John Kerry for President!!!!!

“Saddam's Files
New evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Thursday, May 27, 2004 12:01 a.m.

One thing we've learned about Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein is that the former dictator was a diligent record keeper. Coalition forces have found--literally--millions of documents. These papers are still being sorted, translated and absorbed, but they are already turning up new facts about Saddam's links to terrorism.
We realize that even raising this subject now is politically incorrect. It is an article of faith among war opponents that there were no links whatsoever--that "secular" Saddam and fundamentalist Islamic terrorists didn't mix. But John Ashcroft's press conference yesterday reminds us that the terror threat remains, and it seems especially irresponsible for journalists not to be open to new evidence. If the CIA was wrong about WMD, couldn't it have also missed Saddam's terror links?

One striking bit of new evidence is that the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam's son Uday and entrusted with doing much of the regime's dirty work. Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.

This matters because if Shakir was an officer in the Fedayeen, it would establish a direct link between Iraq and the al Qaeda operatives who planned 9/11. Shakir was present at the January 2000 al Qaeda "summit" in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at which the 9/11 attacks were planned. The U.S. has never been sure whether he was there on behalf of the Iraqi regime or whether he was an Iraqi Islamicist who hooked up with al Qaeda on his own.




It is possible that the Ahmed Hikmat Shakir listed on the Fedayeen rosters is a different man from the Iraqi of the same name with the proven al Qaeda connections. His identity awaits confirmation by al Qaeda operatives in U.S. custody or perhaps by other captured documents. But our sources tell us there is no questioning the authenticity of the three Fedayeen rosters. The chain of control is impeccable. The documents were captured by the U.S. military and have been in U.S. hands ever since.
As others have reported, at the time of the summit Shakir was working at the Kuala Lumpur airport, having obtained the job through an Iraqi intelligence agent at the Iraqi embassy. The four-day al Qaeda meeting was attended by Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi, who were at the controls of American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon. Also on hand were Ramzi bin al Shibh, the operational planner of the 9/11 attacks, and Tawfiz al Atash, a high-ranking Osama bin Laden lieutenant and mastermind of the USS Cole bombing. Shakir left Malaysia on January 13, four days after the summit concluded.

That's not the only connection between Shakir and al Qaeda. The Iraqi next turned up in Qatar, where he was arrested on September 17, 2001, six days after the attacks in the U.S. A search of his pockets and apartment uncovered such information as the phone numbers of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers' safe houses and contacts. Also found was information pertaining to a 1995 al Qaeda plot to blow up a dozen commercial airliners over the Pacific.

After a brief detention, our friends the Qataris inexplicably released Shakir, and on October 21 he flew to Amman, Jordan. The Jordanians promptly arrested him, but under pressure from the Iraqis (and Amnesty International, which questioned his detention) and with the acquiescence of the CIA, they let him go after three months. He was last seen heading home to Baghdad.

One of the mysteries of postwar Iraq is why the Bush Administration and our $40-billion-a-year intelligence services haven't devoted more resources to probing the links between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. In his new book, "The Connection," Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard puts together all of the many strands of intriguing evidence that the two did do business together. There's no single "smoking gun," but there sure is a lot of smoke.
The reason to care goes beyond the prewar justification for toppling Saddam and relates directly to our current security. U.S. officials believe that American civilian Nicholas Berg was beheaded in Iraq recently by Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, who is closely linked to al Qaeda and was given high-level medical treatment and sanctuary by Saddam's government. The Baathists killing U.S. soldiers are clearly working with al Qaeda now; Saddam's files might show us how they linked up in the first place.




they could have found osama in the hole with saddam and you'd deny it. what a bunch of friggin lame-o's you are. bet CBS, PBS, NPR, CNN, ABC, NBC, air america, or micheal moore wont tell you about this....”

“An interesting read hereon that....
It could be grasping at straws as well, it would go against everything discovered to date, including reports by the CIA and the like.”

“Read the comments at the bottom of the story....”

“Tit for Tet
Ann Coulter
May 27, 2004

Abu Ghraib is the new Tet offensive. By lying about the Tet offensive during the Vietnam War, the media managed to persuade Americans we were losing the war, which demoralized the nation and caused us to lose the war. And people say reporters are lazy.

The immediate consequence of the media's lies was a 25 percent drop in support for the war. The long-term consequence for America was 12 years in the desert until Ronald Reagan came in and saved the country.

Now liberals are using their control of the media to persuade the public that we are losing the war in Iraq. Communist dictators may have been ruthless murderers bent on world domination, but they displayed a certain degree of rationality. America may not be able to wait out 12 years of Democrat pusillanimity now that we're dealing with Islamic lunatics who slaughter civilians in suicide missions while chanting "Allah Akbar!"

And yet the constant drumbeat of failure, quagmire, Abu Ghraib, Bush-lied-kids-died has been so successful that merely to say the war in Iraq is going well provokes laughter. The distortions have become so pervasive that Michael Moore teeters on the brink of being considered a reliable source.

If President Bush mentions our many successes in Iraq, it is evidence that he is being "unrealistically sunny and optimistic," as Michael O'Hanlon of the liberal Brookings Institution put it.

O'Hanlon's searing indictment of the operation in Iraq is that we need to "make sure they have some budget resources that they themselves decide how to spend that are not already pre-allocated." So that's the crux of our challenge in Iraq: Make sure their "accounts receivable" columns all add up. Whenever great matters are at stake, you can always count on liberals to have some pointless, womanly complaint.

We have liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator who gassed his own people, had weapons of mass destruction, invaded his neighbors, harbored terrorists, funded terrorists and had reached out to Osama bin Laden. Liberals may see Saddam's mass graves in Iraq as half-full, but I prefer to see them as half-empty.

So far, we have found chemical and biological weapons – brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, ricin, sarin, aflatoxin – and long-range missiles in Iraq.

The terrorist "stronghold" of Karbala was abandoned last week by Islamic crazies loyal to cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who slunk away when it became clear that no one supported them. Iraqis living in Karbala had recently distributed fliers asking the rebels to please leave, further underscoring one of the principal remaining problems in Iraq – the desperate need for more Kinko's outlets. Last weekend, our troops patrolled this rebel "stronghold" without a shot being fired.

The entire Kurdish region – one-third of the country – is patrolled by about 300 American troops, which is fewer than it takes to patrol the Kennedy compound in Palm Beach on Easter weekends.

But the media tell us this means we're losing. The goalpost of success keeps shifting as we stack up a string of victories. Before the war, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof warned that war with Iraq would be a nightmare: "[W]e won't kill Saddam, trigger a coup or wipe out his Republican Guard forces." (Unless, he weaseled his way out, "we're incredibly lucky.")

We've done all that! How incredibly lucky.

Kristof continued: "We'll have to hunt out Saddam on the ground – which may be just as hard as finding Osama in Afghanistan, and much bloodier."

We've captured Saddam! And it wasn't bloody! Indeed, the most harrowing aspect of Saddam's capture was that he hadn't bathed or been de-liced for two months.

Kristof also said: "Our last experience with street-to-street fighting was confronting untrained thugs in Mogadishu, Somalia. This time we're taking on an army with possible bio- and chemical weapons, 400,000 regular army troops and supposedly 7 million more in Al Quds militia."

And yet, somehow, our boys defeated them in just six weeks! Incredibly lucky again! And just think: all of this accomplished without even having a "Plan."

Now we're fighting directly with Islamic loonies crawling out of their rat holes from around the entire region – which liberals also said wouldn't happen. Remember how liberals said the Islamic loonies hated Saddam Hussein – hated him! – because he was a "secularist"? As geopolitical strategist Paul Begala put it, Saddam would never share his weapons with terrorists because "those Islamic terrorists would use them against Saddam Hussein because he's secular."

Well, apparently, the crazies have put aside their scruples about Saddam's secularism to come out in the open where they can be shot by American troops rather than fighting on the streets of Manhattan (where the natives would immediately surrender).

The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning. Every day liberals can create a new narrative that destroys the past as it occurred. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

To be sure, Iraq is not a bed of roses. As the Brookings Institution scholar said, we have yet to give the Iraqis "budget resources" that "are not already pre-allocated." I take it back: It is a quagmire.”

“I know this is old news but I can’t believe I’m just finding now. Why hasn’t the mainstream media picked up on it? As we all know Kerry brings up his service every time he opens his mouth. I was surprised that 19 of the 23 vets who served with the War Hero (criminal) have signed this letter. The 19 being comprised of both republicans and democrats.

May 4, 2004
Senator Kerry,

We write from our common heritage as veterans of duty aboard Swift Boats in the Vietnam War. Indeed, you should note that a substantial number of those men who served directly with you during your four month tour in Vietnam have signed this letter.
It is our collective judgment that, upon your return from Vietnam, you grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen of that war (including a betrayal of many of us, without regard for the danger your actions caused us). Further, we believe that you have withheld and/or distorted material facts as to your own conduct in this war.

We believe you continue this conduct today, albeit by changing from an anti-war to a "war hero" status. You now seek to clad yourself in the very medals that you disdainfully threw away in the early years of your political career. In the process, we believe you continue a deception as to your own conduct through such tactics as the disclosure of only carefully screened portions of your military records. Both then and now, we have concluded that you have deceived the public, and in the process have betrayed honorable men, to further your personal political goals.

Your conduct is such as to raise substantive concerns as to your honesty and your ability to serve, as you currently seek, as Commander-in-Chief of the military services.
It is vital that the American public have as much information as possible about candidates for President of the United States. In various ways, you have rightly called upon President Bush to be fully accountable and to provide full disclosure. In the same spirit, now that you are the presumptive nominee of your Party, we believe it is incumbent upon you to make your total military record open to the American people.
Specifically, we the undersigned formally request that you authorize the Department of the Navy to independently release your military records (through your execution of Standard Form 180), complete and unaltered, including your military medical records. Further, we call upon you to correct the misconceptions your campaign seeks to create as to your conduct while in Vietnam. Permit the American public the opportunity to assess your military performance upon the record, and not upon campaign rhetoric.

Senator Kerry, we were there. We know the truth. We have been silent long enough. The stakes are too great, not only for America in general but, most importantly, for those who have followed us into service in Iraq and Afghanistan. We call upon you to provide a full, accurate accounting of your conduct in Vietnam.

Respectfully,
Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann, USN
Captain Charley Plumly, USN (ret)”

“Strat, do you lack the ability to parse what you read?”

“And Nigal, if you'd care to examine the facts put forth in your cut and paste and get the other side of the issue:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/05/04/swift/index_np.html”

“We wouldn't! We would reward the countries that didn't. As long as we're reshaping the ME, we can start with Saudi Arabia.

Huh? Saudi Arabia doesn't harbor terrorists? How do you explain the al-Mudqrin (sp?) declaration of guerilla war against Riyadh? If it wasn't for the U.S.'s leverage against SA, forcing the crown prince to take action, there wouldn't have been any crackdowns, and there wouldn't have been AQ reprisals such as this.

Besides, what carrot is going to be so alluring that terrorist harboring nations are going to suddenly turn 180 and purge the terrorists?

Engagement to me means keeping lines of contact open while manipulating their policies on human rights, terror, and governmental policies.

HOW?!?!? How do you manipulate policies without leverage? Appeasement doesn't work with despotic governments. You need the real threat of military intervention.

Ideology like this doesn't need a political boundary to survive, it just needs misery and anger.

Sure, but ideology is not the point. The point is, organizations *do* require a geographical location. No terrorist harboring nations, no organized terrorists.

I have to admit that I haven't heard about this and can't find anything on a google search

I'll try to find it for you.”

“Say... for instance sending $43 million to the Taliban in May 2001?

Don't obfuscate the issue, Violin. That was part of the morally bankrupt war on drugs.”

“Yeah, so? They have someone who happens to be a republican as their media link? Wow! What a scandal! This is like me breaking the scandal that Moveon.org is lead by a liberal. 19 of 23. That is more than some type smear campaign. These men were there. These men served with Kerry. Wave it away if you like but it won’t go away.”

“Mutt, I'll cut to the chase: I'm not against using military force where we have been attacked. Afghanistan was a righteous action, IMO. The threat of military force in negotiation is fine.

HOW?!?!? How do you manipulate policies without leverage? Appeasement doesn't work with despotic governments. You need the real threat of military intervention.

Surely you don't buy into the idea that Libya was just so scared of the US that it came clean and joined the real word. They came clean after we kept the economic pressure on them for 20 years with a policy of containment and sanctions. By no means do I think this has been a total success at this point, either. I think the Bush admin let them off the hook a little early for the political capital they could garner from doing so and claiming a victory in the WMD field. Still, the concept is sound and proven. Dictatorships, separated economically from the world can't survive forever (unless you're castro).

Sure, but ideology is not the point. The point is, organizations *do* require a geographical location. No terrorist harboring nations, no organized terrorists

How do you figure?! Attacks will happen given the cellular structure of al-qaeda and the overriding ideology. Hell, think of the Oklahoma City bombing. We aren't a "terrorist harboring nation", but dangerous people with a dangerous ideology can and will take root in our society, become organized, and commit acts of terror.”

“Nigal, I'd love to go into this a little deeper, but there's a number of things I've got going on today, so summarizing is going to be too much of a pain.


Disinfopedia has a lot of information on it.

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth

"But it is with regard to the latter sentence of the charge that John E. O'Neill and others get vague.

"When asked by NewsMax if they had in mind any potential smoking gun of distortion that might be revealed by an unfettered examination of Kerry's military records, there was no answer forthcoming." ”

“Isolating countries is different from appeasement. And isolation didn't topple Saddam, did it?

Of course there will always be terrorists - no one's in contention regarding this. The point is, without geography, a terrorist network with global reach cannot survive. There will always be home-grown whackos and local terrorists, though.”

“"Nigal, I'd love to go into this a little deeper, but there's a number of things I've got going on today,”

What? Like your job? No need to dig dude. The vets who served with him wrote the letter and said what they said. Over examining it is fruitless because these are the guys who served with him, who were there and they are not some editor doing an opinion piece. It’s their own feelings. I can’t blame you for wanting to discount or discredit it though as Kerry’s war record (all 4 months of it) make up the bulk of his campaign.

“so summarizing is going to be too much of a pain.”

Not as painful as it would be for me to read your response. J

Happy Friday!”

“"Isolating countries is different from appeasement. And isolation didn't topple Saddam, did it?


No Isolation didn't topple him, but it made him a non-threat, certainly. I've been telling you that we weren't talking about appeasement.

In China's case (I still haven't been able to find that they threatened the US), a country that is not harboring terrorists (that we know of, engagement seems to be working toward bringing about a more liberal government - though they still have a lot of work to do.

Of course there will always be terrorists - no one's in contention regarding this. The point is, without geography, a terrorist network with global reach cannot survive. There will always be home-grown whackos and local terrorists, though

Tell me how a lack of geography will destroy a cellular network like al-qaeda.”

“Nigal, you might try reading a little more.

Have a good weekend.”

“I still can't find anything referencing a chinese threat to the US.”

“Sorry, I can't find it either. What I *think* I remember is some Chinese diplomat making a veiled threat about lobbing an ICBM against some Western US city.

Maybe I just dreamed it!!!”

“There was a misquoted threat of that nature in the NY times in 1995 that I know of...


Maybe Newsmax was just having fun with you ;)”

“"John Kerry is no different than me or you... Of course the fact he now drives a Boeing 757 to work at the tune of $26,000 an hour to work means nothing. Hey we all do it! I wonder what all the libs who hate SUVs think of his apparent disregard for the environment? He did make some funny jokes (probably in an attempt to draw attention away from his audacity). He said that there were parachutes on board for press core members and would be handed out according to good stories vs. bad stories. He also said if the plane goes down his hair would serve as a flotation device.

“And while the Kerry campaign has dubbed the new plane "Freedom Bird", many in the press corps still prefer "Hair France".”

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/KerryPlane.html"
- Nigal
08:40:00 AM”

“Bush sets record for re-election travel on Air Force One
Taxpayers foot bill at $56,800 per hour

By SCOTT LINDLAW
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- President Bush is using Air Force One for re-election travel more heavily than any predecessor, wringing maximum political mileage from a perk of office paid for by taxpayers.

Bush often travels at no cost to his campaign simply by declaring a trip "official" travel rather than "political."

Even when the White House deems a trip as political, the cost to Bush's campaign is minimal. The campaign must only pay the government the equivalent of a comparable first-class fare for each political traveler on each leg, Federal Election Commission guidelines say.

Usually, that means paying a few hundred or a few thousand dollars for the president and a handful of aides. It's a minuscule sum, compared to the $56,800-per-hour the Air Force estimates it costs to run Air Force One.

It is an advantage that Bush and other presidents before him have enjoyed.

President Clinton frequently was criticized by Republicans for his record-setting use of Air Force One in the campaign season, but Bush is exceeding Clinton's pace.

continued...”

“Cool!

We're still at it!

Goot to see.....I have many tools...”

“"Bush is exceeding Clinton's pace."

Where's the outrage from the alleged fiscal consevatives?”

“if your attention span wasn't so minute, perhaps you'd remember that i've said many times that lots of conservatives think bush overspendsAND that bush really isn't THAT conservative fically. i should think that this would please yo since you support an unabashed tax-n-spender. bush is, IMO, using triangulation, like clinton did. he'smoving towards the center before the election. i mean if i'm a conservative and i have to pick between a republican big spender and a democrat big spender, it's really silly to think i'd pick kerry.

therefore you are wasting your time trying to turn conservatives against bush. they'll never vote for kerry. they might vote for a libertarian though. i have considered it.”

“Bush and the rest of the Republican stooges will bankrupt the country... and you will have elected them.

Congratulations.”

“I really think you should cast a protest vote and go for Badnarik in November strat.”

“V if you reread my post about Kerry's jetsetting ways you'll see that my point was the fact that Kerry passes (or tries to) himself off as a regular Joe. Bush doesn't and he never has. Besides, we all know it doesn't cost any more to get a pres around than it does a mere senator.

Swing and miss Skidmark. Try again.”

“You must go around with a sack over your head, Nigal.”

“Maybe but at least I can read. Your desire to try and make others mad supercedes your desire to learn. :P”

“I though Bush was running on that 'regular guy' image throughout the 2000 campaign...”

“How could he? there's nothing regular about him. Extraordinary yes, but regular? No.”

“Yeah. How many people can claim they are the #1 google result for both "miserable failure" AND "unelectable"?”

“Extraordinary yes, but regular? No."
Nigal
11:32:54 AM
06/01/04

Extraordinary??


Pleeeease expound on that. PLEASE.”

“How could he? Hell, I don't know, but that was used constantly through the campaign when he was compared to Gore...”

“Well, what you guys does make me stop and think...oh wait a tick, I forgot, I don't care what liberals think! Bawhahahaha! :)”

“English 101 for Nigal!!!”

“make that 099”

“I think the sponsorship decals are a little tacky too.


”

“Notice how even with a gigantic plane roaring by, the rednecks are fixated on the cars going around in circles.



By the way, I actually enjoy Nascar.






Okay Violin, at this point you say "Of course you do Stick"”

“You’re a walking stereotype. Have another Krispy Kreme.”

“Apple filled cinnamon please.”

“He doesn't disappoint, does he, Stick?”

“The sun comes up, the sun goes down, Violin uses his donut routine. Three things you can always count on to make sure the world is still alright.”

“Progress in Iraq
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Published: May 31, 2004






ARTICLE TOOLS


E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles








Columnist Page: William Safire
Forum: Discuss This Column

E-mail: safire@nytimes.com








TIMES NEWS TRACKER



Topics
Alerts

Politics and Government




Iraq








ASHINGTON — Have you read the encouraging headlines from Iraq? "Monthly U.S. Combat Deaths Down by Half in May" is one. "Radical Shiite Cleric's Militia Decimated in Holy Cities" is another, and finally: "Iraqi Leaders, Defying U.S. and U.N. Dictates, Choose Prime Minister."

No, those were not headlines anybody could see. In Gloomy Gus newsrooms, good news is no news. And as Handover Day arrives in a month, casualties may well rise, the semi-truce with al-Sadr's force in Najaf may break down ("decimated" means reduced by 10 percent), and — most likely — political bickering may break into the open in the selection of an Iraqi sovereign transition government. But consider the possibility, for a change, that on our Memorial Day, we have cause for cautious optimism.

Rather than admit this, our dovish defeatists have turned themselves into the hardest of hardliners. They ask: Why haven't we stormed Falluja instead of making a deal with the Sunni devils? Why don't we wipe out the Sadr Shiite rebels, as we threatened to do, even if it means shooting up mosques being used as arsenals?

Of course, if coalition forces were to crack down hard on the centers of insurgency and terror — as we should — the critics now going nyah-nyah would be asking: What about the hearts and minds of innocents caught in the crossfire? And what about the cost in U.S. lives? The "prophets of gloom and doom," in Adlai Stevenson's phrase, want to have bad news both ways.

But the naysayers were astounded, along with the U.N.'s Lakhdar Brahimi and the White House's Robert Blackwill, when Iraqi leaders started acting last week like Iraqi leaders. No thanks, they said to the U.N.-U.S. notion of an interim government of toothless technocrats, and rejected Brahimi's choice for the top slot. Like real politicians, they cut a few deals and chose one of their own — a secular Shiite, not an Islamist or a Sunni or a Kurd — to be prime minister.

Iyad Alawi is the Acceptable Arab. At the Ambrosetti conference in Italy last year, he and Adnan Pachachi — a Sunni in his 80's close to the Saudi royals — were the only Iraqis present. They spent most of their time in close consultation with Amr Moussa, head of the Arab League. Pachachi, whose exile ended with our overthrow of Saddam, was overtly ungrateful to the Americans.

Alawi, however, was noncommittal, so I plonked myself next to him at lunch and asked who was going to run Iraq after the U.S. left. He said only "I have a real political organization in Iraq." Mebbeso; at any rate, this tough-minded escapee from Saddam's assassins knows how to dicker with disparate colleagues and knew precisely when to make his move.

Present and former C.I.A. types, fresh from exacting their vengeance on their hated critic, Ahmad Chalabi, are telling media outlets that Alawi has always been their asset. This boasting by our leakiest intelligence agents is harmful to the presumptive prime minister because Alawi cannot let himself appear to be any outsider's puppet. But apparently some of our spooks feel that settling scores and falsely claiming credit takes precedence over U.S. and Iraqi interests.

Now the fast-fading three B's — Brahimi, Blackwill and Bremer — are joining with Alawi to put across Pachachi as figurehead president to appeal to the Arab League's Moussa. The Kurds, who have so far been outmaneuvered by Iraqi Arabs and, as usual, abandoned by our State department, prefer the younger Ghazi al-Yawar, sheik of the powerful Shamar Arab tribe and a businessman educated in the U.S.

The purpose of all this jockeying is to form an organization capable of holding an election in a country beset by Saddam loyalists and terrorists determined to block that election. This will take Iraqi politicians courageous enough to risk their lives, sensible enough to work closely with coalition generals to protect the voters from the killers, and persuasive enough to enlist many more Iraqis to join the fight for freedom.

Present Iraqi leaders like Alawi are clearly asserting themselves. We will not like all they insist upon. But they are lurching toward a democratic decision, and despite the hand-wringing of Gloomy Gus & Company, that's real progress.”

“Nice plane, LOL

A remember a comedian doing a routine like that... Saying that politicians should have to wear advertising sewn to their suits so we'd know who we're actually voting for.

Can't remember who it was, tho'. Either Bill Maher or the Late Great Bill Hicks, I'm thinking.

The big one for Dubya would probably be GENERAL ELECTRIC --- and Haliburton, of course.... NewsCorp....”

“Philadelphia Daily News Emdorses Kerry

LAST WEEK, the nation looked to the past with the death of President Ronald Reagan.

This week, the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush and John F. Kerry, suspended out of respect to the deceased 40th president, start fresh.

In that spirit, this newspaper, the first in the nation, endorses John Kerry for president. Unlike the current White House occupant, Kerry can lead America to a brighter, better future. He has shown the personal courage, compassion, intellect and skill to lead this country in a time of war abroad and economic troubles at home. He is a serious man for a serious time.

Why make this endorsement now, when the election is months away?

Because this race promises to be close and Pennsylvania is one of 18 swing states that can go to either candidate. For Kerry supporters to prevail they must do more than just vote, they must bring a ringer into this contest: the more than a million people in the region who did not vote in the last presidential election. We believe these non-voters - who will have to be mobilized over the next few months - are the key to victory.

On the next page, we outline a strategy to make sure Pennsylvania lands in the Kerry win column. We will further make the case for Kerry in future editorials.

For now, let's concentrate on the current president and why he must be defeated.

THE CASE AGAINST BUSH

George W. Bush received - and deserved - praise for his leadership during the dark days immediately following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

But since then, the Bush administration has been marked by failure - failure to shepherd the country through a tough economic downturn, failure to keep the nation focused on the true enemies to our security.

He has failed in even the one challenge he set out for himself at the beginning of his administration - to bring the country together. His has been one of the most ideologically driven and divisive administrations in recent times.

Instead of moving forward, the country has been on the wrong track. These last four years have been wasted.

Bush wasted the opportunity to lead an international movement against al Qaeda, the real terrorist threat. Instead he has led us, with false intelligence, into a senseless war. In less than two weeks, the United States will hand over control of Iraq to the Iraqis. But our troops will remain - and will have to remain for years to come.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, there was a sense of national unity. Bush wasted the moment by deciding to appease the most strident in his conservative base, opposing gay marriages, gagging abortion information and giving comfort to the more irresponsible voices in the National Rifle Association.

Bush was left with a trillion-dollar surplus at the end of the Clinton administration. The president took the money and wasted it with tax cuts for the wealthiest. As the deficits rose to record levels, the "tax cuts fix everything" ideology prevented his administration from changing what clearly is the wrong course.

While the last three months have seen an increase in new jobs, there still is a net downturn for the Bush years. Many of the new jobs pay less. Health- care costs are skyrocketing, the number of uninsured is rising. People are struggling and, in a second Bush administration, would struggle even more.

The Office of Management and Budget has warned federal agencies of big cuts to veterans benefits, Head Start and - yes - homeland security.

Conveniently for Bush's campaign, those cuts will occur after Americans vote Nov. 2.

THE CASE FOR KERRY

Given the challenges, whom should we trust to lead the nation for the next four years? The man whose incompetence helped create some of the problems?

No. We have a much better choice in Sen. John Kerry.

John Kerry's long life in the national spotlight has been defined by steadfast support for the principled and intelligent use of American power in the world. His proposals - not to mention the administration that he will create - promise new hope for America.

Like Bush, Kerry was born to wealth and privilege. Like Bush, he went to prep schools and then to Yale. But in little else since then has Kerry been like Bush, who acts as if his presidency is a birthright left over by his father.

Kerry acknowledges that his privileges left him with a responsibility to serve and an ambition to lead. And he has - from combat in the Navy, then as the cleancut (and therefore highly effective) leader of the Vietnam veterans' anti-war movement, as a prosecutor in Boston, and in four terms in the U.S. Senate.

He is not the indecisive waffler the Bush team would have you believe. Instead, he is offering a concrete, pragmatic direction for the nation.

On the issue of high unemployment he is proposing changing the tax laws that give U.S. companies incentives to outsource jobs to India and China.

Kerry promises to roll back the Bush tax cuts for people making more than $200,000 to help cut the federal deficit and help pay for his health-care program, which seeks to expand coverage. He will withdraw the special privileges given to polluting industries and the oil companies as we work toward freeing ourselves from dependence on oil from the Middle East.

On homeland security, Kerry understands that if we are attacked again, the first to respond will be firefighters and emergency medical teams, which have been largely ignored by the Bush administration. Kerry is proposing recruiting an additional 100,000 firefighters. Bill Clinton did the same with police during his term. Afterward, crime went down across the country. Coincidence? Hardly.

On Iraq, there's little evidence that Bush can enlist the international help necessary to bring more of our troops home. There's reason to believe that Kerry, who understands the human cost of war, will.

Kerry's personal style is, to put it mildly, reserved in public. But outside of the public eye, Kerry shows an engaging and energetic Yankee spirit as he rides a motorcycle, skis and snowboards, plays hockey and flies his own plane.

Because he respects the intelligence of the American people, he rarely talks in sound bites.

He understands that sound bites aren't solutions. Kerry's positions, while sometimes complicated, are grounded in reality, not in doctrines developed in think tanks.

He has surrounded himself with advisers, many from the Clinton administration, who have real-world experience on the economy, national security and on fighting terror. They know how to win wars. They did it in Bosnia and Kosovo, wars where we actually had an exit strategy.

Kerry, who fought in the swamps of Vietnam, can lead us out of the quagmire of the Bush administration - but for that to happen, he will need your help.

continued”

“errr...

Endorses”

“GO KERRY!! Kerry will get more endorsements that Bush. I heard on the news that an organization of former Diplomats and Military Offices dating back to the Truman Admin. endorsed Kerry and stated that Bush is unfit for office and we need a change in direction. They went on to say that Bush's foreign relations is a disqrace and a disaster. GO KERRY!!!!!”

“If John Kerry wins, I wonder if Alec Baldwin will move back to the United States?”

“I thought the Canadians bombed the Baldwins.”