Steve Schacher

Presidents who were in the military but who saw no action: James Madison. And all he did was co-author the Constitution.

Dick Cheney was also George H. W. Bush's Secretary of Defense for four years, after spending 10 years in the House of Representatives, and after being President Ford's Chief of Staff when Donald Rumsfeld became Secretary of Defense. I offer this for additional reference: Presidents with Military Command Experience (Generals bolded) George Washington: Commander in Chief of the Continental Army James Monroe: Major Andrew Jackson: Major General William H. Harrison: Brigadier General Zachary Tayler: Major General Abraham Lincoln: Captain Andrew Johnson: Brigadier General Ulysses S. Grant: Lt. General, Commander of all the Union armies Rutherford B. Hayes: Major General James Garfield: Major General (of volunteers) Benjamin Harrison: Brigadier General William McKinley: Major Theodore Roosevelt: Colonel, Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin D. Roosevelt: no command experience, but was Assistant Secretary of the Navy Harry Truman: Captain Dwight D. Eisenhower: Supreme Allied Commander John F. Kennedy: Lieutenant (j.g.) Lyndon Johnson: Lieutenant Commander Richard Nixon: Lieutenant Commander Gerald Ford: Lieutenant Commander Jimmy Carter: Lieutenant Ronald Reagan: Captain George H. W. Bush: Lieutenant (j.g.) George W. Bush: Lieutenant, Air National Guard Presidents who served in wars George Washington - Commander in Chief of Continental Army during the American Revolution. James Monroe - served in American Revolution Andrew Jackson - American Revolution, War of 1812, First Seminole War William Henry Harrison - Indian wars in the NW territory, War of 1812 John Tyler - War of 1812 Zachary Taylor - War of 1812, Black Hawk, Second Seminole, and Mexican wars Franklin Pierce - Mexican War James Buchanan - War of 1812 Abraham Lincoln - Black Hawk War Andrew Johnson - Civil War Ulysses Grant - Mexican War, Civil War Rutherford Hayes - Civil War James Garfield - Civil War Chester Arthur - Civil War Benjamin Harrison - Civil War William McKinley - Civil War Theodore Roosevelt - Spanish-American War Harry Truman - WWI Dwight Eisenhower - WWII General John Kennedy - WWII Lyndon Johnson - WWII Richard Nixon - WWII Gerald Ford - WWII Ronald Reagan - WWII George H. W. Bush - WWII Presidents who were in the military but who saw no action James Madison James Polk Millard Fillmore Jimmy Carter George W. Bush Presidents with no military experience John Adams Thomas Jefferson John Quincy Adams Martin Van Buren Grover Cleveland William Taft Woodrow Wilson Warren Harding Calvin Coolidge Herbert Hoover Franklin Roosevelt Bill Clinton

Takvah, If you're referring to me, I've quoted from the Washington Post and John Kerry's own website with his own documents. I'd love to see an official report about the Euphrates too (I believe I posted that in another topic), but that isn't what this topic is about, so either address the issue at hand or start another topic, but deflecting the argument won't work with me.

I don't know, but Kerry's site contains this highlight of his division's activities. The event in question occurred on March 13, 1969. The division highlights show his boat in action again on March 18. That means that whatever damage there was was repaired in four days. I don't know if that is reasonable or not. I assume that their mechanics were pretty good at what they do.

Exposed: Scandal of double voters, by the New York Daily News. quote:Some 46,000 New Yorkers are registered to vote in both the city and Florida, a shocking finding that exposes both states to potential abuses that could alter the outcome of elections, a Daily News investigation shows. Registering in two places is illegal in both states, but the massive snowbird scandal goes undetected because election officials don't check rolls across state lines. The finding is even more stunning given the pivotal role Florida played in the 2000 presidential election, when a margin there of 537 votes tipped a victory to George W. Bush. Computer records analyzed by The News don't allow for an exact count of how many people vote in both places, because millions of names are regularly purged between elections. But The News found that between 400 and 1,000 registered voters have voted twice in at least one election, a federal offense punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. One was Norman Siegel, 84, who is registered as a Republican in both Pinellas Park, Fla., and Briarwood, Queens. Siegel has voted twice in seven elections, including the last four presidential races, records show. Officials in both states acknowledge that voting in multiple states is something of a perfect crime, one officials don't have the means to catch. "I can't imagine how the supervisors would have access to that information," said Jenny Nash, spokeswoman for the Florida secretary of state. "As far as I know, cross-state registry has not been discussed." The News' investigation also found: [*] Of the 46,000 registered in both states, 68% are Democrats, 12% are Republicans and 16% didn't claim a party. [*] Nearly 1,700 of those registered in both states requested that absentee ballots be mailed to their home in the other state, where they are also registered. But that doesn't raise red flags with officials in either place. Efforts to prevent people from registering and voting in more than one state rely mostly on the honor system. New registrants are required to supply a prior address, which kicks in a notification process to election officials in the other jurisdiction. Officials also cross-check change-of-address records from the U.S. Postal Service. Both procedures largely count on the honesty of the person registering. And neither would catch people who have homes in both places - including the thousands of snowbirds, the term for Northerners who winter in southern climes. "There's no extensive investigation normally on a voter registration form," said Steven Richman, general counsel for the city Board of Elections. "We accept it at its face value." Eliminating the potential to vote in multiple states would require creating a national voter registration system with federally assigned voter ID numbers, said Allan Lichtman, a history professor at American University in Washington and a voting rights expert. "I don't think the country is ready for that," Lichtman said. "It may well be that a few hundred people spilling over and voting twice may be an inevitable friction within the system." Florida election officials were widely criticized after the 2000 election for instituting policies that resulted in thousands of African-Americans, who tend to vote Democratic, being turned away at the polls. Republican officials are battling similar charges in this year's election. Glenda Hood, the Florida secretary of state appointed by Gov. Jeb Bush in 2002, created a list of felons to be purged from the voter rolls. But the methodology used to create the list guaranteed few Hispanics, who typically vote Republican in Florida, would be purged, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported. In another problem, The ┬¡Miami Herald reported that more than 2,000 convicted felons on the list had regained their voting rights after receiving clemency. Hood has opened an internal investigation. An advocacy group, People for the American Way, has asked U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to open a federal probe. But for all the fire Florida takes, there's no hint that New York's election officials are performing any better. At the city and state level, the election boards are deeply politicized patronage mills that rely on aging technology. The Help America Vote Act of 2002, passed in response to the 2000 election debacle, requires all states to create statewide voter registration databases by Jan. 1, 2006. Florida already has created the statewide registry, though it doesn't yet fully comply with the new law. Like most things in Albany, a bill needed to implement the federal law is stalled in the Legislature, so even the federal money already received can't be spent. There are no plans to match the registries across states. The News contacted more than a dozen people registered in both places, some of whom have voted twice in the same election. Most described themselves as native New Yorkers who briefly flirted with Florida. Barbara Donovan, 59, was a transplanted New Yorker living in Florida when she visited her daughter in the city on Sept. 11, 2001. Overcome by solidarity with her hometown, she decided to move back. She registered to vote from her daughter's apartment. But her mother became ill and she returned to Florida. Her registrations in both ┬¡places remain active, but Donovan has never voted twice. "I guess if you were some kind of zealot, you could vote in both places," Donovan said. "And last time the election was so close, it really makes you wonder." Parties can count on 'emÔÇôtwice Norman Seigel puts a new twist on the political adage "vote early, and often." In Siegel's case, you could add "over and over again." Siegel (no relation to the civil rights lawyer of the same name) has voted twice in seven elections since 1988, including four presidential races, ┬¡records show. Registered as a Republican at his home in Briarwood, Queens, and in Pinellas Park, Fla., Siegel has usually filed an absentee ballot in one or both places. Reached at his Florida home, Siegel interrupted a News reporter who was telling him that thousands of people are registered to vote in both states. "That's illegal," Siegel interjected. "You have to pick one place as your residence and vote there." Told that the records show he maintains registrations in both places, Siegel said he had not voted in Florida, then said he had not voted in New York. When he was told that records show he has voted in both places, Siegel cut off the conversation. "I have to go," he said. Irving and Magdolna Hertz of Borough Park, Brooklyn, also made a habit of being counted - twice. Magdolna, 85, voted in both New York and Florida during the November general elections in 1996, 1997 and 1998. Irving, 91, did the same in 1996 and 1998. Each time, they both mailed absentee ballots to ┬¡Miami and voted at the polls in Brooklyn. Reached on the phone in Brooklyn, Irving Hertz interupted a reporter before a question could be asked. "I'm not here today," Hertz said and hung up. He did not return later calls. Several New Yorkers who have voted twice in elections said it happened by accident. Joseph Moschella, 59, a retired Transit Authority supervisor, said his dual vote in the 2000 presidential election was a mistake caused by his annual snowbird migration. The registered Republican in Melbourne Beach, Fla., and on Staten Island said he thought his absentee ballot to Florida hit the mail too late, so he voted in New York as well. "What happened was, I mailed it, but wanted to make sure I got my vote," Moschella said. "I'm pretty sure if you don't mail it by a certain date it's void." Edwin Peterson, 66, a registered Democrat in Palm Coast, Fla., and St. Albans, Queens, attributed his dual vote in the 2000 election to his distrust of the party running the Sunshine State. "That was a situation where Florida is so messed up with the Republicans, you don't know if your vote is even going to be counted," Peterson said. "It's been like that forever."Notice how, even though their own study finds that 68% of the double-registered voters are Democrats, the article makes the Republicans look like the bad guys.

quote:So it took them at least 9.8 minutes ballpark figure to pickup RassmannGood. So that gives us a theoretical minimum to start with. (BTW: the turning radius is 75 yards when cruising at 20 knots) Now, the last page of Kerry's after-action report lists the damage he reported to his boat: "Two starboard and one port main cabin windows blown out. Radio and all remote units pilot house inoperable. AC wiring shorted out. Generator inoperable. Steerage control after helm inoperable. Starboard bilge pump broken. Screws curled and chipped. Radar gear box frozen. Main engines experienced RPM drop." How fast would his boat be traveling with that amount of damage? With two other undamaged swift boats in the flotilla, why was Kerry's boat the one used to tow the #3 boat that hit the mine (page 3: "94 towed PCF 3 as bucket brigade controlled flooding")? [ 08-22-2004, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

quote:Distance alone doesn't tell you much. How fast where they going? I don't understand nautical terms, but the specifications for the boat say the designed maximum speed is 32 knots. From the map, they were originally heading down-river towards the delta. If Kerry turned around, he'd be going against the flow. One other point: Kerry's after-action report says that "fire continued for about 5,000 meters." That's almost three miles AFTER the mine hit the #3 boat. Then Kerry says he returned to pick up Rassmann and then tow the #3 boat. Does that help? [ 08-22-2004, 05:04 AM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/graphics/swiftboat_082104_2.gif> Notice how the Washington Post has changed their story since I first posted the original graphic. Pay attention to the timeline box labeled "6. Pees' boat detonates an underwater mine as it passes through the weir." It now reads "6. Vietcong in foxhole detonates underwater mine as Pees' boat passes through the weir." They have now placed VC at the scene to be consistent with Kerry's version that they were under fire. On the other hand, other sources I've read indicate that North Vietnam didn't have magnetic detonation mines, and radio detonation mines didn't work under water back then, so an underwater mine probably had to be manually detonated unless it was a direct-contact mine (which this could very well have been). If so, then this shows sloppy early reporting, probably rushed out the door to help Kerry. And besides, they are probably guessing about the foxhole part. Also, notice how Rassmann is now onboard Kerry's boat. In a Kerry press release dated January 17, 2004, the Kerry-Edwards campaign says: quote:Former Lieutenant John Kerry was reunited today with fellow Vietnam veteran Jim Rassmann, who says Kerry saved his life during combat. On March 13, 1969, Rassmann, a Green Beret, was traveling down the Bay Hap river in a boat behind KerryÔÇÖs when both were ambushed by exploding land mines and enemy fire coming from the shore. Kerry was hit in the arm, while a mine blew RassmannÔÇÖs boat out of the water. With enemy fire coming from both sides of the river and swift boats evacuating from the area, KerryÔÇÖs crew chose to turn their boat toward the ambush to save Rassmann. Who's story keeps changing? Who's story remains the same? [ 08-22-2004, 04:49 AM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

quote:As for Kerry's boat being so far downriver in the above illustration. I guess it's position depends on who's drawing it since the only description of the distance Kerry travelled after losing Rassmann is "further downstream", which could be 10 yards, 50 yards or 100 yards. Who knows.The accompanying Washington Post article says "At first, nobody noticed what had happened to Rassmann. But then Medeiros, who was standing at the stern, saw him bobbing up and down in the water and shouted, "Man overboard." Around this time, crew members said, Kerry decided to go back to help the crippled 3 boat. It is unclear how far down the river Kerry's boat was when he turned around. It could have been anywhere from a few hundred yards to a mile."

Bush has his his eight years as governor of Texas, and now his four years as President to run on. Kerry has two years as Lt. Governor of Massachusetts and twenty years as a United States Senator to run on. Bush is not making his actions as a twenty-something the basis of his credentials -- Kerry is. Can you imagine what would happen if a 60-year-old man who was applying for a new job were to only list on his resume a job that he held for less than a year at the age of 21, and his references were only a few people that he hadn't seen nor heard from in 35 years? I do agree that the discussion should not be who did what in 1968. The discussion should be a compare/contrast of Bush's record as President vs. Kerry's record during his last job, that is, as a United States Senator. After all, if you were going to hire a 60-year-old man, would you be more interested in how he performed in his last job or in his first job?

quote:All this effort to reconstruct an obscure event that happened over thirty years ago for what?Because Kerry chose to focus on only his four months in Vietnam instead of his six years as Lt. Governor of Massachusetts or his two decades as a US Senator. Since Kerry made his medals a key point of his service, the conditions of his medal award become important. Also, because Kerry's post-service anti-war activities are being cast aside in favor of his actions during service, people are naturally studying his service. Was it his service that he is proud of, or his anti-war activism? When Kerry changes the subject, others will too. Dick Morris made an interesting comment the other day. Morris said that when stories of Bill Clinton's avoiding the draft surfaced in 1992, the media avoided it, even though it was a window into his character. Morris was trying to equate it to stories of Kerry embellishing after-action reports during his service as a window into his character. He seemed to be asking if we wanted to make that "mistake" again. The Swift Boat Veterans will say that their motivations are personal. They will say that they resented Kerry's anti-war statements against them back then, and that since he's now trying to brush that aside and claim that he was actually a war hero, they are going to dispute his embellishments.

Here's a Washington Post graphic of the incident. http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/graphics/swiftboat_082104.gif> The obvious question is: why is Kerry's boat so far downstream when the other boats are heading towards the damaged boat?

I'm still trying to piece this story together. Here's what I've been able to decipher so far: 1. This is the story of how Jim Rassmann was blown into the water and saved by John Kerry. 2. In the above linked article, all it says about how Rassmann ended up in the water was "Recalling when his boat came under attack more than 30 years ago, Jim Rassmann says, "It blew me off the boat. All those Viet Cong were shooting at me. I expected I'd be shot. When he pulled me out of the river, he risked his life to save mine." 3. In an essay by Rassmann in the Wall Street Journal, Rassmann says: "While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river." The rest of the essay is Rassmann's recount of what happened that day. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath." 4. Rassmann refers to "another swift boat" and "other boats" and being on "John's swift boat." According to the first article, there were "five boats in the flotilla that day." 5. What we have now is one boat dead in the water from a mine. Here is where the individual stories begin to deviate. Rassmann says: quote:When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.6. I don't have cites, and this is from my recollection of the news over the past week. The Swift Boat Veterans say that when the one boat hit the mine, the gunners on the other boats had started firing at both shorelines. They say that what Rassmann heard was outgoing fire from the swift boats, not incoming fire from the riversides. They point to the fact that none of the boats had bullet holes and no one had been hit by any fire. 7. The Swift Boat Veterans say that what threw Rassmann into the water was Kerry gunning the engine on his boat to flee. The sudden force of acceleration threw Rassmann off the side of Kerry's boat. 8. The Swift Boat Veterans say that only Kerry's boat fled the scene. The other boats began pulling out crewmen from the boat that hit the mine. It was only when Kerry realized that Rassmann had fallen off of his his boat that he turned and headed back. The Swift Boat Veterans say that another boat was a few feet away from Rassmann when Kerry got to him first and picked him up out of the river. 9. Kerry supporters are using the wording on the Bronze Star citation of Larry Thurlow as proof that the Swift Boat Veterans are lying. The citation refers to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire." Thurlow says that Kerry wrote the after-action report that was the basis for both his own and Thurlow's medals. 10. Related to this story, but not included in the article is what the Swift Boat Veterans call "the Sampan incident." In this incident, they say that Kerry also falsified his after-action report. They say that in the Rassmann incident, Kerry indicated incoming fire when there was none, and in the Sampan incident, where Kerry's boat shot up a small boat and killed a man and a small boy, Kerry indicated in his report that there were four Viet Cong on the boat. 11. The Swift Boat Veterans are saying that Kerry embellished his reports, indicating fire when there was none, indicating enemy presence when there was none, etc, which is why Thurlow's citation refers to enemy fire. This is the story that will play out over the next few weeks. [ 08-21-2004, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

I'm back from a week-long vacation without access to a computer. quote:And the order for the use of WMD's was indeed given, the Iraqi Generals that had those WMD's chose to toss them in the rivers instead, we have just finished cleaning up that little toxic mess, but you didn't hear a thing about that in mainstream press now did ya?I don't know about the clean-up, but the initial reports of the poisoning of the river was a one-day news story by MSNBC that was picked up by several foreign media outlets, and then it disappeared from view. The original reporter was Dr. Bob Arnot. From Sky News, quoting MSNBC, EUPHRATES 'POISONED', April 4, 2003: quote:EUPHRATES 'POISONED' US Marines found cyanide and mustard agents in high concentrations in the Euphrates River near Nassiriya in Iraq, television network MSNBC has reported. The network said a briefing from Marine officials was its source for the information. The agents were found during routine tests conducted to ensure the water being used is safe, MSNBC said. Neither Centcom officials in Qatar nor US military officials in Iraq have confirmed the MSNBC report. Mustard gas produces painful, long-lasting blisters and often leads to blindness, while cyanide kills by preventing blood from transporting oxygen.From USA Today, Marines reportedly find cyanide, mustard agents in Euphrates, also April 4, 2003: quote:Marines reportedly find cyanide, mustard agents in Euphrates From staff and wire reports Marine units testing drinking water found cyanide and mustard agents in the Euphrates River, MSNBC reported, as concerns mounted that Iraq would resort to chemical weapons as coalition troops closed on Baghdad. Earlier, advancing U.S. troops found thousands of boxes of suspicious white powder, nerve agent antidote and Arabic documents on how to engage in chemical warfare at an industrial complex south of Baghdad. But a senior U.S. official familiar with initial testing said the materials were believed to be explosives. Concerns over the use of chemical weapons spiked as MSNBC reported that Marines testing drinking water from the Euphrates River near Nasiriyah found "large concentrations" of cyanide and mustard agents. The network said Marine commanders believed it was a deliberate attempt to poison coalition troops. There was no immediate confirmation of the report from Central Command. At the Latifiyah industrial complex 25 miles south, troops had found thousands of 2-inch by 5-inch boxes, each containing three vials of white powder, together with documents written in Arabic that dealt with how to engage in chemical warfare, said Col. John Peabody, engineer brigade commander of the 3rd Infantry Division. He also said they discovered atropine, used to counter the effects of nerve agents, and 2-Pam chloride, which is used in combination with atropine in case of chemical attack. "It is clearly a suspicious site," Peabody said. But a senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the material was under further study. The site is enormous and U.S. troops are still investigating it for potential weapons of mass destruction, the official said. "Initial reports are that the material is probably just explosives, but we're still going through the place," the official said. The facility had been identified by the International Atomic Energy Agency as a suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons site. U.N. inspectors visited the plant at least a dozen times, including as recently as Feb. 18. The facility is part of a larger complex known as the Latifiyah Explosives and Ammunition Plant al Qa Qaa. During the 1991 Gulf War, U.S. jets bombed the plant. Troops also discovered what they believe is a training center for nuclear, chemical and biological warfare in Iraq's western desert, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks said Friday. One bottle found at the site was labeled "tabun" ÔÇö a nerve agent that the U.S. government says may have been used during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. The soldiers found only a small amount of the chemical, indicating the site was meant for training, not storing or deploying chemical weapons, Brooks said. "In that particular site, we believe that was the only sample," Brooks said. "That's why we believe it was a training site. Our conclusion is that this was not a (weapons of mass destruction) site ... it proved to be far less than that." Photos of the site showed shelves of brown bottles with yellow labels. Brooks said troops did not understand some of the labels and were collecting the bottles for examination by experts. On April 1, Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan, in a statement on Iraqi television, repeated Baghdad's position that it had no weapons of mass destruction. Referring to reports that gas masks and other chemical gear had been found elsewhere in the country, he said the coalition might plant weapons of mass destruction to implicate Iraq. "Let me say one more time that Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction," he said. "The aggressors may themselves intend to bring those materials to plant them here and say those are weapons of mass destruction," he said. From the Telegraph UK, April 6, 2003, Deadly chemicals are found dumped in river : quote:Deadly chemicals are found dumped in river By David Harrison in Nasiriyah (Filed: 06/04/2003) Mustard gas and cyanide have been found in river water in the Iraqi city of Nasiriyah, coalition forces said yesterday. The poisonous substances are believed to have been dumped in the Euphrates either by Iraqi soldiers fleeing from American troops or local factories that produced weapons of mass destruction. A spokesman for the United States marines, based just outside the city, described the quantities of chemical agents found as "significant" and claimed that it was further evidence that Saddam Hussein has produced weapons of mass destruction. He said yesterday: "I think this discovery shows what kind of guy is running this country. "This stuff is just dumped in the Euphrates without any concern for the many people who drink and wash with water from the river." The poisons were discovered by the marines' scientists who were testing the quality of water taken from the Euphrates before purifying it and distributing it to the residents of Nasiriyah, a city of 250,000 people. It follows the discovery of hundreds of gas masks and chemical warfare suits at a military base near the city. Weapons found at the site included rocket launchers, machine-guns and rifles, bayonets and thousands of rounds of ammunition. Yesterday the site was deserted except for a few American soldiers examining the contents of the armoury, picking their way carefully through grenades and a huge amount of other explosives packed in boxes or strewn in and around the storerooms. Among the boxes were papers with details of Iraqi soldiers, each with a small black-and-white passport photograph attached. There were also dozens of unused black berets of the sort worn frequently by Saddam Hussein. The marines returned to the Euphrates in Nasiriyah yesterday to distribute purified water to hundreds of Iraqis who formed an orderly queue on the river bank. Under the watchful gaze of heavily armed troops, the water was taken directly from the river, cleaned and then piped into buckets and jerry cans of all shapes and sizes. Most residents were pleased that water was being provided, although some pointed out that the water problem only arose at the beginning of the war when American aircraft destroyed the city's treatment plant. Abdul Ahmed, 33, said: "We are grateful for their help but we only have this problem because of the American bombings." He added: "Before that we had water from the taps in our houses so we are still worse off than we were before the start of the war."Here's a CNN transcript of their initial reporting on April 4, 2003, CNN LIVE ON LOCATION: quote:CNN LIVE ON LOCATION Interview With Alex Perry Aired April 4, 2003 - 12:48 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: On the phone with us right now is Alex Perry of "TIME" magazine. He's got some new information on the cyanide that was reportedly discovered in the Euphrates river. Alex, tell us what you're hearing and what you're seeing. ALEX PERRY, TIME MAGAZINE: Well, just that there was a brief intel report; these things are sent out, you know, almost 24 hours (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in the region. And there was an intel report that persons unknown have been spotted pouring cyanide into the water supply in Baghdad. There was no sort of further details on that of who the people have been and what purpose this was serving. But, yes, that has been mentioned and it is something that American forces here are working on. BLITZER: The Euphrates river, Alex, is a long river. Do they know precisely where this cyanide or other poison was being dumped into the river? PERRY: It was said to be in the city's center itself. Presumably that would then flow south toward American forces. But, I mean, one has to say it would be a fairly unguided attack, if that was intended to sort of hit American forces, apart from (UNINTELLIGIBLE) they are not getting in the river. They've constructed their own bridges over it. It seems -- it was very sort of odd intelligence report. And I'm not sure how much stock people are putting in it at the moment. BLITZER: As far as you know, Alex, this intelligence report -- and you know there are intelligence reports and there are other intelligence reports. Some are pretty vague. Some are just sort of hearsay. Some are really, really hard and definitive. This one sounds like it's a little weak, this intelligence report. It sort of almost sounds like a potential warning out there that it might be going on. But the U.S. would need a lot more hard evidence. Is that what you're picking up? PERRY: Yes. To me, I mean, I have asked around. And to me, you know, what I was told was it was simply something that U.S. intelligence sources, some eyewitnesses had seen. And they reported it because it sounded so serious. It's one of those thins that gets flagged and distributed widely. Again, you know, the problem with some sort of, I guess you would call it an attack like this, or a plan like this, is it's very difficult to get further confirmation. This is -- you pour a barrel of cyanide into the river. It only takes 15 seconds and then no one else sees it. It's a very odd one, it's a very difficult one for people to try and confirm. But it is out there as a warning to all U.S. forces. So they are taking it (UNINTELLIGIBLE). BLITZER: Well, obviously it's very ominous, it's very disturbing and it should get a lot of distribution, but obviously they also have to make sure that it's a legitimate fear, it's a legitimate threat that is out there. Alex, while I have you, there have been some reports, I think you're familiar with them, of Iraqis throwing themselves in front of advancing U.S. tanks and other armored vehicles. What, if anything, do you know about this? PERRY: Yes, certainly, I think Iraqi attacks are forming a bit of a pattern. One lieutenant colonel I was talking to today told me that generally in the evening between 6:00 and 10:00, there will be sort of probing attacks on U.S. forces, generally surrounding towns like Karbala, where I am, or Najaf and so on. And more than once they've had these sort of suicide attacks. Last night in Karbala, a man was spotted running toward a tank. Seemed to be carrying some sort of weapon. Warning shots were fired over his head. He didn't stop. And so he was shot, and when he was shot, he exploded. So he was obviously strapped to his body he was carrying a large amount of explosives designed to cripple an Abrams tank. This is the sort of pattern that we are seeing in these sort of attacks. Lone sort of suicide attacks. BLITZER: All right, Alex Perry with "TIME" magazine. He's one of the embedded journalists with the U.S. forces not far from Karbala in central Iraq. Alex, thanks very much for that report. We'll get back in touch with you or hopefully you'll get back in touch with us very, very soon.

Like I said earlier, as governor he has the option to resign or not resign and fight the charges. However, once he chooses to resign, he should leave. Rowland denied the charges for a long time before admitting them. McGreevey could have done the same. When Rowland finally admitted fault, he resigned and left. McGreevey should (and I think will) do the same. What's also interesting is that during the Torricelli campaign, McGreevey was the one arguing that the people had a right to a choice (even though the people did choose, just not Torricelli) when seeking to insert Lautenberg in Torricelli's place. Now, however, he seems to not want to give the people a choice.

quote:If they were on the same stretch of river and docked at the same pier at night and slept on the same base I would agree. If they weren't even close I would have to say it very detrimental to their credibility. Has that info come out yet?From the swift boat vets site, "this photograph of John Kerry and 19 other Coastal Division 11 Swift boat officers was taken at Ton Son Nhut Air Base on January 22, 1969, immediately following a meeting with General Abrams and Admiral Zumwalt." http://www.swiftvets.com/images/Vets_before.jpg> http://www.swiftvets.com/images/Vets_after.jpg> Think of this in terms of a tank division. Each tank has one officer and five crewmen. Do tanks patrol alone or in groups? Do the tank units bunk together or alone?

Why Racists and Unions Support Minimum Wages by Walter Williams (November 12, 2003) quote:Presidential aspirant Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., unwittingly performed a public service in his address to the Teamsters Local 238 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, last month. He revealed the true agenda behind so much of the support for minimum wages. He pledged that if he became president he'd press the World Trade Organization to establish an international minimum wage -- one that he says is high enough so that American workers are not competing with slave, sweat-shop and child labor around the world. History has seen many calls for minimum wages for the same reason -- to eliminate competition with workers who'd work for less. During South Africa's apartheid era, white unionists argued "in absence of statutory minimum wages, employers found it profitable to supplant highly trained (and usually highly paid) Europeans by less efficient but cheaper non-whites." One South African union leader said, "There is no job reservation left in the building industry, and in the circumstances I support the rate for the job (minimum wages) as the second best way of protecting our white artisans." The South African Nursing Association condemned low wages received by black nurses as unfair. Some nurses said they wouldn't accept wage increases until the wages of black nurses were raised. These are but several of numerous examples of calls for minimum wages cited in my 1989 book, South Africa's War Against Capitalism. You can bet the farm that these calls for minimum wages for blacks didn't represent white compassion for the welfare of blacks. Minimum wages are simply one of the most effective tools in the arsenals of racists everywhere. I'm not charging Gephardt with racism. He claims he just wants to end policies that have left millions of Americans suffering economically and workers overseas denied opportunity for a better standard of living. That's his stated intention, but when we analyze the effects of policy, we can almost always ignore policy intentions. One effect of minimum wages is that of discrimination against the employment of less-preferred workers. A worker might be less-preferred in the eyes of a particular employer in a number of ways. He might be low-skilled, less intelligent, or a different nationality or race. Put yourself in the place of an employer, and ask: If the law requires me to pay, say, $9 an hour, no matter whom I hire, does it pay me to hire someone who has skills enabling him to produce only $5 worth of value per hour? Most people would view hiring such a worker as a losing economic proposition. Are low-skilled workers made better or worse off as a result of the $9 minimum wage? It's almost a no-brainer to conclude that being hired at $5 an hour puts more food on the table than not being hired at $9. What's more, minimum wages reduce training opportunities. Most of us gain skills through on-the-job-training. Minimum wage laws deny that opportunity. A more insidious effect of minimum wages, as racists everywhere know, is that it lowers discrimination costs. Say a white and a black were equally productive and an employer prefers white workers to black workers. Since he has to pay $9 an hour no matter whom he hires, the cost of discriminating against the black worker is zero. But if it were legal for the black worker to offer a lower price, there'd be a cost to discrimination. That's precisely why South African whites demanded that blacks be paid the minimum wages -- they wanted to cheapen discrimination costs. Gephardt's speech is to be commended for its public service, namely that of revealing the underlying motive for minimum wages: making sure that one class of workers doesn't have to compete with another. Following the theme, from The Walter Williams Interview: quote:John Hawkins: Can you explain why the minimum wage is a bad idea? Walter Williams: First, Congress can indeed legislate that people get a higher wage. But, they can't legislate that people are more productive. For the most part, in a free market economy, wages are related to a workers productivity. For example, if a worker can produce six dollars worth of productivity per hour, if that's all he can produce, and you legislate that he must be paid eight dollars and hour, then it's a losing proposition to pay someone eight dollars an hour when he can only produce six dollars worth of value. So the employer may have several different responses. Either he's going to discriminate against the employment of low skilled workers who can only produce six dollars worth of value and hire someone who can produce eight dollars worth of value or he's going to automate. Both responses mean lower employment for low skilled people. So, the minimum wage law discriminates against low-skilled people. Minimum prices in general tend to discriminate against the lesser skilled person or the less preferred item. Let's say ten workers show up and you only can hire five. Well, you can't discriminate based on price because you have to pay them all eight dollars an hour. So you may hire according to what you like. So if you prefer Catholics to Jews or whites to blacks, you'll have a tendency to indulge your preferences. You can apply that phenomena to anything. If we made a law, let's call it a "minimum steak law", that is, fillet mignon and chuck steak both sell for $10. Well, the cost of discriminating against chuck steak would be zero, because you have to pay $10 anyway. The way that less preferred things compete with more preferred things is by having a lower price. Even though people prefer filet mignon to chuck steak, chuck steak doesn't have any problems selling at all. [ 08-14-2004, 03:47 AM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

Even Governor John Rowland ® of Connecticutt had the decency to resign immediately this past June over accepting gifts from state contractors. He didn't play any games with the turnover of his office. He just admitted that he made mistakes and left.

quote:Kerry was never in Cambodia, it's in the congressional records and say's right there that he wasn't there..I'm quoting Kerry himself from his speech in the Congressional Record on March 27, 1986. Read the paragraphs on the rightmost column. http://instapundit.com/images/kerrycambfull.jpg> [ 08-14-2004, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

The Texas legislature was working within the laws of the Constitution. It was the Texas Democrats who fled to neighboring states to prevent a quorum, which was against the state constitution. The New Jersey party bosses are flouting the law. I suppose you could argue that it is McGreevey's right to resign or not resign at all and defend himself against the charges. That would be the honorable thing to do. But what he has done is agree to step down, go public and declare that he is stepping down, but then delay his stepping down in order to prevent the people of New Jersey from electing their new governor. What I don't understand is why you aren't for the right of the people of New Jersey to elect their governor instead of being stuck with an appointee for two years? Sure, the Senate President is also an elected official, but he wasn't elected for an executive role, he was elected for a legislative role. I'd think that the people of New Jersey would want a say in who their governor is.

Let's just say that the entire debate is stuck on the fringes, while the truth is somewhere in the middle. Sure, the back-seater would know his pilot better than even his mom, but that does not invalidate entirely the opinions of the others in his unit. Yet that is what the Kerry supporters would have you believe about the other swift boat veterans from his unit. Since they did not serve on his one single boat, that their opinions are entirely without merit, and in all of Vietnam, only the five or six men that were actually on the boat with him have the right to speak.

quote:I'll stand with the guys who served on his boat...http://img37.exs.cx/img37/6421/served_defintion.jpg>

No, it would have been better if he just resigned. I'm talking about the power politics of resigning but not resigning. He's gaming the system in order to preserve the governorship for Democrats. You may not remember, but his was a close election with Brent Schundler a very close second. In the Senate race in 2002, Doug Forrester was beating Robert Torricelli when Torricelli quit the race. I think the Democrat bosses in NJ squeezed McGreevey out now in order to save the governorship for Democrats.

Have you been following the news coverage of John Kerry's claim that he spent Christmas of 1968 in Cambodia, and that the "memory is seared -- seared in my mind" as he claimed from the floor of the Senate in 1986? What? No, you haven't heard anything about that? Why would that be, I wonder...

The conspiracy is not that McGreevey is gay, nor that he "featherbedded" (pun intended) his lover by hiring him for a job that he was not qualified for, nor even that he was associated with unscrupulous people like his top campaign donor Charles Kushner (who hired a prostitute to blackmail the leading witness against him in federal court). The real scandal is that, like the shenanigans with the Torricelli resignation, McGreevey announced today that he would resign effective in November, after the election. Who announces their resignation now, but that it is not effective until 90 days from now? If you announce that you are resigning today, then you are considered resigned, today. Only a party that thinks it is okay to have a nominating convention this month, but not to actually accept the nomination until next month, could come up with what McGreevey is doing. The scandal is that New Jersey law says that if the governor steps down from office beyond 60 days from the next scheduled election, then a special election for governor will be added to the upcoming election. If the governor steps down after this deadline, then the Senate President fills in the rest of the Governor's term. Currently, the most popular candidate for governor is Brent Schundler, who is a Republican. Therefore, the timing of the actual resignation is being pushed back in order to prevent the people of New Jersey from choosing their own governor. The power bosses are afraid that the people would choose Schundler, and that a special governor's election would only help George Bush in New Jersey. You gotta hand it to those Democrats. Badda bing... badda bam! [ 08-13-2004, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]