to Indonesia. [Emphasis added]


At any given time, the Khalifa may be chosen in three ways:

quote:

1. By selection. The Khalifa is selected by a group of the best, most Islamically knowledgeable people in the society (not by a general vote of everyone). This groups is called the Majlis-Ash-Shura (Arabic for "consultative council"). The members of the Majlis-ash-Shura are chosen from experts who are learned in Islam, and they in turn choose the Khalifa.
2. By nomination. The current Khalifa may nominate his successor, the next Khalifa (as Abu Bakr did with Umar). The people have to accept him just as in the first case.
3. By force. If the current Khalifa forces some one on the people to be the next Khalifa, but that person is righteous, the people must accept him as long as he remains righteous. Similarly, if there is no Khalifa (again, the situation today), it is permitted for someone to forcibly seize power and declare himself the Khalifa if he guarantees to abide by his responsibilities under Islam.(8)


It is worth pointing out that bin Laden has assured himself two of the legitimate avenues to Caliphate by establishing his own maglis al shura (Consultation Council) within Al-Qaeda, thereby insuring the council's choice to either be himself, or some one approved by him and/or the leadership of Al-Qaeda. But lest this peaceful plan should fail, there is always force.

quote:
It is part of Islamic tradition that the title of Khalifa may be attained by conquest if the incumbent is not fulfilling his duties -- or if there is no incumbent. Under shari'a law and hadith, the umma (the consultative assembly of the elders of Islam) is required to recognize as Khalifa anyone who is able to fulfill the duties of the position and demonstrates the sanction of Allah by mobilizing the Dar -al-Islam in successful jihad. Jihad, here, is interpreted broadly; a war of consolidation that united a substantial portion of the Dar-al- Islam under a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy would do it.

In other words, since 1924 the position of Caliph has been waiting for a Man on Horseback. Or, for you science-fiction fans out there, a Muad'Dib. The Ayatollah Khomeini could never quite make this nut; first, because he was not a plausible warlord, and second because he's part of the 10% Shi'a minority branch that disputes the Khalifal succession. The next Caliph, if there is one, will have to belong to the 90% Sunni majority.

Osama bin Laden has behaved precisely as though he intends to fill that role. And in doing so, he has frightened the crap out of the rulers of the Arab world. Because he's played his religious and propaganda cards very well in Islamic terms, barring the detail that he may well be dead and buried under rubble in an Afghan cave.

On 9/11, bin Laden took jihad to the symbolic heart of the West more effectively than any Islamic ruler has managed since the Siege of Vienna was broken in 1683. By doing so he caught Arab rulers ( especially the Saudis) in a neat theo-political trap. They have been encouraging hatred of Israel and the West, and hyping the jihadist mythology of fundamentalist Islam, as a way of diverting popular anger that might otherwise focus on their own corrupt and repressive regimes. But Bin Laden has trumped and beaten them at this game. He has acted out the Koranic duty of jihad in a way they never dared -- and in doing so, seized the religious high ground.

The sheikhs and ayatollahs now have a dilemma. If they support jihadism, they must either start a war against the West they know they cannot win or cede their own legitimacy to the Caliph-claimant who is leading the jihad. But if they come out against jihad, bin Laden or his successor can de-legitimitize them simply by pointing to the Koran. The possibility that the semi-mythical "Arab street" would revolt behind local Khomeini-equivalents hot to join al-Qaeda's jihad is quite real.(9)


But we need not rely on the words of authors, analysts and pundits concerning the claims of bin Laden's goal being al Khalifa. We can rely on the words of the jihadists themselves.

In Bin Laden's Sermon for the Feast of the Sacrifice published by MEMRI on March 5, 2003, the following statements are made by bin Laden himself:

quote:

Prayers and blessings of peace upon our Prophet Muhammad, who said:'I was sent with a sword in preparation for the Day of Judgment when God alone will be worshipped with none beside him. He assigned me a livelihood under the shadow of my spear and he assigned humiliation and lowliness to those who disobey my command. He who makes himself resemble a community of people, is one of them.'[8]He also said: 'Expel the idolaters from the Arabian peninsula.'


quote:

One of the most important positive results of the raids on New York and Washington was the revelation of the truth regarding the conflict between the Crusaders and the Muslims. [The raids] revealed the strength of the hatred which the Crusaders feel towards us, as the two raids peeled the lamb's skin off the back of the American wolf and revealed the hideous truth. The whole world awoke from its slumber, and the Muslims were alerted to the importance of the [Muslim] principle which states that positions of alliance or hostility may be taken [only] for the sake of Allah. The spirit of religious brotherhood among Muslims was likewise strengthened, which constitutes a great step forward along the road towards uniting Muslims under the banner of monotheism in order to establish the rightly-guided Caliphate, God willing.


This speech, in fact, is rife with reference to the "Nation of Islam" and to the previous Caliphates.

But bin Laden is not the only Islamist leader to bluntly state the intentions of Al-Qaeda to establish the Caliphate. An article on the modern day meaning of "jihad", written by the Islamist Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, who is leader of the Al-Muhajiroun movement, rejected the Al-Qaeda definition of jihad as calling for the "violent removal of 'impious regimes' in Muslim countries" along with the jihad against all that is Western, declaring this definition un-Islamic.

Sheikh Bakr states:

quote:
"The question of whether Jihad can be used to remove existing regimes is a relatively new issue which must be addressed. The Muslim Ummah has never before been in a position where we are divided into over 55 nations each with its own oppressive kufr [infidel] regime ruling above us. There is no doubt therefore that the vital issue for the Muslims today is to establish the Khilafah [caliphate]. Allah (be He praised) makes it clear in the Qur'an that there is no compulsion in the Deen ["religion", i.e. Islam] hence we do not fight the Kuffar [infidels] to become Muslims."

"There is also ample proof from the sayings and the actions of the Messenger Muhammad (may Allah pray for Him) that non-Muslims have sanctity for their lives unless they are at war with the Muslims either determined by the Khalifah (Caliph) in his foreign policy or ( as in today's situation) they are violating the sanctity of Muslim land, honor or life. Much advice has also been given by the Messenger Muhammad (may Allah pray for Him) on Jihad which makes it clear that this duty is pro-life as opposed to anti-life, such as not killing women and children, not killing the elderly or monks, not targeting the trees or animals, etc..."

"Hence, although foreign forces occupying Muslim land are legitimate targets and we are obliged to liberate Muslim land from such occupation and to co-operate with each other in the process, and can even target their embassies and military bases, there is no divine evidence for us to fight against Muslims who are part of the regimes in Muslim countries as a methodology to establish the Khilafah. Rather, we urge our Muslim brothers in Islamic Movements who are engaged in this violation of the Shari`ah to look at the evidences and follow that which is based on Yaqeen (indisputable legal knowledge) and may Allah (be He praised) guide us all to the best."


MEMRI summarizes:

quote:
Significantly, Sheikh Bakri argues that the well-known Islamic concepts of Dar Al-Islam versus Dar Al-Harb no longer apply. This means that the implicit obligation of Muslims to wage war on Dar Al- Harb ("The Abode of War," i.e. territory ruled by non-Muslims) is no longer applicable. Sheikh Bakri argues that the concept of Dar Al- Islam implies the existence of a Khilafa (Caliphate) and that because there is no Khilafa nowadays (since the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate in March 1924), there is no Dar Al-Islam and, consequently, no Dar Al-Harb.


Sheikh Bakri's contentions bear the importance of the establishment of the Caliphate to legitimize the jihadis' efforts.

In an interview with Al-Hayat in January 2004, Nabil Sahrawi (a.k.a. Abu Ibrahim Mustafa) who holds a leadership position in the Salafi Group for Da'wa and Fighting in Algeria, stated:

quote:
'The rulers of the Muslim lands today are a gang of apostates [and] criminals, the most evil creatures created on the face of the earth, whose crimes are known to all, and they are a paradigm of treachery, deceit, misleading, and repression. How many commitments have they given their people, only to then fill their graveyards and prisons with them? They have replaced Shari'a law, and they rule Muslims with the laws of Europe and America. They have shed blood and violated the religious prohibitions. They have wasted the property of the Muslims on forbidden things. All that interested them was their bellies and their enslavement to the West. They are not [protected] by any pact. Anyone who wants a lesson [on the results] of dialogue with the apostates, let them learn the lesson of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the lesson of the Islamic Front of Salvation in Algeria … and so on.

"The Salafi Group for Da'wa and Fighting is fighting the regime in Algiers because of its unbelief and apostasy… Fighting the apostates takes precedence over fighting others from among the original infidels, and the punishment of the apostates is harsher than that [of the original infidels], both in this world and in the hereafter. Pacts must not be formed with these rulers; they must not be given security; there must be no reconciliation with them, and there must be no truce with them. We will accept from them either repentance or the sword…"


When asked of his group's connection with Al-Qaeda, Sahrawi offered the following:

quote:
Our connection to Al-Qa'ida and the other Jihad organizations in the world is based on two things:'

"First, the operation of the Salafi Group for Da'wa and Fighting in the realm of preaching and Jihad is an operation integrated with that of the other groups, because as noted in the [organization's] charter … the Salafi Group for Da'wa and Fighting is a phased means aimed ultimately at establishing a group of Muslims – the Caliphate – and it sees this as a sacred goal that all Muslims must strive to attain…

"Second, one of our goals is also to educate the Muslims about the principle that loyalty to Islam and to the Sunna must take precedence over loyalty to all the other frameworks… The Muslim is the brother of the Muslim, even if their countries are distant from each other. Every Muslim is entitled to the support [of other Muslims]… We support those who support Allah, His Prophet, and the believers, and we act with hostility towards those who act with hostility towards Allah and His Prophet, even if he is from among the closest of the close."


In the 2001 trial concerning the indictments against top Al-Qaeda leadership, including Osama bin Laden, during the testimony of the state's witness Jamal Ahmed Al-Fadl, the following information was divulged about the intent and teachings of Al-Qaeda:

Testimony under direct examination from February 6, 2001:

quote:

Q. Were you present for any conversations where Usama Bin Laden stated what he was going to do after the Russians left Afghanistan?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell us what Usama Bin Laden said he was going to do after the Russians left Afghanistan?

A. He thinking about making group.

Q. Can you explain to us anything else you recall about what he wanted this group to do?

A. To be ready for another step because in Afghanistan everything is over.

Q. And did he explain at that time what that other step was?

A. They say we have to make Khalifa.

Q. Can you explain to the jury what a khalifa is?

A. Khalifa mean we need one Muslim leader for the whole Muslim in the war.

Q. Continue with what else you recall Usama Bin Laden stated he wished to do after the Russians left Afghanistan.

A. He say also we want to change the Arab government because there's no Muslim government in the war, so we have to make Muslim government .


Testimony under cross-examination from February 13, 2001:

quote:
Q. Isn't it true, sir, that Jihad can only be in defense in the cause of Allah? I mean, there are other reasons; that's one of them?

A. Jihad is so many different roles. So one of the Jihad to make Jihad, being make the whole country Muslim.

Q. Is another of these reasons when led by a spritiual leader to accomplish these goals?

A. Khalifa.

Q. Now, you went to a camp in Khost, isn't that right?

A. Yes, Khost area.

Q. And there again, they talked to you, various people talked to you about religious issues, didn't they?

A. Yes, in Farouq camp.

Q. And one of the things they talked to you about was something I think you referred to as a khalifa, right?

A. Khalifa. Al khalifa, yes.

Q. And "khalifa" means that all of the Muslim world should be united into a single -- I'm going to use the word country, but it really means a single entity?

A. You're right.

Q. And you believed that, didn't you?

A. Yes.

Q. You believed, for example, that whatever country you were from, in your case, the Sudan, wasn't as important as the unity Muslims should have for one another?

A. I don't understand that.

Q. Well, Sudan is a nation, right?

A. Yes, it's country.

Q. Egypt is another nation?

A. Another country, yes.

Q. Somalia is another country?

A. Yes.

Q. But when you talk about khalifa, what you say is all Muslims should be joined together?

A. You're right, under one man.

Q. Under one man, a khalifa?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was one of the goals of al Qaeda, wasn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was a goal you accepted?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. At some point the Soviet Union was defeated in Afghanistan, were they not?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was a tremendous victory for Muslims around the world?

A. Yes.

Q. But after that victory there were a number of men who for years had been fighting in Afghanistan and had no cause left to fight, isn't that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Those were called the mujahideen?

A. Yes.

Q. And those people, those mujahideen, had been fighting for so long that that was the only thing they really knew how to do, wasn't it?

A. You're right.

Q. So it was at that time, at the end of the war in Afghanistan, that Bin Laden decided to start al Qaeda?

A. Before him, another people.

Q. But it was around the time the war ended in Afghanistan, wasn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. And he began that in part to work towards this khalifa, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you were one of the very first people involved with Bin Laden, weren't you?

A. Yes.

Q. So, for example, at one time Salim gave a speech in which he quoted from the Koran where it said there should be no other religions in our islands, do you remember that?

A. In Arab islands.

Q. What do you mean by that?

A. In Arab islands: Yemen country, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Bahrain, Qatar, Muscat, Jordan, Palestine, this is Arab islands.

Q. And he meant, did he not, that the khalifa should take those Arab countries and make sure that they were completely Muslim, Arab countries for the Muslims, right?

A. It's for Prophet Mohamed. He say Prophet Mohamed says they not allowed to let two religions in Arab islands.


In a rather low-profile CNN article in June, 2004, the results of a poll conducted with more than 15,000 Saudis were reviewed and the summary statement was:

quote:
Almost half of all Saudis said in a poll conducted last year that they have a favorable view of Osama bin Laden's sermons and rhetoric, but fewer than 5 percent thought it was a good idea for bin Laden to rule the Arabian Peninsula.


Indicating the still present effort to promote bin Laden as the modern-day Caliphate for the region.

References

1. http://www.fact-index.com/c/ca/caliphate.html

2. A Concise History of Islam and the Arabs

3. http://www.fact-index.com/a/al/al_qaida.html

4. Inside Al-Qaeda

5. The Religious Sources of Islamic Terrorism

6. What Do the Jihadis Want?

7. A walk through tunnels of hate

8. The Muslim Khalifa

9. What Al-Qaeda wants

10. Bin Laden's Sermon for the Feast of the Sacrifice

11. Islamist Leader in London: No Universal Jihad As Long As There is No Caliphate

12. Interview with Algerian Terror Leader Associated with Al- Qa'ida: The Islamic State Will Arise Only Through Blood and Body Parts

13. http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/pdfs/binladen/060201.pdf

14. http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/pdfs/binladen/130201.pdf

15. http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/pdfs/binladen/indict.pdf

16. Poll of Saudis shows wide support for bin Laden's views

Posted at 12:07 pm by Psychomike
Make a comment

Monday, November 08, 2004
Shocker :Poverty Not Cause Of Terrorism!


Alberto Abadie
Alberto Abadie: 'In the past, we heard people refer to the strong link between terrorism and poverty, but ... when you look at the data, it's not there. This is true not only for events of international terrorism ... but ... also for the overall level of terrorism, both of domestic and of foreign origin.' (Staff photo Jon Chase/Harvard News Office)

Freedom squelches terrorist violence

KSG associate professor researches freedom-terrorism link

By Alvin Powell
Harvard News Office

A John F. Kennedy School of Government researcher has cast doubt on the widely held belief that terrorism stems from poverty, finding instead that terrorist violence is related to a nation's level of political freedom.

Associate Professor of Public Policy Alberto Abadie examined data on terrorism and variables such as wealth, political freedom, geography, and ethnic fractionalization for nations that have been targets of terrorist attacks.

Abadie, whose work was published in the Kennedy School's Faculty Research Working Paper Series, included both acts of international and domestic terrorism in his analysis.

Though after the 9/11 attacks most of the work in this area has focused on international terrorism, Abadie said terrorism originating within the country where the attacks occur actually makes up the bulk of terrorist acts each year. According to statistics from the MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base for 2003, which Abadie cites in his analysis, there were 1,536 reports of domestic terrorism worldwide, compared with just 240 incidents of international terrorism.

Before analyzing the data, Abadie believed it was a reasonable assumption that terrorism has its roots in poverty, especially since studies have linked civil war to economic factors. However, once the data was corrected for the influence of other factors studied, Abadie said he found no significant relationship between a nation's wealth and the level of terrorism it experiences.

"In the past, we heard people refer to the strong link between terrorism and poverty, but in fact when you look at the data, it's not there. This is true not only for events of international terrorism, as previous studies have shown, but perhaps more surprisingly also for the overall level of terrorism, both of domestic and of foreign origin," Abadie said.

Instead, Abadie detected a peculiar relationship between the levels of political freedom a nation affords and the severity of terrorism. Though terrorism declined among nations with high levels of political freedom, it was the intermediate nations that seemed most vulnerable.

Like those with much political freedom, nations at the other extreme - with tightly controlled autocratic governments - also experienced low levels of terrorism.

Though his study didn't explore the reasons behind the trends he researched, Abadie said it could be that autocratic nations' tight control and repressive practices keep terrorist activities in check, while nations making the transition to more open, democratic governments - such as currently taking place in Iraq and Russia - may be politically unstable, which makes them more vulnerable.

"When you go from an autocratic regime and make the transition to democracy, you may expect a temporary increase in terrorism," Abadie said.

Abadie's study also found a strong connection in the data between terrorism and geographic factors, such as elevation or tropical weather.

"Failure to eradicate terrorism in some areas of the world has often been attributed to geographic barriers, like mountainous terrain in Afghanistan or tropical jungle in Colombia. This study provides empirical evidence of the link between terrorism and geography," Abadie said.

In Abadie's opinion, the connection between geography and terrorism is hardly surprising.

"Areas of difficult access offer safe haven to terrorist groups, facilitate training, and provide funding through other illegal activities like the production and trafficking of cocaine and opiates," Abadie wrote in the paper.

A native of Spain's Basque region, Abadie said he has long been interested in terrorism and related issues. His past research has explored the effect of terrorism on economic activity, using the Basque country as a case study.

Abadie is turning his attention to the effect of terrorism on international capital flows. Some analysts have argued that terrorist attacks wouldn't have much of an impact on the economy, since unlike a war's widespread damage, the damage from terrorist attacks tends to be relatively small or confined to a small area.

In an era of open international capital markets, however, Abadie said terrorism may have a greater chilling effect than previously thought, since even a low risk of damage from a terrorist attack may be enough to send investors looking elsewhere.

Posted at 08:30 pm by Psychomike
Make a comment

Sunday, November 07, 2004
Arafat Has Been Dead Since Friday!

Paris Tells Palestinians to Remove Arafat

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report

November 7, 2004, 12:42 AM (GMT+02:00)

Suha Arafat. In no hurry for widowhood.

French president Jacques Chirac’s patience with the Palestinians’ desperate maneuvers to cover up Yasser Arafat’s demise has run out. DEBKAfile’s Paris and Washington sources reveal exclusively that Friday, November 5, exactly a week after Arafat was admitted to the Percy military hospital near Paris, the French president put in a call to the White House and informed President George W. Bush that it was all over.

Paris and Washington both then swung into action.

An American delegation, organized at top speed by US Middle East diplomats, called on Palestinian prime minister Ahmed Qureia in Ramallah on Saturday, November 6,

and asked him how Washington could help expedite a fitting end to the episode. The visit was more a token of support than a practical offer of help.

In Paris meanwhile, Suhah Arafat sacked the PLO ambassador Leila Shahid, the Palestinian spokesperson who issued almost daily bulletins after Arafat arrived in Paris.

What happened next was that Christian Estripeau, spokesman of the French military health services, informed Mrs. Arafat that he would issue no more bulletins on Arafat’s condition; neither would Percy hospital. She was given to understand that the hospital had kept her husband artificially alive as long as it intended to. The conversation followed a decision by a top-level conference of French officials, attended also by the president, to disengage from the pretence that Arafat was still alive. They realized it was no longer tenable without compromising the military hospital’s ethical position and medical credibility.

They also decided to settle the Arafat problem before November 12, because that is when Ramadan ends with “Orphan’s Friday” and moves into the three-day Eid al Fitr festival, during which no business of any kind can be contracted with Muslim authorities. If the Palestinian leader can be buried by Wednesday or Thursday, the French government reckons, the days of mourning can be wound up in time for Muslims to celebrate the festival and get started on the post-Arafat era.

Howwever, French efforts to unload Arafat by mid-week have been stymied by the lack of any accredited authority willing and able to organize the funeral or even determine the Palestinian leader’s final burial place. No Arab or Muslim leader will attend a funeral in Gaza or Jerusalem because it would entail transiting through an Israeli international port as well as risking his life in a Palestinian terrorist battle zone such as the Gaza Strip.

An earlier suggestion to overcome this difficulty, by Arab and European leaders attending a lying-in-state ceremony in Paris before the coffin’s transfer to Cairo, fell through. According to DEBKAfile’s Middle East sources, three governments - France, Egypt and Jordan – refused to allow any part of the final ceremonies on their soil. Paris then asked the Tunisian president Zeit bin Ali for permission to hold the central ceremony in his capital, so that European, Arab and Muslim leaders could pay their last respects in safety. The coffin would then be flown to Cairo and on to the Gaza Strip for burial.

The Tunisian president agreed. The Egyptian government firmly declined, as did Jordan.

In Ramallah, the power vacuum is widening.

Prime minister Ahmed Qureia and his predecessor Mahmoud Abbas are losing ground in their attempts to assume the interim reins of government.

1. Saturday, Qureia went to Gaza City to try and negotiate a temporary halt in terrorist attacks with the heads of 13 Palestinian factions – at least until after the funeral. They turned him down. Hamas demanded that first a unified Palestinian leadership be established with a place for itself.

2. The Gaza-based Palestinian Authority secretary Tayeb Abu Rahim Qureia humiliated Qureia at Saturday’s session of the Palestinian national security council by declaring angrily that nothing in the Palestinian constitution provided for the prime minister to step in as acting PA Chairman in Arafat’s absence. That prerogative, he said, belongs to another Gazan, the Palestinian legislature’s speaker, Fathi Rouh.

3. Then, the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s politburo chief, Farouk Kaddumi, who turned up in Paris Thursday, questioned Abbas’s constitutional credentials to stand in for Arafat as chairman of the PLO central committee. Kaddumi claimed that he was the rightful chairman and Abbas, who is listed as one of two deputies, must report on his every action to Kaddumi as his subordinate.

http://www.debka.com/article_print.php?aid=932

Posted at 07:13 pm by Psychomike
Make a comment

Arafat Dying Of AIDS?

Suspicions grow that Arafat is dying of AIDS
By israelinsider staff  November 6, 2004

Former White House speechwriter David Frum has joined the growing chorus of pundits, medical experts, and intelligence operatives who claim Yasser Arafat is likely suffering from AIDS.

Frum, a key figure in Republican politics and the man who coined the terms "axis of evil," writes in National Review Online that Arafat's undisclosed illness is well-known, but has been kept under wraps by the mainstream media.

"Speaking of media bias, here's a question you won't hear in our big papers or on network TV: Does Yasser Arafat have AIDS?" asks Frum, who also writes for the National Post.

"We know he has a blood disease that is depressing his immune system. We know that he has suddenly dropped considerable weight -- possibly as much as one-third of all his body weight. We know that he is suffering intermittent mental dysfunction. What does this sound like?"

Earlier, John Loftus told John Batchelor on ABC radio on October 26 that Arafat is dying from AIDS. Loftus said the CIA has known this about Arafat for quite awhile and that as a result the US has encouraged Sharon not to take Arafat out because the US has known Arafat was about done. It was deemed better to have Arafat discredited as a homosexual.

Although homosexuality is rife in the Arab world, it is at least officially considered a sin and a crime, and regarded--especially in fundamentalist circles--as a mark of great shame and depravity.

Intelligence on "the tiger" romping with bodyguards
Frum pointed to KGB evidence linking Arafat to homosexual activities, citing a 1987 book by Lt.-Gen. Ion Pacepa, the deputy chief of Romania's intelligence service under Communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu.

In his memoirs "Red Horizons," Pacepa relates a conversation in 1978 with Constantin Munteaunu, a general assigned to teach Arafat and the PLO techniques to deceive the West into granting the organization recognition.

"I just called the microphone monitoring center to ask about the 'Fedayee,'" Arafat's code name, explained Munteaunu. "After the meeting with the Comrade, he went directly to the guest house and had dinner. At this very moment, the 'Fedayee' is in his bedroom making love to his bodyguard. The one I knew was his latest lover. He's playing tiger again. The officer monitoring his microphones connected me live with the bedroom, and the squawling almost broke my eardrums. Arafat was roaring like a tiger, and his lover yelping like a hyena."

Munteaunu continued: "I've never before seen so much cleverness, blood and filth all together in one man." Munteaunu, wrote Pacepa, spent months pulling together secret reports from Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian intelligence agencies as well as Romanian files.

"I used to think I knew just about everything there was to know about Rahman al-Qudwa," Arafat's real name, "about the construction engineer who made a fortune in Kuwait, about the passionate collector of racing cars, about Abu Amman," Arafat's nom de guerre, "and about my friend Yasser, with all his hysterics," explained Munteaunu, handing Pacepa his final report on the PLO leader. "But I've got to admit that I didn't really know anything about him."

Pacepa wrote: "The report was indeed an incredible account of fanaticism, of devotion to his cause, of tangled oriental political maneuvers, of lies, of embezzled PLO funds deposited in Swiss banks, and of homosexual relationships, beginning with his teacher when he was a teen-ager and ending with his current bodyguards. After reading the report, I felt a compulsion to take a shower whenever I had been kissed by Arafat, or even just shaken his hand."

"If true, Arafat would have a great deal to conceal from his people and his murderously anti-homosexual supporters in the Islamic world," writes Frum, suggesting that Arafat was airlifted to France for medical treatment because he "could trust the French to protect his intimate secret."

The medical evidence adds up
Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath Monday said that all types of cancer had been ruled out, and the latest news is that French doctors have ruled out poisoning.

Medical observers note that a low blood platelet count is a sign of a weakened immune system, and indeed last week there were reports of a complete collapse of Arafat's immune system. Other than the ruled-out cancer, the low count could be attributed to bleeding ulcers, colitis, liver disease, lupus, or HIV. It is believed that ulcers and colitis have already been ruled out.

Arafat has lost a considerable amount of body weight. Hopital d'Instruction des Armees de Percy, southwest of Paris, is known to have some of France's best HIV/AIDS doctors. Other medical experts note that Arafat's activities in recent weeks and months suggest the dementia that accompanies late-stage AIDS.

Medical authorities not connected directly to his case are suggesting that he may have HIV/AIDS. One doctor reported to an Israel Insider source that his suspicions have been growing for more than a year.

"I began to see tell tale signs of kaposis sarcoma. His Parkinsonian tremor was more than just a Parkinsonian tremor and he was also showing signs of weakness. The rumor about homosexuality/bisexuality has been around for decades. So I put two and two together when they started talking about his health over a year ago. The talk of a mysterious illness in this day and age should be a tip-off. He has some of the best physicians in the world attending to him. He can be diagnosed clinically, without perfoming any tests. All the doctors surrounding him know what he has. All this cloak and dagger about tests is a ruse. They understand the implications of divulging that he has HIV. If I were Suha I would be getting a little concerned."

If Arafat has AIDS, that would also explain Suha's reticence to allow the release of significant information about Arafat's condition, and the almost ludicrously tight-lipped reports of the French hospital spokesman, and the refusal of anyone connected with Arafat to hold a press conference in recent days.

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/4348.htm

Posted at 02:05 pm by Psychomike
Make a comment

Saturday, November 06, 2004
How JFK Stole An Election

The historic, and fixed, 1960 election

This astonishing website threw even me for a loop. The article pretty much devastates JFK. Or at least the carefully crafted image. I did a google search on some of the claims however, damn if they all didn't come up right. Here is an amazing story.

QUOTE:

On Election night 1960, nobody knew at midnight if Kennedy or Nixon won, and when Kennedy remarked that he had it made, his father, Joe Kennedy, told him he still had time to change his mind -- not all the votes were counted yet in Cook County, Illinois. Gangster Sam Giancana was telling Judith Campbell, also referring to Cook County, that he had elected her boyfriend. Chicago's Mayor Daley also claimed credit for electing Kennedy.

Kennedy's close win over Nixon in 1960 has long been a bone of contention, and books have been written proving that Kennedy stole the election, or had the election stolen for him by his and his father's mob connections plus Lyndon Johnson's connections. Other prominent historians have ridiculed the idea and disputed the evidence of fraud.

When those on either side make impassioned arguments, make sure they provide legitimate figures on the relevant states involved in the fraud. (It is hard to get straight figures in partisan articles, even on how many people voted, and various articles give different figures.)

Here I use government archive figures that Kennedy won 303 electoral votes from 23 states and a popular vote of 34, 221, 344, or 49.72%, and Nixon won 219 electorial votes from 26 states and a popular vote of 34, 106, 671, or 49.55%. The charges of fraud have most often been raised against Cook County, Illinois, and Duval County, Texas, but also West Virginia.

Often you hear someone in authority say, "Even if the vote was crooked as charged in a couple of places, Kennedy still would have won on the electorial vote." During C-Span's 1999 Presidential Series, Historian Melvin Small apeared on C-Span's Nixon day with John Taylor of the Nixon Library on November 19, and his remarks will enter history because of the power of C-Span, which is usually authoritative and is relatively unbiased in an otherwise poisoned media.

Small told the new generations of Americans that Kennedy would have won even if the disputed votes had been crooked, but look at the figures. Subtract Texas electoral votes (32) and Illinois electoral votes (27) from Kennedy's 303 electoral votes and you get 244. Add those votes to Nixon's 219 and you get 278. In an honest election in 1960, Nixon would have won 278 to 244. Repeat, Nixon would have won.

Joshua Leinsdorf of the Institute of Electoral Analysis, widely quoted on the Internet (see Ask Jeeves), also insists in large type that Kennedy won fair and square, and supplies a large range of irrelevant figures dealing with comparisons of which presidential candidate led or trailed the rest of their parties in various states, and historic voting patterns, utterly beside the point and resulting in obfuscation. He pretended that the issue of fraud was focused on Illinois and -- hold tight -- Hawaii! He notes the difference was a handful of votes in Hawaii. (He does not mention Texas.) Leinsdorf confidently asserts, "Even if you take Illinois' 27 electoral votes and Hawaii's three votes away from Kennedy and give them to Nixon, Kennedy still would have won with 273 electoral votes, four more than needed."

Hawaii was not an issue. Texas, where Lyndon Johnson is supposed to have started his career in Congress by winning the cemetery vote in that very same Duval County, was an issue.

Historian Melvin Small is not the most aggressive of Nixon detractors, and he remarked on C-Span that most historians are Democrats (like most newsmen). One of his egregious mistakes was to declare that it was not Nixon who called the Defcon 3 nuclear alert in Black September 1973, but Henry Kissinger, because Nixon was out of commission due to the news media's Saturday Night Massacre in 1973, when Israel's fate was up for grabs. That false story had been trumpeted by The New York Times, all alone. According to Small, then, Kissinger saved Israel's existence, not Nixon. Small conceded that Alexander Haig disagreed with him in an interview.

See Nixon and the Jews for a more complete story, but here I must remark that Secretaries of State do not have the authority to order nuclear alerts. Joint Chiefs of Staff do not obey orders from Secretaries of State, they like to hear the president's voice on orders of that nature.

 

The Great Kennedy Disaster
A Con Game with Media Cooperation

"...handsomest, best-dressed, most articulate, graceful as a gazelle ...omniscient, omnipotent."

The martyred John F. Kennedy may have been the most beloved of American presidents, and affection for him in the 1960s and 1970s was close to total. Even detractors had to admire him for his grace under pressure, his cool ease in public, his quick wit and flashing smile, also when stoically enduring pain. If someone less attractive had been the rival of Richard Nixon, Nixon might not have had to resign; occasional surliness was not the best act to follow Kennedy.

The media's infatuation with and national devotion to Kennedy is both a blessing and a curse; the "value of his inspiration" made historians as weak in the knees as it did journalists, while perverting history. Meanwhile, his practical scorecard as president is surely the worst since the republic was founded. When he was president we had military superiority, and had it been otherwise, the catastrophes he flirted with might have struck harder than they did.

The main outline of his presidency has been covered in an outpouring of books, starting with Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s A Thousand Days. Theodore Sorensen's Kennedy, and Roger Hilsman's To Move a Nation -- all by authors tied to Kennedy's career.

Many episodes in these books are landmarks in American history and folklore: (1) the Bay of Pigs debacle in April 1961; (2) the assassination of dictator Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic in May; (3) the bug-out from Laos, and (4) get-acquainted summit with Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna in June and (5) the subsequent Berlin Wall August 13, which lasted 28 years; (6) the retreat to Vietnam of the former Laos defense line against communism's Asian expansion; (7) the aversion of President Charles de Gaulle to Kennedy and to his Undersecretary of State George Ball, which took France halfway out of NATO and U.S. troops out of the vital Com Z (the Communication Zone to Germany); (9) the Cuban missile crisis (a lone victory, but at the cost of alienating Turkey, which lost status along with its Jupiter missiles, and guaranteeing Fidel Castro's lifelong control of Cuba); (10) the partial nuclear test-ban treaty (a dubious partial victory), and finally (11) Kennedy's orders to dispose of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem, America's shameful betrayal and summary execution of an ally.

His legacy was, he both got us into Vietnam and ham-strung our war effort there.

Everyone in my generation remembers where he or she was when the news struck that Kennedy had been assassinated in Dallas by Lee Harvey Oswald. I was watching German television in Bad Godesberg, and to my surprise I cried out, "They've killed him!" and burst into tears. My wife came out of the kitchen and said, "But you didn't even like him." "Now he'll never have a chance to make it good." I blubbered. My wife draped her black lace Spanish mantilla around his portrait at the Embassy Club, and it stayed there until Lyndon Johnson's portrait replaced it. We were not Kennedy-haters.

Brave he was, with the reckless courage of those who have nothing to lose and will bluff with a deuce in the hole, and he won over the crew of the lost motor torpedo boat PT 109. Yet when faced with alternative solutions to heavy-risk decisions, he always delayed past the last minute, then chose the most moderate move, not necessarily the best. In the choice of invading Cuba, obliterating its offensive weapons by bombing, or blockading it, he chose a hesitant blockade, finally selecting a ship that could not be carrying contraband arms, and so late that the crisis had reached nuclear-war stage.

Richard Reeves recalls that James MacGregor Burns, an early Kennedy biographer, wrote a spoofing article in New Republic on the theme, "He is not only the handsomest, the best-dressed, the most articulate, and graceful as a gazelle. He is omniscient; he swallows whole books in minutes, he confounds experts with superior knowledge of their fields. He is omnipotent."

Thirty years after Kennedy's death, Reeves published President Kennedy, Portrait of Power, (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1993), this time with time-released documents and the first peeks into archives of the defunct Soviet Union. The new material enabled Reeves to get into direct quotations, which, combined with his many interviews, present a closer look at Kennedy. What he found did not dampen Reeves's affection for Kennedy, nor end his belief that Kennedy was a great, if unusually profane president, but it left him shaken by Kennedy's aggressive recklessness like a James Bond dry martini, not just stirred.

A mild example: At the 1960 nominating convention Adlai Stevenson withheld his support, and JFK told him,

"Look, I have the votes for the nomination. If you don't give me your support, I will have to shit all over you. I don't want to do that, but I can, and I will if I have to."

Under observation by an army of doctors for most of his life, three physicians competed, not always amicably, to keep him alive during his presidency: his official doctor, a Navy officer; Dr. Janet Travell, who injected novocain into his back muscles to deaden pain for two hours at a time, sometimes several times a day, and Dr. Max Jacobson, who gave him amphetamines, so he could be bright-eyed and bushy-tailed for public display. On his own, Kennedy took Demerol, a controlled pain killer that Jackie got from a Secret Service guard. Reeves also mentions that Kennedy had a persistent, unspecified venereal disease.

Constantly drugged or not, Kennedy was able to control the press like no other president. He was boosted into Congress by an article in Life by John Hersey, republished in Readers Digest, describing his wartime heroics. Arthur Krock of The New York Times helped JFK write his first book from his Harvard thesis, While England Slept (just as Krock earlier wrote a book for his dad, I'm for Roosevelt), but Krock later cooled on JFK because Kennedy treated him with contempt.

Once elected President, Warner Brothers in 1963 released PT-109, with Cliff Robertson playing the hero. Kennedy okayed the wildly false script, and wanted Warren Beatty to play him, but Beatty declined. The film was a smash hit, and the History Channel replayed it in October 2000. At half-time host Sander Vanocur asked Oxford historian Steve Gillon if it was the historical truth. The professor said there was little resemblance to real life, and the furious firefights greeting Kennedy's arrival in the South Pacific never happened. (Try to imagine Hollywood creating a movie that made Navy Lt. Cmdr Nixon a hero in the South Pacific.)

Someone at The New York Times called him to warn that a Tad Szulc story was ready to go on the impending Bay of Pigs infiltration (which was the talk of Miami, where Szulc got the story -- and no doubt of Havana). Kennedy yelled treason and called Orville Dryfoos, then publisher. The story was not killed, but it was modified, softened, and played down with a small headline. (Try to imagine Nixon calling a publisher to try to kill a story, on the grounds that it was treason. Absurd.)

Eisenhower had not signed off on the CIA's Cuba invasion in training when he left office. Kennedy, who was planning to replace Allan Dulles as CIA director with Richard Bissell, insisted that Bissell change the planned landing site from Trinidad beach, and Bissell fatefully chose the Bay of Pigs, where Castro had a following. Kennedy told Bissell to choose a date, but then cut off air support, including from the Cuban invaders planes, after James Reston bawled him out at lunch. When the botched plans failed, Kennedy angrily fired Dulles and Bissell.

Arthur Schlesinger Jr., from the Harvard faculty that Kennedy brought to Washington, wrote a memo offering the bureaucracy cover to lie under the title, Protecting the President: "When lies have to be told, they should be told by subordinate officials."

Kennedy threw out Dwight Eisenhower's systematic, organizational-chart operation, and instead had everyone refer to him. His chart was a wheel, with all spokes to himself. His brother Robert Kennedy played a role like a chief of staff, fielding everyone's calls until the president appointed him Attorney General. Bobby continued to interfere with Secretary of State Dean Rusk and others, diluting responsibility.

The president believed that Berlin was the most dangerous place in the world, and that nuclear war could start there. (I was reporting from Berlin then, and that never occurred to me or any other reporters there.) When Kennedy shook West Berliners' confidence, first by his behavior in Vienna, then by going sailing on August 13 and appearing to abandon them -- the mass-circulation Bild headlined, Die Westen Tut Nichts! (The West Does Nothing!) -- he sent General Lucius Clay, of Berlin airlift fame a dozen years earlier, to boost their morale. Clay did, for example by visiting the exclave Steinstuecken by helicopter and by engineering a tank confrontation at Checkpoint Charlie at the Wall, forcing the Soviets to bring out their hidden tanks for fear that East German Vopos might make a fatal misstep. Kennedy ordered Clay to stop confrontations.

Above all, what Reeves found in his 30-year retrospective, although he does not present it wrapped up neatly, is that Kennedy brought presidential lying to an art form. (As noted earlier, his close friend Ben Bradlee was eventually offended by the constant deception necessary to hide his heavy consumption of women, including at least two White House secretaries).

In running for office, Kennedy adopted from Roger Hilsman and others the "missile gap," the theory that Soviet space achievements meant that they had a lead in ICMBs to deliver nuclear warheads. After he became president, Defense Secretary Robert McNamera announced that there was no missile gap, and Kennedy contradicted McNamera, insisting that the phoney issue he had run on still existed. Kennedy knew he was lying, and Eisenhower, who had told Kennedy his 32 Polaris submarine missiles were invulnerable to the Soviets at that epoch, could have exposed that particular lie, but did not undercut the new president. The press didn't mind Kennedy lying.

In Vienna, Khrushchev would beat him over the head with his missile gap, getting Kennedy to agree the two superpowers were equal, which Khrushchev then used to boast to his Warsaw Pact allies. Some harmless campaign lies have consequences.

One of his greatest lies was his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech in West Berlin when, by contrast, he had secretly welcomed the Soviets permitting Walter Ulbricht to build the Wall. The roar of West Berliners cheering the speech must have been heard as far as Warsaw and Prague, but those cheering were thoroughly duped. Kennedy, believing that Berlin was the flashpoint of nuclear war, had told intimates that the Wall was a good solution, and access to Berlin was not worth a war. Kennedy sent James P. O'Donnell to Berlin with General Clay, and O'Donnell became a lifelong friend; by then we agreed on Kennedy.

Kennedy's private remarks giving up on Berlin could have started a rush to cooperate the Communists by holdouts in nations like Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, but the news media, including many who knew how damaging his statements were, as they demonstrated by knowing which remarks to hide, protected him, as did those who knew of his womanizing.

Kennedy went to Berlin partly to show that he still could, after a warm welcome in West Germany (except from Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, who bawled him out publicly), but mostly to signal Khrushchev that the crisis there was over. On the plane to Berlin he still was working on his speech, built around the repeated punchline, "Let them come to Berlin!" When he delivered it, he got carried away and added, "There are those who believe, or say they do, that you can do business with the Soviets. (Switching into German) Lassen sie nach Berlin kommen!" Roars and applause. Dean Rusk, on the City Hall platform, held his head in his hands. It was the opposite of what Kennedy had come to say; he was there to try to do business with the Soviets. Alarmed, Khrushchev answered Walter Ulbricht's call to come to East Berlin quickly, but by the time he got there the furor had died down, and Khrushchev's speech was a tame offer to negotiate the partial nuclear test ban tready.

Few had expected war during the Wall crisis; people did not flee the city, and a "Berliner" is a kind of donut, as a Frankfurter is a weenie. "Ich bin ein Frankfurter" would have been more accurate, yet he got away with it.

Kennedy induced his United Nations Ambassador Adlai Stevenson to tell unwitting lies, some risky, as when he held up photos of B-26 bombers "of Cuba's air force" defected to Miami (actually CIA planes from Nicaragua, complete with bullet holes from 45. pistols fired by CIA men). Exposure of that particular lie could have been fateful for the United States at that moment.

Vienna in June; the Wall in August

When Kennedy met Khrushchev in Vienna, I was there, flabbergasted that my partner from the Daily News who covered the White House was planning to rely on his Soviet Russian contact from Washington. Unreported at the time, Khrushchev told Kennedy at their first meeting that he had elected him. "How?" Kennedy wanted to know.

Khrushchev:

"We cast the deciding vote when you beat that son-of-a-bitch Nixon. We waited to release the spy pilots until after the election, so Nixon couldn't claim that he knew how to deal with the Russians."

Reeves' book has quotes from the records that we reporters could not dig out at the time, since James Reston of The New York Times was the only reporter the chastened Kennedy would see. Khrushchev: "The United States has delusions of grandeur. Megalomania... The USSR will sign a peace treaty unilaterally, and all rights of access to Berlin will expire because the state of war will cease to exist." We reporters got nothing specific from U.S. spokesmen in Vienna, who lied blatantly to us, generally reassuring us that Kennedy stood fast and all went well. Kennedy was nervous and apparently in pain at their last handshake. At the final joint news conference, we assumed that Pierre Salinger was lying because Soviet spokesman Mikhail Kharlamov rose at the end clasping his hands over his head in a boxer's victory salute, which I featured in the story I sent. I believe the rewrite desk edited it out.

Three decades later, Reeves reported that among his team, Kennedy was saying, "He treated me like a little boy." Charles (Chip) Bohlen: "A little bit out of his depth." Averell Harriman: "Shattered." George Kennan: "Unsure of himself." Paul Nitze: "He's dancing. All he's doing is dancing."

The sorry truth was that Kennedy had no understand of who Khrushchev was (he had arranged the sudden execution of his rival Lavrenty Beria, and in 1958 I heard him tell Hungarians in Tatabanya, "You counter-revolutionaries, stick up your heads, and we'll knock em off" -- translation from the Russian courtesy of AFP's Vincent Lateve, born Russian). Kennedy did not know what he was doing in one foreign policy disaster after another, full of drugs, forever playing to the crowds, ordering his spokesmen to alter official transcripts. His vulnerable behavior -- the Soviets read rightly the blatant lies he planted in our press -- wound up by practically inviting Khrushchev to put medium-range nuclear missiles on Cuba to even the nuclear delivery odds. .

When Kennedy proposed to Khrushchev dropping his separate peace treaty and doing a moon shot together, Khrushchev replied no, not until we have agreed on disarmament. He planned on signing a treaty with East Germany in December.

Kennedy:

"Then, Mr. Chairman, there will be war. It will be a cold winter."

The version given the press omitted the key words, "there will be war," which must have amused the Soviets. It was one of the breathtaking lies in his administration's press dealings, and he got away with it.

Reston of the Times, the only newsman to see Kennedy in Vienna after the summit, covered for him and held the cover for years, even while repeatedly writing anniversary columns about it. Reston asked, "How was it?" and Kennedy replied,

"Worst thing in my life. He savaged me....So we have a problem. I'll have to increase the defense budget. And we have to confront them. The only place we can do that is Vietnam. We have to send some more people there."

Reston knew we were going into Vietnam before any other newsman, and kept the secret.

Kennedy already was the godfather of the Army's Special Forces, or Green Berets, and the Air Force, realizing it, quickly created a rival force, Jungle Jims. (When people tell you that Kennedy would have pulled out of Vietnam before it got so bad if he had lived, remind them of his romantic fixation on his Green Berets.)

In March, before Kennedy's Cuba debacle, Ulbricht had warned Khrushchev at a Warasaw Pact meeting that he might face revolt in East Germany unless West Berlin could be closed off, or better, seized. Khrushchev forbid any aggression until he could take the new president's measure. Ulbricht earlier had nagged Khrushchev into delivering his Berlin ultimatum to Eisenhower in November 1958, but Khrushchev had not dared to do more than harrass West Berlin's access routes. After the Vienna summit, Khrushchev gave Ulbricht the go-ahead to build the Wall.

On August 3 an extraordinary meeting of the Warsaw Pact chiefs met in Moscow to plan Berlin's demise. Transcripts of the meeting found by archivist Zoia Vodopianova and translated for the Cold War International History Project at Georgetown University show that Khrushchev expressed contempt for Kennedy's knuckling under at Vienna.

"As for me and my colleagues...we think that the adversary proved to be less staunch than we had estimated...We expected there would be more blustering and so far the worst spurt of intimidation was in Kennedy's speech (of July 25, 1961)... Kennedy spoke to frighten us, and then got scared himself!"

Khrushchev told the summit he invited Kennedy's emissary John J. McCloy to his vacation home on on the Black Sea, where he raked McCloy over the coals.

"I told him to let Kennedy know...that if he starts a war, then he would probably become the last president of the United States of America. I know he reported it accurately. In America they are showing off vehemently, yet people close to Kennedy are beginning to pour cold water like a fire bridade."

Khrushchev said he felt empathy for Kennedy in his situation, "because he is too much of a lightweight both for the Republicans as well as for the Democrats." (See http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/khrush.htm Khrushchev's Berlin speech.)

Nikita Khrushchev was not an oracle, but he could diminish respect for the United States throughout East Europe when his audience included Ulbricht, Janos Kadar, Antonin Novotny, Wladislaw Gomulka, Georgi Georgu-Dej and Todor Zukov.

Disposing of Diem

In the matter of South Vietnam's President Ngo Dinh Diem, Kennedy entered office as president already toying with the idea of dumping our ally. Teddy White visited Vietnam after finishing, The Making of the President 1960, and wrote Kennedy that the situation looked hopeless to him. White has the distinction of being the first newsman to suggest, "Should we incubate a coup against Diem?"

Planning to take out Diem, Kennedy prepared for it by appointing Henry Cabot Lodge -- whom he had defeated to win his Senate seat and who was no help to Nixon's ticket in 1960 -- ambassador to South Vietnam. He was sending a Republican in to be the hit man, just as he sent Republican Lucius Clay to Berlin in case the city should fall. Kennedy saw Republicans as patsies, and Clay later made a bitter remark that Kennedy didn't bother to thank him for giving up his high-paying corporate CEO job to go to Berlin.

Kennedy chose a moment when the Secretaries of State and Defense and the CIA director were all out of Washington to launch his coup against Diem with the famous Cable of August 24 (the key document in the Pentagon Papers) to Lodge, and the responsible Cabinet officials all had subordinates sign off on the cable for them, so the coup in popular media lore came to be blamed on George Ball, Michael Forrestal, Averell Harriman, and Roger Hilsman, not on Kennedy.

Of all of the Kennedy deceptions the most dangerous was his proposal to Khrushchev, secret for thirty years, that the United States and the Soviet Union join forces to atom bomb China's nuclear facilities before they achieved the bomb.

Reeves reported that Kennedy secretly exchanged about 30 letters with Khrushchev, some hand-carried by GRU Colonel Georgi Bolshakov and Pierre Salinger, and solicited Khrushchev through W. Averell Harriman to join the United States in taking out China's incipient nuclear facilities before China had an A-bomb. On December 12, 1993, Reeves told Brian Lamb on C-Span,

"Kennedy tried to get Khrushchev to consider a joint American-Soviet air strike at China to destroy their nuclear capability. It literally was lined up. It was going to be done like a firing squad, that is, neither the Russian crew nor the American crew would know that they had the real weapon. One weapon would be a dud, one weapon would be real, as they do on a firing squad so every man can think he didn't fire the fatal shot if he wanted to. Khrushchev turned him down."

The astonishing revelation made no waves, and I read no follow-up to the startling report or the cockamamie scheme, and it is not prominent in President Kennedy, Portrait of Power. It might have been catastrophic, and bred enmity forever between the United States and China. (It was exactly the opposite to the China policy Nixon later adopted.)

Kennedy's policy aimed at waiting for the Soviets to mellow, and he welcomed the Berlin Wall no matter what it did to Germans (from which many in the East still can't shake loose.) Kennedy's dad preceded him as a famous double-crosser, as FDR's ambassador recommending that we abandon the British to what Joseph Kennedy saw as the inevitable Nazi victors.

Reeves' book is full of information, but it's a strange one, intended as praise of Kennedy, whom the author ranks in the top quarter of all American presidents, for his inspirational value, not for his uncertain policies. Reeves never spoke with Kennedy, but is a Friend of Bill and a promoter of our feckless president. He worked on Profile more than six years, produced an 800-page tome, and tucked away almost as an aside in the brief Chapter 48 -- which deals with Kennedy's triumph in negotiating a limited nuclear test ban treaty with Khrushchev -- Kennedy's plan thirty years earlier to atom-bomb China and turn a billion Chinese against the United States permanently.

On Page 510, Reeves writes: "Again and again, in private, Kennedy said that his greatest fear was Chinese nuclear weapons, and he had an almost romantic attachment to the idea that somehow, the Americans and the Russians could combine to block China's nuclear programs."

Reeves also wrote an odd column in 1999 opining that, with Kennedy, we should have celebrated the building of the Berlin Wall, rather than celebrating its destruction. So much for Germans in the East, Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Ukrainians and others whose fates depended on Germany's achieving unity.

Life Before the Prsidency

The best book for understanding Kennedy is The Search for JFK, by Joan and Clay Blair, Jr. (he was chief editor of The Saturday Evening Post during Kennedy's presidency), and it does not even include his presidency and its disasters. A dozen years after his assassination, the Blairs still admired the inspirational Kennedy and accepted John Hersey's account of his wartime heroism, but they doubted that he won the Pacific war all by himself. They studied his life from his graduation from Choate to Harvard in 1936 until his victorious run for Congress, a total time span of only 12 years, yet they did much to illuminate the unknown Kennedy.

At the end of prodigious research, including finding and interviewing all survivors of PT 109, they concluded that Kennedy should not have been president, largely because he had Addison's disease, which Kennedy denied. His denial was false, but no one pressed the issue while he was alive. Sir Daniel Davis, the physician who saved the new Congressman's life at a London clinic in 1947, told Pamela Churchill (a traveling companion at the time) that he would not survive one more year. His New York operation on October 21, 1954, involving two spinal fusions, was described in the November 1955 issue of the American Medical Association Archives of Surgery with his identity protected. The male patient, 37, had Addison's, managed with a program of DOCA pellets (desoxycorticosterone acetate) of 150 mg implanted every three months plus oral cortisone of 25 mg daily. His adrenal glands were gone by the time he was president six years later, and with them emotional stimulation, accounting for that cool detachment.

Kennedy was deathly ill in 1935-36, with recurring ulcers, jaundice and hepititis, delaying his entry to Harvard after a brief false start at Princeton. He did not want to marry, and finally married Jacqueline Bouvier when he was 36. Contrary to myth, he was not Boston Irish through his youth, but reached manhood living in his father's mansion in Bronxville, where his dad left Rose and seven kids to move alone to Hollywood, and have a famous affair with Gloria Swanson. Jack in his New Yorker phase was a society swinger and Stork Club regular dating Powers models, who got laid at 17 with a white girl in a Harlem whorehouse.

His dad, a big donor to FDR and friend of Navy Secretary James Forrestal, got him into the Navy without a physicial examination, which he could not pass, going directly into Naval intelligence in Washington D.C. as an ensign after having been drafted and rejected for the Army.

Joe Kennedy, who made a fortune in the roaring 20s in the stock market and got out before 1929 to go to Hollywood. When Roosevelt repealed Prohibition, Joe already had sewed up the Haig and Haig concession, and was the man to see for Scotch. His friend Arthur Krock conceded that he was amoral, and Harry Truman said he was the biggest crook in the country, even though he was a Democrat.

The Blairs did not set out to map the trajectory of Jack's consumption of women, but they found women or their remains wherever they looked, all of them beauties, starting with Olive Cawley when Jack was at Choate. At Harvard he was serious with Frances Ann Cannon, who dropped him to marry John Hersey. He spent Mardi Gras in New Orleans with Jane Suydam, and might have married Charlotte McDonnell, but her family disapproved. Harriet Price was a steady, and for a time Nancy Burkell. Angela Greene, actress and Powers model, was a regular during and after the war. Florence Pritchett, fashion editor of the New York Journal-American married Earl E.T. Smith, who became Eisenhower's ambassador to Cuba and wrote The Fourth Floor. Barbara Cox, Babs Beckwith (another Powers model), Elizabeth Drake, known as Cis, was close to Kennedy, as was Phyllis Brooks. In Hollywood he chased hard Olivia de Haviland, Peggy Cummins, and Marilyn Monroe, who was introduced by agent Charles Kenneth Feldman. When he covered the founding of the United Nations for Hearst newspapers, reporter Kennedy also found Anita Marcus. Bootsie Cassini was the ex of Igor Cassini before she married William Randolph Hearst Jr. In London Jack formed a lasting friendship with tennis star Katherine Stammers. In Boston campaigning for Congress, a companion was Dodo Potter, and there were reports he married Durie Desloge, which the Blairs believed to be untrue.

When Joe Kennedy got Jack accepted into the Office of Naval Intelligence as an ensign, assigned to Washington, he quickly took up with Inga Arvad, a Danish pastry who was working at the Washington Times-Herald, run by Cissy Paterson and a fiefdom of the Chicago Tribune, the two newspapers FDR disliked most. Kennedy's favorite sister Kathleen (Kick) worked at the Times-Herald, as did Arthur Krock's wife.

Inga-Binga, as he called her, was not a bimbo. Krock, a director of the Columbia School of Journalism, had recommended the student to the Washington newspaper because of her colorful past. She already had been Berlin correspondent of the Copenhagen newspaper Berlingski Tidinger. She had won two beauty contests, in Paris (hosted by Maurice Chevalier), and Berlin (hosted by Hermann Goering). Hitler invited her to his box at the 1936 Olympics, and pronounced her the perfect Nordic beauty.

Inga had acted in Berlin movies and married Hungarian director Paul Fejos, who took her to the Far East to make a documentary on the Komoro dragon. In Singapore she met the world's richest Swede, Axel Wenner-gren, who sold munitions to Germany and was asked to help influence the Soviets into a nonaggression pact. At one point the U.S. intelligence community believed her loyalty was suspect.

Ten days before Pearl Harbor, Inga, who already wrote a gossip column, made the subject of her column Jack Kennedy, "a boy with a future." Navy intelligence officers are supposed to keep out of gossip columns. Jack did not know that her apartment was bugged by the FBI, and that he and she were on tape.

With Pearl Harbor, Navy intelligence brass went slightly cuckoo. They were guilty of the worst intelligence failure in the nation's history. Heads had to roll, and one was Ensign Kennedy's. He was banished to ONI Siberia, a base at Charleston, S.C. where he lectured industry security officials on preventing espionage at war plants. Jack kept seeing Inga, however, and then found himself transferred to sea duty. He did not eagerly volunteer for the Pacific, as legend has it. Ronald McCoy told the Blairs that Jack told Inga he was going to get the SOB who transferred him.

Inga fled Washington for Hollywood, where she took over Shelia Graham's gossip column for a time. Jack continued to correspond with her, also from the Pacific, and when he returned he went to see her first. Inga wrote to a friend at the time that he was an inadequate suitor. She married the cowboy actor Tim McCoy, then 55, and their son Ronald was a key source for the Blairs. When he was in college, Inga told him she honestly didn't know if his father was Tim McCoy or Jack Kennedy.

Inga was only the most spectacular of Kennedy's women, who became legion. When Jack was a Congressman in Georgetown, women were in and out of his place at all hours. He would host one girl for dinner, and a different girl would come down to breakfast the next morning. As President, he had two girls in the stenos' pool that he could always fall back on. He famously told Harold MacMillan that if he didn't have a woman every two or three days, he got terrible headaches.

Oh yes, was Inga a spy? Jack marched with her in to see J. Edgar Hoover, who conceded that he had no evidence against her. Could he put that in writing? No, said Hoover, because you never knew what might happen if you cleared people.

The Blairs' bottom line was that JFK was nothing like the media imagined him to be. He was not a robust young man, but victim of an unstable back from birth, and readily repeated stories he hurt his back playing football at Harvard and again in the PT boat were false. He was not a dedicated scholar, as befits a best-selling author, and did not attend the London School of Economics as his resume claimed. His brief episodes at Princeton and Stanford were only fooling around. He was not really a war hero, although he rescued from drowning Machinist Mate Patrick Henry McMahon. He was almost court martialed for losing PT 109 to a Japanese destroyer through negligence.

"The Washington press corps deserves a failing grade," they concluded. I would add, just as they did again in the 1970s during the drive to destroy Nixon.

UNQUOTE

Posted at 09:06 am by Psychomike
Make a comment

Friday, November 05, 2004
The World Reacts To Bush Victory

 

 

http://www.sorryeverybody.com/

 

I find the entire post election analysis from the Sun to the kids who did the SORRY EVERYBODY site to be even worse than when I get on the computer after a few beers. However I did laugh when I looked at the site, so I have included the link. Sometimes funny beats truth. And this comment.  
 
Kerry was a war hero. He won all three debates. The entire press worldwide was behind him. Paris Hilton supported him. Cameron Diaz. Hey when babes talk I listen. Hollywood, the theatre world. Artists. LOOK AT THE MAP. MOSTLY STATES BY WATER!  
 
How did he blow that tremendous lead? Actually another post that went up today below this has the NEWSWEEK article about what really happened. The Gore and Clinton factions went to war with each other. The Clinton faction sabotaged his every move.  
 
That is not the fault of Bush.  
 
Hillary is coming to heal the party.  
 
About all those other states. The ones that went for Bush. Look at that map. It is exactly like the map last time. It is exactly like the map that will come.  
 
What is the thrust of the humor in the WE'RE SORRY sketch? The other folks, are dumb. First off only 1 in 10 college students voted. So many of those guys in the pictures are still faking to get laid. Second, when Democrats and the left talk about capitalism and global capitalism they talk about the workers that lost their jobs across the country. Then they tell them they are dumb. And you don't think they hear you?  
 
The Democratic Party traded away the working man for celebrities a long time ago. They sold out any idealism they had before you were born.The people do not care if Bruce Springsteen likes Kerry. I doubt they wait with baited breath to find out who Paris Hilton likes. That is all that is left. The party has no soul. No direction. The world does not see this, but 51% of America just isn't buying what they are selling anymore. If Nader had received maybe 4% more in votes than last time he could have been in a future debate. In one fell swoop the Clinton followers, the group that betrayed the idealism of the party, also destroyed Nader's chance. This country desperately needs a third party. Yep. I just said it.  
 
You know you can disagree with me on everything I say. Except one thing. Kerry had it all. He threw it all away.

Posted at 11:19 am by Psychomike
Make a comment

How Clinton's Stopped Kerry- NEWSWEEK!

I have a feeling you are going to send this post around, no matter who you supported in the election. I first mentioned the take over of the Kerry campaign by the Bill and Hillary Clinton faction months ago. The sabotage and collapse of his campaign. Most folks ignored my charges.  Now at last with this article it is print.  
 
Go ahead and call the people that voted for Bush stupid. But this article actually gives the real reasons for his demise.  
 
Last election I wondered if a true left would emerge from this country. I heard Nader speak, say he was in for the long haul, and everyone clapped. This election those folks were absorbed into the Clinton mess called the Democratic Party. Well now, who wasted their vote?  
 
Those that take the time to read about the Clinton coups have a few questions to answer. If the Clinton faction as NEWSWEEK charges demolished his campaign, how are you going to vote Democratic next time? Why aren't you as mad at the Clinton's as you are Bush? Heck, why did the Clinton faction keep Kerry from answering the Swift Boat charges?  
 
I said over and over you folks were being had. But there is one final question to answer.  
 
How come the press hid the collapse and sabotage of the Kerry campaign until AFTER the election?  
 
We were this close to a true left in this country.  
 
Maybe someday, in my lifetime. Maybe.  

Press Release Source: Newsweek

NEWSWEEK ELECTION ISSUE: 'How He Did It'
Thursday November 4, 2:37 pm ET
Kerry Laments: 'I Can't Believe I'm Losing to This Idiot'
Carville Leads Clintonistas' Coups, Implores Cahill to Step Aside or He'll 'Tell The Truth' About Campaign Woes On NBC's 'Meet The Press'
Daughter Alexandra Pleads to Kerry After Locking in Nomination: 'Will You Please Appreciate This Moment for 10 Seconds?'

NEW YORK, Nov. 4 /PRNewswire/ -- When President Bush's poll numbers surged in April after a press conference where his performance was derided by the press and the chattering classes, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry was baffled, writes Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas in an exclusive report in Newsweek's special election issue. "He said with a sigh to one top staffer, 'I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot.'"
  • (Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20041104/NYTH186 )

    The November 15 issue "How He Did It" (on newsstands Thursday, November 4) includes an exclusive behind-the-scenes account of the entire presidential campaign reported by a separate Newsweek Special Project team that worked for more than a year on the extraordinary campaign. Highlights from the report:

    The Clintonista "Coups." At several critical junctures Kerry's campaign (and the candidate himself), struggled to find sure footing. Following the missteps of August, Clinton veteran James Carville confronted Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill, telling her she had to step aside and let newly arrived Joe Lockhart run the campaign. So worked up, Carville began to cry, imploring Cahill: "You've got to let him do it." Carville continued, "Nobody can gain power without someone losing power." Carville threatened to go on "Meet the Press" the next day "and tell the truth about how bad it is" if Cahill didn't give effective control to Lockhart.

    The "Outlandish" McCain Offer. Kerry's courtship of Senator John McCain to be his running mate was longer-standing and more intense than previously reported. As far back as August 2003, Kerry had taken McCain to breakfast to sound him out to run on a unity ticket. McCain batted away the idea as not serious, but Kerry, after he wrapped up the nomination in March, went back after McCain a half-dozen more times. "To show just how sincere he was, he made an outlandish offer," Newsweek's Thomas reports. "If McCain said yes he would expand the role of vice president to include secretary of Defense and the overall control of foreign policy. McCain exclaimed, 'You're out of your mind. I don't even know if it's constitutional, and it certainly wouldn't sell.'" Kerry was thwarted and furious. "Why the f--- didn't he take it? After what the Bush people did to him...'"

    "A Marathon Man." Kerry's intensity on the trail rarely, if ever, faded. Moments after delivering his victory speech after wrapping up his party's nomination on March 2, Kerry was back in his motorcade and on his cell phone. "Dad," asked his daughter Alexandra. "Will you please appreciate this moment for 10 seconds?" Newsweek reports, "He mumbled yes, yes, he was happy, it was good, and then went back to working the cell phone." It occurred to his daughter Vanessa that her father did not match the media's clichi of him being a fourth-quarter player, he was a marathon man. Writes Thomas, "Kerry liked to say that 'every day is extra' after Vietnam, but actually every day was like the day before, a relentless march toward his goal."

    Kerry's drive to self-perfection was boundless-sometimes to a fault. In early spring he sought counsel from Washington speech coach Michael Sheehan. With aides he would sometimes say, "Tell me everything you think I'm doing wrong." When John Sasso arrived on the campaign in September he found a candidate who had turned himself into a pincushion. "Kerry had been inviting personal criticism from pretty much anyone who had an opinion...Kerry was drowning in negative energy from all around," Thomas writes. Sasso wanted it to stop. There was to be no more direct criticism of the candidate, period. And Teresa and the daughters were not exempt, Newsweek reports.

    Additional exclusive news reported in Newsweek's Special Election Issue:

    Clinton Advice Spurned. Looking for a way to pick up swing voters in the Red States, former President Bill Clinton, in a phone call with Kerry, urged the Senator to back local bans on gay marriage. Kerry respectfully listened, then told his aides, "I'm not going to ever do that."

    Kerry Anger Over Swift Boat Ads. By August, the attack of the Swift Boat veterans was getting to Kerry. He called adviser Tad Devine, who was prepping to appear on "Meet The Press" the next day: "It's a pack of f---ing lies, what they're saying about me," he fairly shouted over the phone. Kerry blamed his advisers for his predicament. (Cahill and Shrum argued responding to the ads would only dignify them.) He had wanted to fight back; they had counseled caution. Even Kerry's ex-wife, Julia Thorne, was very upset about the ads, she told daughter Vanessa. She could remember how Kerry had suffered in Vietnam; she had seen the scars on his body, heard him cry out at night in his nightmares. She was so agitated about the unfairness of the Swift Boat assault that she told Vanessa she was ready to break her silence, to speak out and personally answer the Swift Boat charges. She changed her mind only when she was reassured that the campaign was about to start fighting back hard.

    Managing Teresa. Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, presented a host of behind-the-scenes drama for Kerry. Early on, the campaign staff regarded Teresa as something of a hypochondriac, and she canceled three trips in October at the last minute, usually for what was described to aides as a "nonspecific malady." Kerry's first campaign manager, James Jordan, had little patience for her strong opinions, sending emails trashing the candidate's wife...which inevitably reached his rivals within the campaign, including Bob Shrum (an old Teresa friend) and helped seal Jordan's eventual dismissal.

    Later came Kerry campaign's post-convention "Sea to Shining Sea" tour: a 3,500-mile bus and train trek that was not a happy trip for Teresa. With each passing day she made less effort to hide her displeasure. Audiences were mystified when Teresa turned her back to them at daylight rallies and wore dark sunglasses and a hat at night (backstage, the candidate's wife complained of migraines and sore eyes). As they reached the climax of the tour, an hourlong "family vacation" hike in the Grand Canyon, the planned happy-family- vacation was disintegrating in plain view. Daughter Vanessa didn't enjoy being a prop, Teresa was complaining of migraines and telling her husband she couldn't walk anymore. The candidate tried to bravely soldier on, pulling his sullen wife and children to show them the magnificent condors flying overhead.

    Edwards Campaigns for Veep. Hours after bowing out of the presidential nomination race on March 3, the senator from North Carolina convened a small circle of his closest advisers at his house on P Street in Georgetown. He wanted the veep nomination, Edwards told his aides, he wanted it badly, and from that moment was going to wage "a full-fledged campaign" to ensure that he got it.

    Shades of Dukakis. In early August, when the Swift Boat story started to pick up steam on the talk shows, Susan Estrich, a California law professor, well-known liberal talking head and onetime campaign manager for Michael Dukakis, had called the Kerry campaign for marching orders. She had been booked on Fox's "Hannity & Colmes" to talk about the Swift Boat ads. What are the talking points? Estrich asked the Kerry campaign. There are none, she was told. Estrich was startled. She had seen this bad movie before.

    Newsweek's 2004 Special Election Issue marks the magazine's sixth consecutive installment of providing a behind-the-scenes account of the entire presidential campaign. The 50,000-word inside story was written by Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas and edited by Special Projects Director Alexis Gelber. The project's correspondents are: Jonathan Darman (with Kerry), Kevin Peraino (with Bush) and Contributing Editors Eleanor Clift and Peter Goldman.

                              Read the Special Report at
                 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6407226/site/newsweek /
    

  • Posted at 07:17 am by Psychomike
    Comments (1)

    Thursday, November 04, 2004
    Why The Democrats Lost


    Ridiculed by the media and left when he gave the speech, who knew when Zell Miller spoke his words would sum up the feelings of the millions that voted for Bush. In the end what called the election was morality. The religious were there for Bush. The young were not there for Kerry.  When Zell spoke of family values he got hoots and howls from the pundits. He actually gave away the architecture of what Bush was really running on. But no one heard it. Read the words now, and you won't laugh.....

    Remarks by Sen. Miller to the Republican National Convention


    FDCH E-Media, Inc.
    Wednesday, September 1, 2004; 10:42 PM

    The remarks by Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia at the Republican National Convention:

    MILLER: Thank you very much. Thank you.

    Since I last stood...

    (APPLAUSE)

    Thank you very much. 

    Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller family has been born: four great grandchildren. Along with all the other members of our close-knit family, they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions. And I know that's how you feel about your family, also.

    Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face. Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in. 

    And like you, I ask: Which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?

    (APPLAUSE)

    MILLER: The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.

    (APPLAUSE)

    There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future, and that man's name is George W. Bush.

    (APPLAUSE)

    In the summer of 1940, I was an 8-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley. Our country was not yet at war, but even we children knew that there were some crazy man across the ocean who would kill us if they could.

    President Roosevelt, in a speech that summer, told America, "All private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."

    In 1940, Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee. And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man.

    He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time. 

    MILLER: And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

    (APPLAUSE)

    Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom," he would prefer the latter.

    (APPLAUSE)

    Where are such statesmen today? Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?

    (APPLAUSE)

    Today, at the same time young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief.

    (APPLAUSE)

    What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in? I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny. It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.

    Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter.

    MILLER: But not today.

    (APPLAUSE)

    Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

    And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

    (APPLAUSE)

    Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

    Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

    Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

    (APPLAUSE)

    Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. 

    (APPLAUSE)

    And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

    For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.

    (APPLAUSE)

    MILLER: It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. 

    (APPLAUSE)

    It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

    (APPLAUSE)

    It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom he abuses to burn that flag.

    (APPLAUSE)

    No one should dare to even think about being the commander in chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

    (APPLAUSE)

    But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

    MILLER: It is not their patriotism, it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. 

    They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace. They were wrong.

    They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war. They were wrong.

    And no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

    (APPLAUSE)

    Together, Kennedy and Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that are now winning the war on terror.

    Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security.

    (LAUGHTER)

    (APPLAUSE)

    But Americans need to know the facts.

    The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Enduring Freedom.

    The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

    (APPLAUSE)

    MILLER: The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down

    Gadhafi's Libyan MiGs over the Gulf of Sidra. 

    (APPLAUSE)

    The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

    (APPLAUSE)

    The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. 

    (APPLAUSE)

    The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's capital and this very city after 9/11.

    (APPLAUSE)

    I could go on and on and on -- against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile, against, against, against.

    This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

    U.S. forces armed with what? Spit balls?

    (APPLAUSE)

    Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than 20 weeks of campaign rhetoric.

    MILLER: Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

    (APPLAUSE)

    Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.

    Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide.

    (APPLAUSE)

    John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security. That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world. Free for how long?

    For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure. 

    (APPLAUSE)

    MILLER: As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.

    As a senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harm's way, far away.

    AUDIENCE: Boooooo.

    MILLER: George W. Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.

    John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war. President Bush believes we have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's challenges. President Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists, no matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.

    (APPLAUSE)

    George W. Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.

    From John Kerry, they get a "yes/no/maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.

    MILLER: I first got to know George W. Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man. I am moved by the respect he shows the first lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters...

    (APPLAUSE)

    ... and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America. 

    (APPLAUSE)

    I can identify with someone who has lived that line in "Amazing Grace" -- "was blind, but now I see." And I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.

    (APPLAUSE)

    He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter. And where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words. 

    (APPLAUSE)

    I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel...

    (APPLAUSE)

    ... the man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family. 

    (APPLAUSE)

    MILLER: This election will change forever the course of history, and that's not any history. It's our family's history.

    The only question is: How? The answer lies with each of us. And like many generations before us, we've got some hard choosing to do. Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Faint-hearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.

    In this hour of danger, our president has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.

    (APPLAUSE)

    Thank you. 

    God bless this great country. And God bless George W. Bush.

    Posted at 09:29 am by Psychomike
    Make a comment

    Wednesday, November 03, 2004
    Redskins Curse Broken, Stern Battle Success Ends

    BUSH TO DECLARE VICTORY, BUSH BREAKS ALL-TIME POPULAR VOTE TOTAL, SURPASSING REAGAN... DEMOCRATS HOPE AGAINST REALITY, MAJOR GAINS ACROSS THE BOARD FOR REPUBLICANS, AMERICANS DEFY HOLLYWOOD AND THE LEFT, WHAT HAPPENED......
    CURSE OF HOWARD STERN AND THE REDSKINS ENDED!
     
    UK shares hit a new two-year high today as George Bush looked set to win a second term without all of the uncertainties of four years ago.

    With Mr Bush holding a clear edge in the popular vote - about 3.8 million - even though the electoral college result was set to be closer, the markets' worst fears of an indecisive result did not materialise.

    Continued Republican control of Congress also meant that Mr Bush could claim a clear mandate for his next term.

    The prospect of a decisive outcome to the US presidential election helped drive London's biggest shares towards the two-year high.

    In mid-morning trading, the FTSE 100 was up 25.2 points at 4,718.4, close to the two-year high of 4732.9 set last month.

    Analysts said the rise reflected the increased prospect of a clear result, as well as the view of Mr Bush as a more "business-friendly" candidate than John Kerry, his Democratic challenger.

    With a majority of the popular vote in hand, the Republican president planned to declare victory early Wednesday. "We are convinced that President Bush has won re-election," White House chief of staff Andrew Card said shortly before dawn in the East.

    Ceding nothing, Kerry went to bed without conceding. "We will fight for every vote," his running mate, Sen. John Edwards (news - web sites), told supporters in Boston, where he and the four-term Massachusetts senator waited out the late, long count.

    Card said Bush not only won a second term but Republicans added "to our majority in the House and ... to our majority in the Senate."

    As Bush made plans to declare victory, his high command dispatched a 10-person political and legal team to Ohio in the event Kerry triggered a Florida-like fight. Card said Bush delayed his own public statement to "give Senator Kerry the respect of more time to reflect on the results of this election."

    That was a veiled request for Kerry to bow out gracefully, and avoid the rancor that accompanied a 36-day recount in Florida four years ago.

    That margin was small, but Bush's lead in Ohio is substantial — Card called it "statistically insurmountable, even after provisional ballots are considered."

    With Bush leading by 145,000 votes and roughly 190,000 yet to be counted, one top Kerry adviser said the Democrat's chances of winning Ohio, and with it the White House, were difficult at best.

    The race was remarkably similar to the 2000 campaign, Bush winning all but one of the states he carried four years ago, while Kerry picked up where Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites) left off. For Bush, that meant sweeping the South and several western and Midwestern state. For Kerry that meant capturing California, Pennsylvania, New York and Illinois, a handful of West Coast and Midwest states.

    Three states hung in the balance — New Mexico, Iowa and Ohio, but only the Buckeye State had enough electoral votes to make a difference.

    After winning Nevada in the wee hours Wednesday, Bush stood only 16 electoral votes shy of the 270 required for a second term. Kerry stalled at 252. Bush made plans — later revisited — to declare victory.

    Ceding nothing, Kerry dispatched Edwards to tell supporters: "We've waited four years for this victory. We can wait one more night."

    The night proved grim for Democrats. Republicans expanded their majority in the Senate, knocking off Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, and the GOP extended its decade-long hold on the House for another two years.

    Florida fell into Bush's lap with relative ease. Kerry took New Hampshire from Bush — the first and perhaps only state to switch parties — but it has just four electoral votes. That left Ohio as Kerry's only hope.

    The holdup was over provisional ballots — those cast by people whose qualifications to vote were challenged. At 3 a.m. EST, Bush had a lead of 125,000 votes; there were more provisional ballots outstanding.

    "There's no mathematical path to victory for Kerry in Ohio," said Nicolle Devenish, spokeswoman for the Bush-Cheney campaign, arguing that Bush would get his share of the provisional ballots. The White House had contacted Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, urging the Republican to clarify the number of provisional ballots.

    Nationwide, with 97 percent of the nation's precincts reporting, some 112 million people had voted — up from 105 million in 2000.

     

    Bush was winning the popular vote by around 3.6 million, or 51 percent to Kerry's 48 percent.

    Early in the voting, Kerry allowed himself to muse about the problems he might face in the White House, including a soaring deficit and a war that has claimed more than 1,100 lives.

    "I'm not pretending to anybody that it's a bed of roses," said the 60-year-old Massachusetts senator.

    The Electoral College (news - web sites) count was excruciating: With 270 votes needed, Bush won 28 states for 254 votes. Kerry won 19 states plus the District of Columbia for 252 votes.

    With three states out, Kerry was still on the hunt for electoral votes that the GOP won four years ago. The states' won by Gore in 2000 are worth just 260 votes this year due to redistricting — 10 short of the coveted number.

    Kerry could pick that up plus some in Ohio with 20 electoral votes.

    A 269-269 tie would throw the presidential race to the House.  

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041103/ap_on_el_pr/eln_election_rdp&cid=536&ncid=536

     

    WASHINGTON - Republicans tightened their grip on the Senate early Wednesday, dealing defeat to Democratic Leader Tom Daschle in South Dakota and capturing a string of seats across the South.

    Daschle fell to former Rep. John Thune, the first Senate party leader to lose a race for re-election in more than a half century.

    Republicans were assured of 53 seats in the Senate that convenes in January, two more than they control in the current Congress.

    Races in Alaska and Florida remained unsettled. Republicans led in both.

    Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama, a Democratic political star in the making, easily won a seat formerly in Republican hands in Illinois, and will be the only black among 100 senators when the new Congress convenes in January.

    But the GOP did most of the celebrating by far, taking Democratic open seats in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Louisiana. Rep. David Vitter (news, bio, voting record) triumphed there, the first Republican since Reconstruction to win a term in the Senate.

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041103/ap_on_el_se/eln_senate_rdp&cid=536&ncid=536

    WASHINGTON - Republicans extended their decade-long hold on the House for another two years, knocking off four veteran Texas Democrats along the way. Among their few setbacks was the defeat of the longest serving GOP member of the chamber, Rep. Phil Crane.

    By winning their 218th seat — with several more likely to come — Republicans were set to control the House for a dozen consecutive years, the first time they have achieved that feat since the 12 years that ended in January 1933. With the GOP also renewing its majority in the Senate, the party was assured of reigning over Congress, though with narrow majorities that should allow Democrats to slow and even derail some Republican initiatives.

    Even so, GOP leaders were jubilant.

    "We are going to be the majority party in the 109th Congress. I've got 218 booked and there's a lot more around the country that has not been decided yet," said Rep. Thomas Reynolds   http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041103/ap_on_el_ho/eln_house_17

    Voters in 10 states approved constitutional amendments Tuesday to ban same-sex marriage, in most cases by overwhelming margins. Opponents of the bans held out hope that Oregon, where results were not yet in, would buck the trend.

    The amendments — on the ballots in 11 states — won easy approval in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio and Utah. The bans won by 3-to-1 margins in Kentucky and Georgia, 3-to-2 in Ohio, and 6-to-1 in Mississippi.

    The Ohio measure, considered the broadest of the 11 because it barred any legal status that "intends to approximate marriage," gathered equal support from men and women, blacks and whites.

    In Georgia, Ohio and Mississippi, gay-rights activists were considering court challenges of the newly approved amendments. But supporters of the bans were jubilant.

    "I've said all along that this crossed party lines, color lines and socio-economic lines," said Sadie Fields of the Georgia Christian Coalition. "The people in this state realized that we're talking about the future of our country here."

    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041103/ap_on_el_st_lo/eln_gay_marriage_9

    The curse of the Redskins was broken this election. Howard Stern's incredibly long success rate in battles just ended. A 24/ 7 radio show, documentary movies, comparisons to Hitler,  28 million from one person alone to the Democrats, it all was like sand against the waves.

     

    Posted at 06:30 am by Psychomike
    Make a comment

    Previous Page

    Next Page