Once Stalin made a short speech. The listeners for twenty-five minutes applauded standing. Then it was a packet of discs: one with the speech and about 15 with applauds (only applauds!). It is told that history returns as a farce. It became true in Cannes. Why people applauded to Stalin one can understand – they wanted to escape brutal tortures. How the farce was organized in Cannes is not understandable. The ones who applauded have seen the movie and know how much it has lie, slander, and dishonest shuffling. It is difficult to believe that it was not a carefully organized performance.


Journalists in the Cannes (specially chosen for their performance) openly told the people who spoke against the Moore movie that they are here for collecting the positive opinions. Moore openly admitted that all was done to get rid of Bush.


Does not the “reputable” psychiatrist know what will happen if his approach would be applied for Bush’s opponents or even for him personally? On his couch would be seen much uglier pictures as in his libel. He knows for sure!


In his own interview, the author said that he would not cure Bush. He betrayed the Hippocratic Oath. Then he added that this is done to force Bush to resign. It follows that he is not a doctor but a political activist of the worst kind. In addition, very qualified psychiatrists stated that there is no man whom it is impossible to diagnose as seriously ill mentally.


In my opinion the President should be defended from rude abusing. E.g., President Bush is often named as Hitler or Stalin. This is evidently vulgar juggling with facts. Any President in a democratic society has no possibility for such behavior and would lose his position long before he’ll start to behave as Hitler or Stalin. The distance between the Presidents in democratic societies from Hitler or Stalin is much greater than the distance between the authors of such insinuations and the ugliest rats in the dirtiest sewage. Those rascals know this; that’s why they say this and are not afraid to be awfully tortured. It seemed that without such ugly lies they cannot find defects in our President.


Any president is not perfect, but in the same time, any president is a clever and gifted man, no matter if it is Stalin, Hitler, De Gaulle, Clinton, or even Saddam Hussein. On the other hand, bloody dictators simply cannot become Presidents of democratic societies by their nature. In addition, the election procedure and reality in democratic countries does not allow potentially bloody dictators to become presidents and to keep their position. This was proved by history. Only untruthful provocateurs may speak in such a way about presidents of democratic countries.


What big money is thrown against the existing USA government! Some sources are already partially known: Saddam Hussein spent billions only for bribes (!!!) to organize anti-American and the first of all anti-Bush campaigns: who else?  Who first uses this for profit? – Bush’s opponents for elections.


After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Saddam’s bribes are the largest financial operation against the US (do not forget about money used, but not tracked in documents). The goal of these operations is to create an unstable situation in the USA; to create as much as possible anti-American behavior in the world. Do “democrats” understand this? – Sure! Do they fight this? – No! They blame Bush that due to Saddam’s bribes and their mass media some criticize the USA. With or without using the bribes directly they behave as if they are paid; exactly as Saddam expected from the ones who received those bribes. Kerry named the ones who fight Saddam a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed." He knows that Saddam‘s bribes and terrorist support is on his side and against the ones he abused in a way as a impudent hooligan.


Mass media and Hollywood are playing a central part in this. Do not touch the peaceful Iraq! What a good life the Iraqi people had under Saddam (according to M. Moore). Against Bush he is ready to say any muck. Against Saddam he is afraid even now. How mass media searched for the rich in Bush’s team! Now, when super-rich are bursting into the White House with support of billionaires mass media are silent. Did mass media compare Clinton’s “military” record to his opponents’?


For Moore Saddam’s Iraq is an excellent, peaceful country. He is not a fool; he would prefer to live in the free world where it is possible to create so-called “documentary” movies. Documentary is not something filled with lies. Even the 9/11 commission (which is not on the Bush side) finds lies in Moore’s “documentary”. Was Iraq tied to terrorists? – No! Is Iran tied to terrorists? – No! Moore states this. For him the concealing of terrorists’ paths through Iran and Iraq is not evidence of participation in the actions of terrorists (including 9/11). The concealment of this fact makes Moore an accessory as well. Moore forgot about the bribes Saddam paid: billions to different politicians and others, but (as Moore states) not a penny to terrorists. Why: because this is not fixed in their passports and in Saddam’s documents. From the title of Moore’s film “Fahrenheit 9/11” it follows that one of it’s goals was to whitewash the instigators of terrorism and slander those who commence war on them (first of all Bush).


One fact is completely forgotten by mass media. In Iraq were found big movable laboratories which were partially dismantled and buried. Meticulous journalists are not interested in questions like: what was dismantled from those laboratories; who and why buried them; are those laboratories the ones which ran away before UN inspectors visited, and so on. How can mass media suspect Saddam?! He (as showed by Moore) is, as Stalin was, a devoted father of his citizens.


Just before the war Saddam honored medals (and perhaps something else?) on a group of high Soviet (sorry Russian) military generals. Is mass media interested in this? No! This is related to the bribes, but the mass media are against Bush just as the ones receiving the bribes. Is this anti-American behavior completely disinteresting?


The national security adviser under Clinton broke the law by taking some classified documents. Part of them he was forced to return, but some he “occasionally” threw out. I am far from a supposition that those documents had a plan for supporting terrorists. But I am even further from a supposition that the President’s national security advisor does not know the rules about secret documents. In this case the notion State Security at Clinton times loses its meaning. But the crucial point is: how the 9/11 Commission can make any conclusions without stressing that their conclusions are not complete due to the escaping of documents.


How much was written about the questioning of Condoleezza Rice. But the main participants in the tragedy were Clinton’s surrounding. Now it is seen that there was no national security in Clinton times. And the documents, which can prove this, are stolen. But the mass media masks this with unrelated sensations.


Perpetual glory to the noble and honest madness of the brave! But the President and Commander in Chief must have wise, powerful, and sober mentality. This is necessary for choosing qualified and honest advisers. Does this quality mostly define the wisdom of the President? The advisers should be chosen in such a way that it would not be necessary to distance from them in the most critical time, e.g. as Kerry and Berger.


History shows that brave people are seldom wise. On my knowledge, only two really brave young men became state rulers. Both became bloody dictators: Stalin and Hitler. Are there others cases and any in democratic countries? Democrats found out that Berger may be harmful. They made some leak of information to get rid of him. It does not show any cleverness or wisdom; Kerry knew this all long before. By the way, it may happen that Kerry has nothing to do with the brave. Bush was not in Vietnam, Kerry was not by his own will. I do not want to discuss the speculation how he got his wounds and how serious they were; how long he was cured in the hospital. I want to remind that the first day he had possibility to escape Vietnam he used it. He has no right to speak about others participation in that war. Start to compare his military record with the Clinton’s one.


After Vietnam Kerry started a campaign about the bestiality of Americans there. He abused American medals due to that brutality. He did not give any evidences, but abused the USA and all participants in that noble war against communist expansion. This may happen because his doings were based on his personal behavior in Vietnam. Shame on you Mr. Kerry! History shows that the majority of big politicians profiteer with false rewards. This may explain why Kerry could mix his medals with dirt. He complains that the advertisements about him on TV are dirt. But there are only quotes, he better knows what a dirt are his doings!


Mass media and Hollywood are guilty for creating such public opinion in the US much more than Goebbels for the public opinion in Fascist Germany. Even with his billions Saddam did not expect such an effect, which “democratic” mass media created by one-sided and biased news. E.g., could Saddam expect for a demand to resign the Minister of Defense? Mass media proposed to make Abu Ghraib as a monument of US (not Saddam’s!) brutality. Is this all happening due to Saddam’s bribes? Here are two crimes: against humanity and against Bush administration (Did Bush create the US army from zero?).


Mass media and Hollywood are the only ones who openly and systematically influence the public opinion in our country. The fact that they deny this may only lead to a conclusion: that they do it intentionally and by some plan. On the other hand, it is so one-sided that it is difficult to escape a supposition that it is directed (and paid) from one source. The crime against humanity is that they show the bloody Saddam regime as better than the American one. The crime against Bush is that they are using the conclusion of the first crime against the Bush government.


When Kerry pressed the TV not to show the trustful advertisement mass media are silent - why? They forget about freedom? They do not speculate what he would do when in power. Kerry told that Bush must stop it – he is sure that the president can do such things. And what about demonstrations organized by democrats with the “kind” slogans? What is the Kerry’s opinion?


If there was a Democratic (not Republican) President in time of the Iraqi war, then at the remembering of the 60th-year of landing in France the mass media would have continuously repeated that in only one operation thousands of Americans lost their life. They would say: How our President takes care about every American life! The long war in Iraq with such a devious enemy and is it possible to compare losses? One can object that a democratic President would not start such a war. Carter did nothing, and Clinton was capable of a random powerful strike to somewhere. This, on my knowledge, is the only case in American history of provoking terrorist strikes back. Bush, after analysis, started the war with the guilty ones.


The participation in the First World War started by Wilson (DEMOCRAT), the participation in WW2 started by Roosevelt (DEMOCRAT), the participation in the Korean War started by Truman (DEMOCRAT), escalation of Vietnam War started by Johnson (DEMOCRAT). The war with terrorism, the only war USA could not escape was not started by Clinton (DEMOCRAT). And this is the only war when the casualties outside the battles are much greater than the ones in the battles.


When Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear installation there was a noise, but all, including Iraq, understand that it has some reasons. If instead, Israel bombed an Iraqi military airbase there would be a military respond for sure from Arab countries. In response to a terrorist attack, bombing a plant, as was done by Clinton, provoked slogans for revenge. If instead of this Clinton analyzed the situation (as Bush did), then the only valid option would be to start the war with terrorism much earlier. The WTC would still be standing, and the thousand burned alive would still be living. Does the honorable 9/11 Commission understand this? – Of course!


If the USA would not have interfered in the Kuwait war, then, with a big probability, today there would have been a new Great Power. It would include Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and others. The order would be as in the Taliban Afghanistan. To deal with it would cost millions of lives. But today on those territories is a hunt for those murders. Hawks (as Qaddafi) are changing into pigeons.


Conquering Kuwait would make it easier for Iraq to do the same with other rich but small and militarily weak countries. Next it would be easy to win the war against Iran, and so on. All humanity and Americans first must be thankful to the Bushes. Thanks to them and to Reagan it became possible to have such low casualties in the war with Iraq. Thanks to them we’ll have in the nearest future an SDI. Thanks to them it would not be necessary to start a war with any bandit state, no matter how small it is, to prevent an atomic blackmail. This is proposed by democrats: to prevent an atomic strike without SDI. How? Europe completed nearly all terrorist demands, but receives new ultimatums.


Where are the mass media to shout about all of the above?


Really, where are the mass media and Hollywood to shout about all of the above?


Not we the Americans came to the Arab countries with death and fire. They, at least majority of them, came to our home with a cruel war. They try to enforce the Taliban regime’s order to the entire world. They danced with joy when in the WTC tower thousands burned alive of innocent people. They, with cruel terror, force to distance other countries from the USA. Only American people did not stand on their knees, and with President Bush are in the way of terrorists. I am sure that the USA has more than enough possibilities to win the war with terror. But I am ashamed e.g., for (proud in some times) Spaniards.


Where are the times of “from Seville to Granada …”? Where are those brave and proud people? Do the Europeans believe that distancing themselves from the USA they would get security? No! Step by step they would be forced to behave as it was in Taliban Afghanistan. Their enemies do not hide their goals. The antiwar activists, especially women, should first stop going to universities and so on. Their behavior is like the behavior of soviet KGB agents. But some of them had in the USSR more possibilities than ordinary soviet citizens too. Are those girls promised to have under Taliban some freedom? Who promised it? Moore? Do not believe him!


I want to stress: the bribes were distributed by Saddam and others long before the war. Kerry is using the situation created by Saddam. In reality he is criticizing the policy of Clinton and himself. Not in an hour was prepared the WTC attack; the FBI was from Clinton times; Kerry voted for the war; and so on. But for him all the same: in front of Jews he promises support against Arabs, in front of Muslims he is against Israel, in front of blacks… The only goal is votes.


Would Kerry have any chance if starting from an empty space? No! Saddam’s bribes, the sponsors of terrorism money created an anti-Bush platform. Democrats put Kerry on this platform (an anti-American platform). Mass media do not stress who created the platform; that democrats and Kerry, in particular, did not add anything sensible to those platform. What is the difference between their slogans or that of Saddam’s or Moore’s or North Korea’s?


I want to remind once more that the criminals spent billions to get rid of Bush. Terrorists are doing anything they can to do the same. Instead of fighting with their crimes the democrats are using the situation created by them. Saddam’s bribes were part of their election campaign finances.


From The Week, “48% of Americans think that it’s likely that terrorists will attack the U.S. before November to try to influence the election results.” From U.S. News and World Report: “Since Spain, al Qaeda has had the feeling of ‘We can do this. We can affect an election.’” It’s interesting that our enemies (terrorists) prefer Kerry. The obvious conclusion is that we should act contrarily to the interests of our enemies, since by definition; our enemies want the worst for us. The money was robbed by bloody dictators and by other criminal means. Did the robbers-criminals give bribes to honest people? No, the bribes were taken by criminals. Every honest person must fight this, but democrats do not! They use it for their goals. Who would say that in such situation democrats are not a part of a campaign whose source is criminal money? Don’t forget that Kerry gathered less than about $300 million but just the bribes from Saddam sum up to many billions. (Not from his personal account but from his country’s wealth, e.g. the UN program food for oil).


Should the citizens of the United States of America vote as it is dictated by money of their enemies?  

                         Ilya Kogan, New York, July 2004    please, copy and distribute.