SWIFT boat facts

[Dexter Rutecki]

Here's a good letter written to the GWB campaign coordinator, that makes clear some of the connections between Bush's campaign and the SWIFT boat liars.



Dear Mr. Mehlman:
For three weeks now, your campaign has been saying there are no ties between the Bush campaign and "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." But the web of connections grows wider and wider every day. Yesterday we saw confirmation of another connection when your general counsel, Benjamin Ginsberg, was forced to resign for providing legal advice for this group.

Enclosed you will find a chart that makes clear the web of connections between President Bush and the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Now that you have this chart and the accompanying fact sheet to back it up, I wanted to ask you several specific questions that deserve your prompt response.

1.Ken Cordier served on the Bush Veterans Steering Committee and also stars in the latest "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" smear ad. As a member of the steering committee presumably he was involved in policy development. What information about the Bush campaign's veterans policy did he share with the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?" Did he ever discuss his activities with this smear group with anyone in the Bush campaign? How many times did "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" activities come up at Bush Veterans Steering Committee meetings?
2.Yesterday on Fox News, Karl Rove confirmed that he and Bob Perry are longtime friends. Bob Perry is the largest contributor to the Texas Republican Party and a longtime supporter of President Bush. When was the last time Karl Rove and Bob Perry spoke, and did they discuss the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?"
3.Based on newspaper accounts, we know Merrie Spaeth was involved in the underhanded shadow campaign against John McCain in 2000. She also helped organize the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" and did the debate prep for President H. W. Bush. She has also admitted that she advised Bush administration officials in the White House as recently as last year. Was Merrie Spaeth ever contacted by anyone from the Bush campaign, including you, about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?"
4.John O'Neill's law firm, Clements, O'Neill, Pierce, Wilson & Fulkerson, has many connections to President Bush. In fact, Margaret Wilson, Mr. O'Neill's law partner, served as General Counsel to Governor Bush and followed him to Washington, where she worked as Deputy Counsel for the Department of Commerce. Did she ever discuss "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" with President Bush, members of his administration or any Bush-Cheney campaign officials?
5.If you say there's no connection, why did the Bush-Cheney campaign office in Florida pass out "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" flyers to promote a joint anti-John Kerry rally in Gainsville, Florida last weekend?
6.According to news reports, you have worked with "Progress for America," a newly formed 527 group that has announced it's going to spend $35 million to attack John Kerry and whose executive director is a top advisor to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Have you had any additional contact with this group? Have Karl Rove or other Bush officials -- either in the White House or on the Bush-Cheney campaign -- had contacts with this group?
7.How many times did Karl Rove and Benjamin Ginsberg meet? Did they ever discuss the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?"
These questions go to the heart of why so many people now believe that "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" is nothing more than a front group for the Bush-Cheney campaign. The longer President Bush waits to specifically condemn this smear, the more it looks like he's behind it.

It's time for the president to stand up and specifically condemn "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Not only is this a smear on John Kerry's distinguished military service; it's an insult to all veterans who've served their country.

The American people want to hear an honest discussion of the issues. They're concerned about the economy and the troubling situation in Iraq. Today, as we enter week four of this smear campaign, I'm asking you to talk to the president and ask him to heed Senator McCain's call and condemn this smear. The American people deserve better.

Sincerely,

Mary Beth Cahill


I would also urge everyone to go to the following web address and sign the petition there:

http://www.johnkerry.com/oldtricks

[Blurred]

Yes, Bush is an evil man. So is Kerry.....come to think of it, everyone is evil. Overthrow the government in Fall 2004. Good plan.

[EPSkis]

Scary John Kerry

Received this from 3 different people over the weekend...All 3 of whom happen to reside in Kerry's home State.

And a related link: Kerrylied.com

It would seem Kerry's earned his share of fans too, no? And he hasn't even sat in the hot seat.....

[Dexter Rutecki]

Originally posted by EPSkis
And a related link: Kerrylied.com

Yeah, that's courtesy of the same right wingers orchestrating the Swift boat revisionism, upset because Kerry told the truth about Vietnam. I can't believe it's even an issue--is there any debate at all about the morality of that war, or that our soldiers committed atrocities? It's pretty much a settled issue--them trying to exact vengeance today, truth be damned, is low even for Republicans.

[EPSkis]

So lemme get this straight:

It's OK for Kerry & the Dems to align themselves with Michael Moore, but it's perfectly unacceptable for Bush & the Right to align THEMselves with people who served directly WITH John Kerry in VietNam?

Kettle? Meet pot.

[Grange]

Originally posted by EPSkis
So lemme get this straight:

It's OK for Kerry & the Dems to align themselves with Michael Moore, but it's perfectly unacceptable for Bush & the Right to align THEMselves with people who served directly WITH John Kerry in VietNam?

Kettle? Meet pot.

True. Both parties are guilty of "working" with the 527's so the idea of one party acusing the other for the same thing they are doing is sad. Both sides spew misconstrued facts or outright lies like the ones the swiftboat ads. But what is even worse is that the media is eating this crap up, which is taking focus off the important issues such as the raping of the environment, rising debt, and lack of affordable healthcare. This can only help the President since focusing on his overall record would hurt his chance for re-election.

[fez]

and of course no one can question Bush's vietnam era military record, there are no witnesses who saw him for much of the time and all the records have disappeared.

edit for url:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...-service_x.htm

second edit: semantics for EPskis

[EPSkis]

Originally posted by Grange
True. Both parties are guilty of "working" with the 527's so the idea of one party acusing the other for the same thing they are doing is sad. Both sides spew misconstrued facts or outright lies like the ones the swiftboat ads. But what is even worse is that the media is eating this crap up, which is taking focus off the important issues such as the raping of the environment, rising debt, and lack of affordable healthcare. This can only help the President since focusing on his overall record would hurt his chance for re-election.

Agree 100% except for the last part.

His overall record is what will GET him re-elected. The focus is being pulled AWAY from his overall record. Though it can be debated 'til we're blue in the face, the overall economy is up, unemployment rates are the lowest they've been in decades, mortgage rates absurdly low, new housing starts in record numbers, steady increase in GDP since 2000, which showed only minimal growth for the 8 years prior, etc. , etc. etc.

[EPSkis]

Originally posted by fez
and of course no one can question Bush's vietnam record, there are no witnesses who saw him for much of the time and all the records have disappeared.

Well, that would be because GWB served in the ANG, not Vietnam.

edit: The obligations to which - he fulfilled. All pertinent records have been released.

It can be bickered about whether he did as MUCH as he should have done WHILE in ANG service. I suppose there could be a legitimate gripe there. (But for what?)

[Stu Gotz]

Originally posted by EPSkis
Well, that would be because GWB served in the ANG, not Vietnam.

But did he?

And the reason that interest rates remain stuck at historical levels is because the economy is spitting the bit. Four point two-three percent. That's the only number that you should care about right now. That's the 10-year Treasury, and the fact that it yields 4.23% tells you that the economy is decelerating, not accelerating.

[basom]

i always find it hard to swallow when people on this board get all pro bush. his enviornmental stance alone is enough to get anyone who wants their children to be able enjoy the same wilderness areas as they have angry.

we hang out here to share our experiences in the wilderness (of course i realize that lifts, snomo's, helos, driving to and from, the gear, all take oil and use nat reasources), why would anyone vote a guy back in who continues to put untouched wilderness into the hands of the oil and gas companies and threaten many animal species and ecosystems?

i belive you can be a repub and be pro enviornment, but can you be pro bush and pro enviornment?

whats harder to explain to your kids: why the president lied about getting a BJ? or: Why there are is no more amazing wildlife or old growth?

its just wierd to me. take either stance on war, doesnt matter, both are respecable if spun correctly. economy same deal. taxes. you can argue this stuff all over the place. how anyone from this board can buy into dubs enviornmental stance is compleatly beyond me.

[Grange]

Originally posted by EPSkis
Agree 100% except for the last part.

His overall record is what will GET him re-elected. The focus is being pulled AWAY from his overall record. Though it can be debated 'til we're blue in the face, the overall economy is up, unemployment rates are the lowest they've been in decades, mortgage rates absurdly low, new housing starts in record numbers, steady increase in GDP since 2000, which showed only minimal growth for the 8 years prior, etc. , etc. etc.

Statistics can be made to say what ever they want. The ones I have seen show that the number of people living in poverty has increased, between 1.4 and 5-6 million will loose overtime pay, the majority of the tax cuts have gone to the wealthy, there is still a net loss of jobs, and with the last job numbers shown the econonmy is slowing down again.

I'm not much for arguing politics on the internet because all you have do is use a search function to state more stats that support your agument and I will then come back and state stats the directly refute your stats. It's a no win situation. That and there are others here who do a better job at this than me.

One thing that I find disturbing is that your argument says "minimal growth 8 years prior", what about the 4 years before that? I think that if Clinton's record was switched with W. Bush's record most peoples alliance the party wouldn't change. I guess a perfect example is the war time service. Clinton avoided Vietnam and got roasted by the Republicans. Bush avoids Vietnam and he gets roasted by the Democrats. Replace Dick Cheney with Bush if one wants to argue that joining the Nat'l Guard wasn't avoiding Vietnam.

[EPSkis]

Originally posted by fez
and of course no one can question Bush's vietnam record, there are no witnesses who saw him for much of the time and all the records have disappeared.

edit for url:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...-service_x.htm

Man - any more spin, we'll end up with gold.

The briefest of searches turned this up:

Also released was a memo the White House requested from Retired Lieutenant Colonel Albert. C. Lloyd Jr., a former personnel director for the Texas Air Guard during the time of Bush's service. Lloyd said of the payroll and personnel records, "This clearly shows that 1LT George W. Bush has satisfactory years for both 72-72 and 73-74 which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner."

***"Clearly shows". But not clear enough, right? I just don't understand the tactics of some of these people. You hear - "Hey, GWB was only in the ANG, he never even SERVED in the military!" But they'll make a stink about his measly ANG service, which he completed.......Huh?***

Lloyd was later interviewed by the Boston Globe , which questioned whether Bush had met "minimum training" requirements in addition to "minimum retirement" credits. The newspaper said Guardsman are required to serve 15 days of active duty to meet training requirements. The Globe quoted Lloyd as saying of Bush: " Should he have done more? Yes, he should have. Did he have to? No."

***We're (almost) all adults, right? We're (almost) all at least FAIRLY well educated, right? Go to College? Anyone who has knows what an incredibly tough road that is to hoe.. Well - that's what GWB did. Fulfilled his obligation to the ANG at the same time he was trying to get through Harvard Business School. Much as I personally couldn't stand WJC, I won't take away the fact that the guy's a Rhodes Scholar. Why does Bush get slammed for attending Harvard, instead of getting even the slightest nod of credit for doing so? Don't get this one.***

The records also show that Bush was credited with very little service during the period when he was in Alabama working on the unsuccessful 1972 Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blunt. Bush was paid and also got retirement credit for 30 days in the first four months of 1972, through April 16. But then begins a six-month gap.

***Finally! The good stuff!***

During those six months Bush got permission from his National Guard superiors to attend non-flying drills in Montgomery. Also during that time he was officially grounded after he failed to take an annual physical examination required to maintain flying status. But the records show Bush received no pay or credits between April 16 and late October.

***Let me read that closely again. He had permission from his Superiors to attend drill in Montgomery. Should it NEED to go any deeper than this? Not really. When your Superiors speak, it's law - whether you're in Vietnam or KP duty in Hawaii. But go ahead & dig deeper. He missed a physical & was grounded because of it. He didn't get paid, and he didn't receive credits. Now - even through THAT - he still had enough credits, which means that he fulfilled his ANG obligation. Some could complain about HOW he did it - but the bottom line is that he finished it. So what is it NOW? Are they gonna gripe about the fact that he didn't go to Vietnam & call him a "draft-dodger", while belittling his ANG service
OR:
Are they going to do the only other thing they CAN do - which is to make his ANG service so profoundly important that it deserves a Congressional committee?***

Well - we ALL have our answers to that one, don't we? Mold the questions to whatever suits your intent.

Weak.

[Buster Highmen]

Originally posted by EPSkis
Agree 100% except for the last part.

His overall record is what will GET him re-elected.

That, my man, is a matter of debate. But it's clear that at least you and I have very different values in many regards. I won't bother to list them.

The focus is being pulled AWAY from his overall record.

Exactly.

Though it can be debated 'til we're blue in the face, the overall economy is up,

Up, relative to what? Certainly not relative to 1998.

unemployment rates are the lowest they've been in decades,

Where do you get your statistics? This is simply not true for engineering and scientific positions. It may be true for fast food technicians. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

mortgage rates absurdly low,

True, thanks to Greenspan. There's a few economists who don't think this is a very good idea.

new housing starts in record numbers, steady increase in GDP since 2000, which showed only minimal growth for the 8 years prior, etc. , etc. etc.

You can cherry pick your statistics. But GDP growth is down to 2.8%, our trade deficit is ballooning and is now the largest in history @ 55.8 billion, the dollar is the weakest it's been in decades in world markets. I can go on independent of the Patriot Act, Iraq, Guantanamo, Ashcroft, Poindexter, surveillance of citizens, etc.

At the root, we have different values. Fine. But Kerry and the Democrats did not start picking at Bush's lack of military record, his DWI conviction, his drug use, cheerleading or his wife's vehicular homicide. It was the Republicans that started this one.

And if you bring up Michael Moore, I'll up you Rush Lindbaugh, for you can either be a pot smoking liberal or a pill popping conservative.

[EPSkis]

Originally posted by basom
i always find it hard to swallow when people on this board get all pro bush. his enviornmental stance alone is enough to get anyone who wants their children to be able enjoy the same wilderness areas as they have angry.

we hang out here to share our experiences in the wilderness (of course i realize that lifts, snomo's, helos, driving to and from, the gear, all take oil and use nat reasources), why would anyone vote a guy back in who continues to put untouched wilderness into the hands of the oil and gas companies and threaten many animal species and ecosystems?

i belive you can be a repub and be pro enviornment, but can you be pro bush and pro enviornment?

whats harder to explain to your kids: why the president lied about getting a BJ? or: Why there are is no more amazing wildlife or old growth?

its just wierd to me. take either stance on war, doesnt matter, both are respecable if spun correctly. economy same deal. taxes. you can argue this stuff all over the place. how anyone from this board can buy into dubs enviornmental stance is compleatly beyond me.

I have serious issues with GWB's environmental stance. This isn't about that. Frankly, it boggles my mind how he can be so incredibly short-sighted when it comes to environmental issues.

Yep, I'm a Republican. Pro-Bush? Well - haven't made up my mind about that yet.

So you know where I'm coming from:

You say "whats harder to explain to your kids: why the president lied about getting a BJ? or: Why there are is no more amazing wildlife or old growth?"

My answer? To have to explain EITHER to a child is bullshit.

[Crinkle]

<--- pot smoking liberal

[basom]

Originally posted by EPSkis
I have serious issues with GWB's environmental stance. This isn't about that. Frankly, it boggles my mind how he can be so incredibly short-sighted when it comes to environmental issues.


My answer? To have to explain EITHER to a child is bullshit.

so how can you justify voting for him?

and you already have to explain the first one, why give yourself more of a chance to have to explain the second?

makes no sense.

[CUBUCK]

Where do you get your statistics? This is simply not true for engineering and scientific positions. It may be true for fast food technicians. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

I believe this stat should actually read that unemployment is under the 30 year average. It is also at the same point if not slightly below what it was when cluinton was reelected in 1996. As far as interest rates go I would hardly call their low levels an indication of a poor economy. The increases in rates June and August point to economic growth rather than a slowing of the economy.

Lastly, a weak dollar is not always a bad thing. It makes american goods more competitive in over seas markets. This means swinging the trade balance around and creating more jobs for americans.

I don't mind the numerous other arguments that people make against president bush. The economy is just one I feel he has generally done well with.

[EPSkis]

Originally posted by basom
so how can you justify voting for him?

and you already have to explain the first one, why give yourself more of a chance to have to explain the second?

makes no sense.

I'm not justifying voting for anyone.

If you're weighting the stance on environmental issues as the single biggest factor when YOU'RE going to the polls, that's fine. Incidentally - what are ANY of Kerry's stances on the environment? (Not that it matters - tomorrow's another day. )

[basom]

Originally posted by EPSkis
I'm not justifying voting for anyone.

If you're weighting the stance on environmental issues as the single biggest factor when YOU'RE going to the polls, that's fine. Incidentally - what are ANY of Kerry's stances on the environment? (Not that it matters - tomorrow's another day. )

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/...vironment.html

John Kerry is calling for a New American Prosperity based on his view that our economy is best served by forward-looking environmental policies that protect our health, our lands, and our jobs. Our economic strength as a nation – and Americans’ deeply rooted love and respect for our magnificent resources – depends on our commitment to clean air, clean water, and our quality of life.

Throughout his career, John Kerry has been an environmental leader, fighting on our behalf to clean up toxic waste sites, to keep our air and water clean, and to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other pristine wilderness areas. The League of Conservation Voters has called Senator Kerry an “environmental champion.” In addition to supporting important environmental initiatives, John Kerry has turned a spotlight on the Bush Administration’s rollbacks of our hard-won environmental gains and their outdated, old-economy notions that clean air, clean water and our national treasures must be sacrificed in the name of short-term profit.

As President, John Kerry will set a new standard of environmental excellence for America. He will vigorously pursue an agenda that will honor America’s special treasures and pay tribute to her heritage, while renewing our nation’s promise of clean air, clean water and a bountiful landscape for all. John Kerry recognizes that we owe it to our families, our communities, and to our planet to unapologetically pursue our environmental values. Unlike the Bush-Cheney Administration, where special interests rule and the environment suffers, a Kerry Administration will build its policies around citizens’ needs and aspirations.



- and it seems to me you are into bush as a cantidate EP. why else would you put so much effort into defending him?

[Will]

Republicans are having a hard time distinguishing between negative and/or hard-hitting ads and ones that peddle demonstrable falsehoods -- i.e., smears.

Name a single anti-bush television advertisement that has lied.
go on... do it. I dare you.

Michael Moore may present uncomforable facts in an embarassing way, and I sure as hell don't think he's gives equal air time to both sides, but he doesn't outright lie. MoveOn (which is a PAC, not a 527, and there is a difference between the two - we know who funds MoveOn.) also presents embarrassing quotes and film clips of republicans, but they don't need to make shit up.

The SBVT do need to make things up. Every single navy report confirms Kerry's account. None of those navy reports has ever been contested until now. Even the medal citations for some of the anti-kerry vets support Kerry's account; why did the sbvt take 35 years to challenge the truth of their own medal citations?
Some of the SBVT used to support Kerry, and even publicly confirmed his war record (back before he was running for president)!

George Elliot, one of Kerry's superiors in Vietnam, gave SBVT a sworn affidavit that questioned whether Kerry deserved to win a Silver Star. But, Mr. Elliot later withdrew that affidavit and issued another one that said he had no "firsthand information that Kerry was less than forthright about what he did to win the Silver Star."

Patrick Runyon, who provided a statement about the mission for which Kerry was awarded his first Purple Heart, found the interest in his views to be more partisan than neutral. When his statement was returned for his signature, he told the New York Times, references to being fired on had been removed. "It made it sound like I didn't believe we got any returned fire… He made it sound like it was a normal operation. It was the scariest night of my life," he said.

Clackamas County Oregon prosecutor Alfred French signed an affidavit declaring that he knows Kerry is lying about his record in Vietnam. French also appeared on the Swift Boat ad declaring Kerry lied about what happened. French later admitted that he had no firsthand knowledge of Kerry's actions and was relying on stories from friends. He is now being asked to resign by local veteran's groups.

William Schachte, one of Kerry's superiors at the time nowsays that he was present at the incident that earned Kerry his first purple heart (and that Kerry didn't earn it). Funny, he didn't mention anything of the sort when the Boston Globe interviewed him about Kerry's first purple heart back in 6/03. Also funny, the two other men whose presence on the boat is confirmed by Navy documents (unlike Schachte) deny that Schate was there.

We've got ads where people claim to have "served with Kerry" and that Kerry lied about "what happened in vietnam". What that means of course is that they too were in vietnam at the same time as Kerry, and they categorically deny that any atrocities occured in vietnam (My Lai?) so Kerry's 1971 senate testimony was false.
Gosh, from the way it was presented is seems like they're saying that they were present at the incidents where he earned his medals.

Then of course, there's the group's leader John O'Neil who's been caught in so many "factually challenged" situation I've lost count. He says swift boats didn't go into Cambodia - then changed his mind once it's pointed out that he told Nixon that his swift-boat was in cambodia!

-----------------------------------
So... again: please point to an anti-bush TV ad that lies.

And, oh yeah, Bush is doing a great job with the economy, just ask the economists.

Also this

[Stu Gotz]

Nothing to see here.

I don't want to get into a yield curve debate.

[Buster Highmen]

Originally posted by CUBUCK
I don't mind the numerous other arguments that people make against president bush. The economy is just one I feel he has generally done well with.

But what of fiscal conservancy? Is it outmoded?

The ballooning of the national debt is of questionable merit. As far as the weakened dollar, sure that's good for selling goods, but sucks for the consumer as a whole. Moreover, for foreign investment, on which the U.S. is very dependent, a weak dollar is bad news.

Our investing for the future in research, development and cutting edge science is badly hurting as well.


But back to the Swift Boat issue: It's stoopid politics, detracting from the real issues of the Constitution, personal freedom, the economy, Iraq, Musharref and bungling catching al Qaeda.

[The AD]

Originally posted by EPSkis
Though it can be debated 'til we're blue in the face, the overall economy is up, unemployment rates are the lowest they've been in decades, mortgage rates absurdly low, new housing starts in record numbers, steady increase in GDP since 2000, which showed only minimal growth for the 8 years prior, etc. , etc. etc.

But you were just griping a couple weeks ago that you haven't gotten a raise in four years! Let's see, oh yeah, that's back when Clinton was in office

I could see you trumpeting how great the economy is under Bush's regime if you were really benefitting, but it doesn't sound like you have. Oh, maybe your boss and the CEO of your company have made out like bandits and that's good enough for you.

[EPSkis]

Originally posted by basom
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/...vironment.html

John Kerry is calling for a New American Prosperity based on his view that our economy is best served by forward-looking environmental policies that protect our health, our lands, and our jobs. Our economic strength as a nation – and Americans’ deeply rooted love and respect for our magnificent resources – depends on our commitment to clean air, clean water, and our quality of life.

Throughout his career, John Kerry has been an environmental leader, fighting on our behalf to clean up toxic waste sites, to keep our air and water clean, and to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other pristine wilderness areas. The League of Conservation Voters has called Senator Kerry an “environmental champion.” In addition to supporting important environmental initiatives, John Kerry has turned a spotlight on the Bush Administration’s rollbacks of our hard-won environmental gains and their outdated, old-economy notions that clean air, clean water and our national treasures must be sacrificed in the name of short-term profit.

As President, John Kerry will set a new standard of environmental excellence for America. He will vigorously pursue an agenda that will honor America’s special treasures and pay tribute to her heritage, while renewing our nation’s promise of clean air, clean water and a bountiful landscape for all. John Kerry recognizes that we owe it to our families, our communities, and to our planet to unapologetically pursue our environmental values. Unlike the Bush-Cheney Administration, where special interests rule and the environment suffers, a Kerry Administration will build its policies around citizens’ needs and aspirations.



- and it seems to me you are into bush as a cantidate EP. why else would you put so much effort into defending him?

Yeah - he's 1 of 2 candidates. I don't feel that I'm so much "defending" GWB, as I am pointing out some of the issues that get conveniently ignored. By the left.

Dex - I'm as much of a Rush fan as I am an Ebola virus fan. You believe Moore makes valid points, just like I believe Limbaugh makes valid points. TED NUGENT makes valid points, but some people have a problem with his delivery. Touche`.

Back to Basom in the studios:

Well - I refer you to the Environment segment of the State of the Union Address:

"Our third goal is to promote energy independence for our country, while dramatically improving the environment. I have sent you a comprehensive energy plan to promote energy efficiency and conservation, to develop cleaner technology, and to produce more energy at home. I have sent you Clear Skies legislation that mandates a 70-percent cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years. I have sent you a Healthy Forests Initiative, to help prevent the catastrophic fires that devastate communities, kill wildlife, and burn away millions of acres of treasured forest.

I urge you to pass these measures, for the good of both our environment and our economy. Even more, I ask you to take a crucial step and protect our environment in ways that generations before us could not have imagined.

In this century, the greatest environmental progress will come about not through endless lawsuits or command-and-control regulations, but through technology and innovation. Tonight I'm proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles.

A single chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen generates energy, which can be used to power a car -- producing only water, not exhaust fumes. With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom, so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free."

I know, I know - the Healthy Forests Initiative. Well, it should also be stated that the Wilderness Society and Sierra Club also came up with a plan that involved an INCREASE in prescribed burns to reduce potential fuel for fires.

I don't think the INTENT of the program has met the PERCEPTION that was created by the left. It should be monitored closely by Authorities outside the Government, IMO.