John Kerry

White House Lied About Iraqi Yellowcake Buy, But That’s Not the Biggest Scandal

dlindorff — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:32:55 -0500

By Dave Lindorff

A new congressional report is belatedly confirming what many have
long known: that the White House and in particular then White House
Counsel Alberto Gonzales, lied to Congress in 2004 when he told them
the Bush administration was not repeatedly warned by the CIA not to
make the claim that Saddam had tried to buy uranium ore from Niger.

What is astonishing about this report,
which documents that the CIA at least four times tried to prevent Bush
and other top officials from presenting that lie to Congress and the
American public in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, is not that it
documents what has long been known, but that Congress and the corporate
media are still pretending that the claim itself was an acceptable
justification for launching a war.

Set aside for the moment the fact that the claim that Saddam
Hussein had tried to buy uranium ore (so-called yellowcake) from the
desert nation of Niger was based upon forged documents which were
almost certainly the work of Defense Department hacks in the
Rumsfeld/Cheney-created Office of Special Plans (see my book The Case for Impeachment).
Even if this fraudulent deal had been real, how on earth could it have
been used as it was by President Bush and Vice President Cheney to
justify an invasion of Iraq?

Consider that what was being asserted was that Iraq had attempted
(not even succeeded!) to buy 400 tons of uranium ore. This claim was
used by President Bush, in his Jan. 20, 2003 State of the Union
address, to argue that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. But in the case of a country that does not have a nuclear weapon, a program is years away, perhaps a decade or more away, from the reality of having a usable weapon.

As we have seen in the case of Iran, which has been refining
uranium ore now for at least five years, the mere fact of possessing
uranium ore, and even of having a quantity of gas centrifuges to refine
out the minute quantities of the fissionable isotope U-235 are only the
first and, technologically speaking, the easiest, steps towards
actually constructing a bomb. (Experts say that after all this time,
even if it is actually trying to build a nuclear bomb, which the
Iranian government denies, the country remains years from that alleged
goal.)

If Bush and Cheney had not been lying through their teeth, and
Saddam had actually been buying yellowcake for the purpose of making a
nuke weapon, he would still have had to obtain large numbers of
centrifuges, would have had to power them up and run them for years,
and would have then had to obtain the technology to build and test a
bomb, none of which steps he was even alleged to have taken.

Yet Bush was claiming that there was an imminent threat to
America posed by Saddam Hussein’s yellowcake purchase effort, and that
an invasion had to be launched almost immediately. He used the term
imminent because that is the legal requirement in the UN Charter, to
which the US is a signatory and which is based upon the Nuremberg
Charter established at the end of the Second World War. It states that
no nation may invade another nation unless that nation poses an
imminent threat to the would-be invader.

The yellowcake story, now definitively shown to have been a
deliberate lie, even if true, could not have constituted such an
imminent threat.

Yet not once has this key point been addressed by any member of
Congress who voted to authorize an invasion. Nor does the point get
mentioned in mainstream journalistic reports on the matter.

Average Americans, nearly half of whom reportedly believe that the
earth was formed just 6000 years ago and a fair proportion of whom
believe that the sun revolves around the earth, might be excused for
not understanding this point, but clearly intelligent members of
Congress like former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry
and future secretary of state Hillary Clinton, who both claim they
might not have voted for war “had they had known then what they know
now,” are themselves caught in a lie.

They and other war backers clearly knew in 2002 and 2003 that the
yellowcake story, even if true, was no justification for war. So did
editors and reporters (like Judith Miller and Michael Gordon of the New
York Times, for example).

I have yet to see a single US corporate media outlet explain that
the yellowcake story was simply never a justification for war. It will
probably never happen, and yet many analysts have said it was that
claim by Bush, Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and
others (remember her dark warnings about not wanting a “smoking gun” to
be a “mushroom cloud”?), more than any other that stampeded the nation
into a war that has cost over $1 trillion over five years, and over
4000 US lives and one million innocent Iraqi lives.

Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld and others in the outgoing
administration should all be impeached, tried and jailed for their
lying and treason in embroiling the US in the pointless and criminal
Iraq War, with the yellowcake story a key element in any indictments.
But there needs to be some kind of reckoning too, for the willful
ignorance and deceit on the part of the majority of Congress and of the
press in pretending that an alleged scheme to buy uranium ore was a
justification for launching a war of aggression, which five years on,
is still continuing.

The American people themselves also need to reflect deeply, not
just on how ill served we are by our elected officials and by our
media, but on how gullible we have become, and how ignorant.
__________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2008 and
now available in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/38360';
digg_title = "White House Lied About Iraqi Yellowcake Buy, But That’s Not the Biggest Scandal";
digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\nA new congressional report is belatedly confirming what many have long known: that the White House and in particular then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, lied to Congress in 2004 when he told them the Bush administration was not repeatedly warned by the CIA not to make the claim that Saddam had tried to buy uranium ore from Niger.\r\n\r\n What is astonishing about this report, which documents that the CIA at least four times tried to prevent Bush and other top officials from presenting that lie to Congress and the American public in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, is not that it documents what has long been known, but that Congress and the corporate media are still pretending that the claim itself was an acceptable justification for launching a war.";
digg_skin = 'standard';

John Kerry, Progressive?

Bob Fertik — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:24:24 -0500

John Kerry blogged this at HuffPo:

The progressive movement had what we want to believe was a seismic win on election day -- but it's really only seismic if it continues to reverberate.

We? When exactly did John Kerry join the progressive movement?

Sure, Kerry has always been a partisan Democrat with a liberal-ish voting record. But he actively supported the invasion of Iraq, thus failing a key test for progressivism. And he never led a single filibuster or other floor battle against Bush's horrible legislation or appointments.

Kerry's record was such a disappointment that Progressive Democrats of America supported a primary challenge against him this year.

I'm all for welcoming new progressive converts - but they need to demonstrate their faith with actions, not words.

Politicians, Kids and an Audacious Hope

dlindorff — Sun, 18 May 2008 12:39:02 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

I remember back in 1970, when I was a student and anti-war activist in Connecticut, watching an ad on TV for Lowell Weicker, who was running for US Senate. The ad was very powerful: It showed Weicker playing in the yard with his son, who looked like he was maybe 10 or 12. Weicker was saying that when his son was a tot, the US was fighting in Vietnam, and he didn’t want us to be fighting there when his son reached draft age.

I voted for Weicker, a Republican who went on to win a Senate seat where he played a key role in helping to bring an end to the Nixon presidency.

As it happens, the Vietnam War ended five years later, when Weicker’s son was probably 17. He didn’t get drafted, but I remain struck by the fact that we could, back then, even contemplate the idea of being at war for so long.

Today, I have a son, Jed, who is 15. America doesn’t have a draft, but we do have a war in Iraq which has been going since Jed was 9, with no end in sight. John McCain, the prospective presidential candidate for the Republican Party, says America can win that war by 2013. 2013? That’s five more years! At that point Jed will be 20 years old! We will have been at war in Iraq for more than half of a young adult’s life! And worse yet, if McCain has his way—or if President Bush beats him to it and even before the next president is inaugurated on Jan. 19, 2009 decides to, as McCain so light-heartedly put it, “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”--we will be at war with the entire Arab world. And believe me, we would have a draft then, and my son would be near the top of the list.

That’s the future we look forward to with a President John McCain: permanent war.

Now I know Barack Obama has made some remarks about not allowing Iran to “get the bomb,” and about “not taking any options off the table,” but I think it’s highly unlikely that if he were president we’d go to war with Iran. First off, Obama has called for “unconditional” talks with Iran, as well as with other countries with which the US has disagreements. That’s the antithesis of belligerence, and certainly is the antithesis of the approach of the Bush administration, which equates talking with surrender. Second, where Bush’s whole approach to government has been to create fear and chaos and then to rule as a tyrant while accusing critics of being traitors or cowards, Obama’s whole approach has been to challenge that campaign of fear, and to call for calm and reason. I take some heart from his full-throated challenge to Bush’s and McCain’s charge that his willingness to talk with Iran is akin to Neville Chamberlain’s “appeasement” of Hitler—something neither Al Gore nor John Kerry, as candidates, would have had the guts to do.

Obama has also talked about the US possibly having troops in Iraq for years, but I don’t think that’s what would happen, either.

Think about it. For McCain, war is a good thing. He sees nothing wrong with it. He likes it. He has no idea how to run the country (he admits he doesn’t even understand economics!). So he’s going to end up doing what Bush did—ramp up the wars, and keep the people scared. It’s the only way the Republicans know how to govern anymore.

But whatever one may think of Obama—and certainly he’s taken some lame and politically timid positions over the years as a senator—he doesn’t like war, and moreover, wants to do things domestically as president that endless war would prevent him from doing. Furthermore, this Iraq a war he had nothing to do with starting. Unlike Hillary Clinton, he opposed it from the outset. So what advantage is there for him politically in allowing it to fester through his first term as president? Better to be shed of it right away, take any political heat that might come from calling it off, and then move on to better things.

I think it’s a safe bet that an Obama presidency will see an end to the Iraq war, a rapprochement with Iran.

For my son’s sake, and all our sons’ sakes, I’m voting for Obama this year. I’m doing it not thinking that he will usher in a golden age of progressive politics, but because I’m sick of living through endless war.

McCain promises endless war.

Obama offers at least the hope of peace.

The human race is heading off a cliff. The ice caps are melting, the seas are rising, one-third of the life on the planet has vanished, and species of plants and animals are vanishing with a rapidity not seen since the late Cretaceous Period. Unless we want to go the way of the dinosaur or the mastodon, we don’t have time for wars of imperial conquest, or for petty squabbling anymore. We need to focus on fixing the big things. And until Americans can be talked out from under the table so we can focus our attention on something other than “terrorists,” nothing is going to be done.

Obama hasn’t talked much about these big things, but again, I believe that once he’s in office, and the reality hits him, he will.

Why? The man has two young kids, and unlike our current president (who at best reads a one-page news summary written and delivered by a team of cowering yes-men afraid of crossing him, and who claims to think God works through him), he is actually smart and reads his own newspapers. He also has a smart wife who speaks her own mind.

John F. Kennedy, for all his faults, had the good sense to look out the Oval Office window at the falling rain, consider that it was dumping radioactive Strontium 90 and other dangerous fallout across the land, and call a halt to open-air nuclear testing.

I’m pretty sure Obama will have the good sense to listen to his scientific advisors, including the Goddard Center’s James Hansen, and that he will initiate dramatic action to try and actually do something to combat climate change.

I know expecting anything good from a politician is a fool’s errand, but I’ve looked at the alternatives. Let’s call it an audacious hope.
_____________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

John Kerry Should Endorse Obama For President 2008

Lichele — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:42:41 -0400

I feel strongly that John Kerry should endorse Senator Barack Obama For President in 2008. John Kerry experience in the Veterans and Military affairs will make the Democratic Team Stronger then ever.

Did Kerry actually win over 360 Electoral Votes?

Gore4US — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:56:17 -0400

Did Kerry actually win more than 360 Electoral votes?
This analysis shows why he very well may have.

In 2004 Bush officially won by 286-251 electoral votes. But who still
believes that reflected the True Vote?

http://us.share.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#Kerry367

Assumptions:
1- 110.8m Census 2000 votes cast (105.4m recorded)
2- 125.7m Census 2004 votes cast (122.3m recorded)
3- Uncounted votes: Gore 75%
4- 2000 voter mortality prior to 2004: 5% Gore; 4.8% Bush
5- 2000 voter turnout in 2004: 95%
6- Kerry won 71% of Nader voters (12:22am NEP)
7- Kerry won 57% of DNV2k (did not vote in 2000)
8- Kerry won 10% of Bush 2000 voters; Bush won 8% of Gore voters
9- Mortality and uncounted vote rates were uniform in all states

Key Results
-----------
Popular vote:
Kerry Bush
67.3m 57.5m
53.5% 45.7%

Electoral votes:
367 171

Kerry won the following 11 states which were recorded for Bush:
AZ, AR, CO, FL, IA, MO, NV, NM, OH, TN, WV

1988-2004: The Submerging Democratic Majority

Gore4US — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:24:26 -0400

1988-2004 Election Analysis: The Submerging Democratic Majority http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#HistoricalElections

The Democrats actually won all FIVE elections by an average 8.9 MILLION vote margin. That’s the True Emerging Democratic Majority. Don't believe it? Run the numbers yourself.

This analysis is based on the 1988-2004 Election Calculator model. The model first estimates the number of returning voters by adjusting prior election recorded vote totals for uncounted votes and mortality. An estimated turnout percentage is applied to this value. As preliminary NEP vote shares were not available for 1988-2000, Final National Exit Poll shares (which were matched to the recorded vote) were assumed for the base case. In 2004, however, preliminary 12:22am "pristine" vote shares were available, so these were used instead.

The model used Census-reported total votes cast as the base case assumption. The pool of potential returning voters was assumed to include all who cast votes, rather than just those whose votes were recorded. Uncounted vote rates based on the Census are much higher than the assumed 3.0% rate in prior models. Another assumption change is the mortality rate. Annual voter mortality, estimated as 1.22-1.30%, is more accurate than prior models which assumed the total US 0.87% mortality rate.

The new base case assumptions had the effect of increasing Democratic vote shares compared to prior models. For example, the Election Calculator indicates that Kerry won by 53.0- 45.9%, a 9 million vote margin. The prior True Vote Model had Kerry winning by 52.6-46.4%.

Following are the key results based on AVERAGE CALCULATED 1988-2004 Vote shares:

- The Dem share was 3.8% HIGHER than the RECORDED share.

- The GOP share was 3.2% LOWER than the RECORDED share.

- The Dem share was 1.4% HIGHER than the PRELIMINARY Exit Poll.

- The GOP share was 0.1% HIGHER than the PRELIMINARY Exit Poll.

Voter turnout of prior election Dem, GOP and Other voters is calculated as:

Turnout = prior election (recorded vote + uncounted votes - voter deaths)* voter turnout percentage

The True vote for the Dem, GOP and Other candidate is calculated as:

True Vote = shares of returning (Dem + GOP + Other + New voters)

Summary Statistics (1988-2004)


	Calculated
	TRUE Vote			Exit Poll		Recorded			Calculated Dem
	Dem	Rep		Dem	Rep	Dem	Rep		Margin (mil)
Average	50.9%	43.0%		49.5%	42.9%	47.1%	46.2%		8.86

2004	53.0%	45.9%		50.8%	48.2%	48.3%	50.7%		8.96
2000	51.1%	46.0%		48.5%	46.2%	48.4%	47.9%		5.66
1996	52.0%	39.3%		52.2%	37.5%	49.9%	41.4%		13.36
1992	47.9%	35.0%		46.0%	33.1%	43.3%	37.7%		14.71
1988	50.2%	48.7%		49.8%	49.3%	45.6%	53.4%		1.61


1988-2004 Avg	Total	Dem	Rep	Other	Margin	Dem	Rep	Other	Margin
Calculated	111.5	56.76	47.90	6.86	8.86	50.9%	43.0%	6.2%	7.9%
Recorded	102.9	48.47	47.66	6.74	0.81	47.1%	46.2%	6.7%	0.9%
Prelim Exit poll	102.9	50.84	44.28	7.93	6.56	49.5%	42.9%	7.9%	6.6%
Discrepancies
Calc - Recorded	8.7	8.29	0.24	0.12	8.05	3.8%	-3.2%	-0.5%	7.0%
Calc - Exit poll		5.92	3.62	-1.07	2.30	1.4%	0.1%	-1.7%	1.3%
Exit - Recorded		2.38	-3.38	1.19	5.76	2.4%	-3.4%	1.2%	5.7%

John Kerry's Cynical "Endgame" Betrays the American People

Bob Fertik — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:02:31 -0400

If John Kerry is thinking about getting into the 2008 race - or ever having a shred of credibility with the American people - he'd better move quickly to "clarify" his shockingly cynical answer to Josh Marshall's question:

Q. What's the Democrats' endgame on Iraq with this confrontation with the President over the funding bill?

A. Our purpose is obviously to change the policy, to get us to a position where we can be successful. We don't believe the current policy can be successful, in fact we think it creates more terrorists, puts our troops at greater risk, worsens our position in the Middle and we want to change that.

We'll keep the pressure on. He's the President, the Executive has enormous power be able to just to plow ahead, administer the way they want. But our job is to create accountability and that's what we're fighting to do.

Fighting? How, exactly?

Q. If he vetoes this bill, what comes next?

A. I think we'll come back and try to create a series of benchmarks and a series of measurements that are very specific about what ought to happen and put that to him and see if he'll change the policy to meet the benchmarks.

Benchmarks? You mean words on paper that Bush will happily ignore (or claim mean the exact opposite of what they say)?

Congress has exactly one form of meaningful power: spending. Senator Kerry, if you're not willing to cut the funds that keep Bush's war going, then you're not fighting - you're betraying the majority of Americans who elected a Democratic majority in 2006 to end the war, and want all of our troops home in 2007.

Q. Where do you see that standoff ending...

A. The President is going to have to decide what is really best for America.

I think we have a better plan for how you protect the troops and how you protect America's interests and it's our job to keep fighting for it. And in the end, if he has a different point of view, that's what the 2008 campaign will be about.

So that's your endgame? You'll just fold up your tent and give Bush blank checks until after the 2008 election? And what if Democrats lose in 2008? Will you then keep writing blank checks until 2012, or 2016?

Senator Kerry, your answer is completely unacceptable to the American people. If that's your endgame, then you can forget about running for President because everyone in America will call you a fraud - someone who thinks we're too stupid to see through your cynical game of kick-the-Iraq-War-can-down-the-road-so-we-have-a-good-issue-for-the-next-election.

And while you play that cynical game, the blood of every American soldier who dies or is maimed between now and the end of the Iraq War - if it ever ends - will be on your hands.

Your response, Senator Kerry? Will you, or will you not, use the power of the purse to end the Iraq War in 2007?

Update 1: A source close to Kerry says Kerry demonstrated his genuine desire to end the war by becoming the third co-sponsor of the Feingold-Reid bill. The source is also optimistic that Kerry will put his full weight behind the bill, including enlisting his 3 million strong e-mail list in a lobbying campaign to get all Senate Democrats on board.

Major Swift Boat Donor To Kerry: "You're A Hero"

Bob Geiger — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:44:19 -0500

There are some things that you just don’t want to read about or watch on a full stomach -- this is one of those.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on Tuesday to consider the nomination of Sam Fox, a wealthy St. Louis businessman, to be the new U.S. Ambassador to Belgium. While it is not unusual for big political donors to be rewarded with ambassadorships -- and Fox is a huge donor to all things Republican -- what made everyone take note of this guy is that Fox gave a whopping $50,000 to help fund the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smear campaign against John Kerry in 2004.

And in being questioned by the Senate panel yesterday, Fox had to face one of the senior members of that committee in… Senator John Kerry.

What followed was riveting theater, with Kerry coldly staring down a clearly-nervous Fox and Bush's nominee withstanding a barrage of questions from Kerry that the Massachusetts Senator nicely referred to as questions of Fox's "judgment" while many of us would have just flat-out called him a scumbag.

It all started out nicely, with glowing introductions, including one nauseating passage from Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) who said that "professionally and morally, Sam is eminently qualified to hold the post for which he's been nominated."

But it gets far worse than just hearing someone rave about the high morals of a guy who gave 50 grand to the Swift Boat Liars.

Kerry got his turn to question Fox and started out politely enough, praising Fox's up-by-the-bootstraps life story and his generosity with non-political charities, while also asking him about American foreign policy vis-à-vis the European community.

The tone then changed sharply when Kerry switched gears and, indicating he had concerns about Fox's judgment, said "I assume that you believe the truth in public life is important."

"Yes, sir," answered Fox.

"And might I ask you what your opinion is with respect to the state of American politics, as regards the politics of personal destruction?" said Kerry.

This started a lengthy monologue from Fox in which Bush's nominee railed against how campaigns are funded in the United States, saving most of his bile for 527 groups, saying " I'm against 527s, I've always been against 527s. I think, again, they're mean and destructive, I think they've hurt a lot of good, decent people."

I'm sure some people in the hearing room must have been stifling laughs hearing something like that coming from a man who was a major contributor to the scummiest 527 group ever, but the worst was to come in the next few sentences.

"Senator Kerry, I very much respect your dedicated service to this country," said Fox. "I know that you were not drafted -- you volunteered. You went to Vietnam. You were wounded. Highly decorated. Senator, you're a hero. And there isn’t anybody or anything that's going to take that away from you. But yet 527s tried to."

Here's the exchange that followed:

Kerry: I certainly appreciate the comments you just made, Mr. Fox, and I'm not looking for anyone to call me a hero. I think that most heroes died, and do die, and those of us who are lucky enough to get out of there are lucky.

But notwithstanding the comments you made, you did see fit to contribute a very significant amount of money in October to a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, correct?

Fox: Correct.

Kerry: Why would you do that given what you just said about how bad they are?

Fox: Well, Senator, I have to put it in the proper context and bear with me. Marilyn and I have lived the American dream -- there's no question about it. My father came here with the clothes on his back and the Fox family and the Woodman family have truly lived the American dream that's been very, very good to us.

I heard someone mention here that we gave to 250 charities. I also went back and had my staff count in '05 and '06, we've made more than 1,000 contributions. More than 100 of those were political, 900 and some odd were charitable and to institutions of learning and so forth. A great deal of those had to do with basic human needs. I think it was Senator Danforth who mentioned every time he got a letter that had Harbour Group on it, he shuddered because it was going to cost him money. Marilyn and I both raise a lot of money from a lot of people.

The point I'm making is this: We ask a lot of people for money and people ask us for money. And very fortunately, we've been blessed with being successful financially and when we're asked, we generally give -- particularly if we know who gave it.

Kerry: So, well, who asked you to give to the SBVT?

Fox: I can't tell you specifically who did because, you know, I don’t remember. As a matter of fact, if I…

Kerry: You have no recollection of why you gave away $50,000?

Fox: I gave away $50,000 because I was asked to.

Kerry: But you have no recollection of who asked you to give away $50,000?

Fox: No, sir. I've given away sums much larger than that to a lot of other places and I can't tell you specifically who asked me, no.

Kerry: Well, you don’t think that's it's important as a citizen, who doesn’t like 527s to know where your money is going and how it’s going to be spent?

Fox: Well, I think with most contributors and if you go to the other side of the political campaigns and we give to individual candidates, we don’t know how they’re going to use that money and what…

Kerry: Well at least it's accountable to an individual candidate for whom people have to vote or not vote. 527s as you said are mean, ugly and not accountable.

Fox: I agree with that. I absolutely agree with that.

As Kerry pressed Fox to explain why he would give $50,000 to a 527 group when he claims to despise them so much -- and that he now knows spewed lies at Kerry that were quickly discredited -- the Swift Boat Sugar Daddy repeated a theme he used several times in his testimony, which is essentially that he did it to level the playing field with the attacks coming from liberal 527 groups.

In other words, he all but said Kerry was simply collateral damage in a political fight.

Kerry: Why would you give $50,000 to a group you have no sense of accountability for?

Fox: Well, because if 527s were banned, then it's banned for both parties. And so long as they’re not banned…

Kerry: So two wrongs make a right?

Fox: Well, I don’t know, but if one side is contributing then the other side…

Kerry: But is that your judgment? Is that your judgment that you would bring to the ambassadorship? That two wrongs make a right?

Fox: No, I didn’t say that two wrongs make a right, sir.

Kerry: Why would you do it then?

Fox: Well, I did it because politically, it's necessary if the other side is doing it.

And no matter what Kerry asked, Fox played dumb, saying he forgot who asked him for the $50,000 and that he had no clue that the Swift Boat Liars were doing such dirty deeds with his money.

Kerry: My question to you is why? When you say you couldn’t have known -- these were people very publicly condemning it. How could you not have known?

Fox: I guess, Mr. Senator, when I'm asked I just generally give.

Kerry: So, again, I ask you the question, do you think now that you and others bear responsibility for thinking about where we put money in American politics? What we're saying, what we present to the American people -- is truth important or isn’t it?

Fox: Senator, if I had reason to believe and if I were convinced that the money was going to be used to, in any untruthful or false way, knowingly, I would not give.

Kerry: Well, sir, let me ask you this question: Did you or did you not in any of the public comments being made at the time, which I assume you were following, hear or read of any of the public statements at that point in time, with respect to the legitimacy of these charges and these smears?

Fox: Mr. Senator, I can say this…

Kerry: Did you miss this: In September of 2004, Vice Admiral Ruth, with the Navy Inspector General, wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Navy that was made public -- the New York Times, the Washington Post, every major newspaper in the country carried, saying their examination found that the existing documentation regarding my medals was legitimate.

Did you miss that too?

Fox: I don’t remember those, but I'm certain at the time I must have read them.

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), who was chairing the meeting, told Fox that he found his answers to Kerry "somewhat unsatisfying" and said that "The swift boat ads were of a different degree, even in the ugly arena of politics. They were extraordinarily well publicized, that there was essentially a fraud being perpetrated on the American people. It had a profound impact on the election."

And Obama tied a nice bow around the whole afternoon by basically calling Fox, who spent the entire time disavowing any knowledge of the Swift Boaters' mission or methods, a liar.

"To say that you gave because it's ugly out there and somebody asked you to give. I mean, it sounds to me like you were aware of it -- that this was not the best of political practices -- and you thought it was OK to go ahead and contribute to that," said Obama. "By the time you contributed, it was pretty widely noted -- it would have been hard for you to miss the fact that there was something particularly nasty and insidious about these ads. It had been well publicized at this point."

"I don’t think you necessarily crafted the message but you certainly knew at that point what the message was."

I have a lengthy, partial transcript here of Kerry questioning Fox about his involvement with the Swift Boat Liars and how that lack of ethics and judgment should disqualify Fox from representing our country at a cocktail mixer, much less with an important ally abroad.

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush

Chip — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 03:15:04 -0500

Written by the author/researcher, James Q. Jacobs:

"Many votes were counted for the wrong candidate or ballot option, and a significant portion of the cross-voting resulted in Kerry votes tallied as Bush votes. The 2004 Presidential election hinged on the Ohio results. According to exit polls, Kerry won Ohio. Instead, with a -3.35 percent differential in Kerry's tally, the results gave the victory and the presidency to Bush. With these circumstances, evidence of miscounted voting and Kerry-to-Bush vote switching have particular importance in determining the actual intent of Ohio voters, the reasons for the exit poll discrepancy, and the validity of the 2004 US Presidential election result. Cross-voting also impacted other races and analysis of past elections may reveal similar cross-voting patterns.

I present evidence of cross-voting and of how Kerry disproportionately lost votes to cross-voting. I discuss the methods to determine how many votes were miscounted or not counted at all, and where possible, report the impact of cross-voting. The article is divided into sections, beginning with necessary background on how the ballot orders and precinct combinations were organized."

http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

Kerry, Feingold Push For Action On Forgotten War In Afghanistan

Bob Geiger — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:43:25 -0500

Just as the United States Senate was dominated last week with the fight to raise the Federal Minimum Wage, the next few days will see a heated battle over what sentiments -- if any -- the Senate should formally express in opposition to George W. Bush's plan to escalate the Iraq war.

While that issue will dominate the woefully single-threaded media on Capitol Hill, a Senate resolution proposed by John Kerry (D-MA) is also very relevant to America's national security and should at least get some mention as it waits in the wings.

A couple of weeks ago, Kerry introduced S. RES. 34, which calls on the White House to start focusing on something vaguely related to the attacks of September 11 and beef up "…the efforts of the United States to defeat the Taliban and terrorist networks in Afghanistan."

Cosponsored by Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI), Joe Biden (D-DE) and Chris Dodd (D-CT), the resolution warns that Taliban activity is returning full-force to the region and that continuing to place that conflict in the back seat to Iraq will cause Afghanistan to "become what it was before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, a haven for those who seek to harm the United States and a source of instability that threatens the security of the United States."

“While the Administration moves forward with its escalation plans for Iraq, it has failed to address deteriorating security conditions in Afghanistan.” Feingold said. “We should not be reducing our forces in Afghanistan. Instead, we should be strengthening our efforts to defeat a resurgent Taliban – the same movement that harbored and supported the terrorist elements that attacked our country on 9/11.”

Citing a number of statistics showing the steep decline of conditions in Afghanistan in just the last 18 months -- Taliban attacks on United States and allied forces increased from 1,558 in 2005 to 4,542 in 2006 and roadside bomb attacks more than doubled from 2005 to 2006 -- the resolution would make the following demands of Bush:

Strengthen U.S. commitment to establishing long-term stability and peace in Afghanistan.

Maintain or increase the total number of troops serving in Afghanistan and not sacrifice that effort to bolster America's failed presence in Iraq.

Partner with the International Security Assistance Force and the government of Afghanistan and increase efforts to eradicate the Taliban, terrorist organizations, and criminal networks currently operating in Afghanistan.

Increase economic assistance to Afghanistan for reconstruction, social and economic development, counter narcotics efforts and democracy promotion.

Encourage members of the international community to deliver on their financial pledges to support development and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan.

Kerry's measure points out that Bush's current request for United States economic assistance to Afghanistan for 2007 is only one-third of what it was for 2006, while simultaneously quoting General David Richards, NATO's top commander in Afghanistan, saying that a majority of Afghans would likely switch their allegiance to resurgent Taliban militants if their lives show no visible improvements in the next 6 months.

The resolution also stresses the need for greater U.S. military presence in Afghanistan by citing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates himself who, on January 15, 2007, said that there were "indications that the Taliban were planning a large spring offensive" against American troops and NATO forces in that country.

And Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also reinforced the importance of a secure Afghanistan late last year saying "an Afghanistan that does not complete its democratic evolution and become a stable, terrorist-fighting state is going to come back to haunt us."

My guess is that this sounds pretty convincing to everyone but Bush and his clueless crew at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and it will take a strong vote in the Senate to force them to pay attention to the original "war on terror" that they seem to have forgotten. I'm sure American troops fighting in Afghanistan also appreciate being left to fend for themselves, while Bush tries to salvage his hideous legacy in Iraq.

Fortunately, Kerry's proposal has been referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where the Massachusetts Senator is a member and Joe Biden, one of the resolution's cosponsors, is the chairman -- so we know it will get a fair hearing in this Congress.

As he often does, Russ Feingold tied a nice bow around this whole thing by pointing out that, despite all their bluster about a "global war on terror," Team Bush has consistently avoided effective anti-terror measures worldwide in favor of a war about nothing in Iraq.

“When Afghanistan becomes a second priority or, as a senior military officer recently put it, an 'economy of force' operation, it offers a sobering example of this Administration’s misguided approach to the global fight against terrorist networks,” Feingold said. “Because of the Administration’s Iraq-centric foreign policies, we have neglected situations around the world with a direct impact on our national security, in Afghanistan, Somalia and other countries.”

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.