Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet Clinton Library DOCUMENT NO
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet Clinton Library DOCUMENT NO. SUBJECT/! ITLE DATE RESTRICTION AND TYPE
001. email To Mary U. Binns, from White House root, re: Yesterday's Mail for 07/25/1999 b(6) POTUS [partial] (1 page)
COLLECTION: Clinton Presidential Records Automated Records Management System [Email] WHO ([JFK, Jr]) OA/Box Number: 500000 FOLDER TITLE: [07/24/1999-07/25/1999]
2017-0713-F bgll9 RESTRICTION CODES Presidential Records Act -144 U.S.C. 2204(a)| Freedom of Information Act -15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
PI National Security Classified Information 1(a)(1) of the PRAj b(l) National security classified information 1(b)(1) of the FOIAj P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office 1(a)(2) of the PRAj h(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of P3 Release would violate a Federal statute 1(a)(3) of the PRA| an agency 1(b)(2) of the FOIAj P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute 1(b)(3) of the FOIAj financial information [(a)(4) of the PRAj b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial PS Release would disclose confidential advice between the President information 1(b)(4) of the FOIAj and his advisors, or between such advisors (a)(5) of the PRAj b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy 1(b)(6) of the FOIAj personal privacy 1(a)(6) of the PRAj b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes 1(b)(7) of the FOIAj C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of of gift. financial institutions ((b)(8) of the FOIAj PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C. b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information 2201(3). concerning wells 1(b)(9) of the FOIAj RR. Document will be reviewed upon request. RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Slate Magazine
CREATION DATE/TIME-.24-JUL-1999 07:25:00.00
SUBJECT: SLATE MORNING DELIVERY: Sat., July 24, 1999
TO: Joshua S. Gottheimer ( CN=Joshua S. Gottheimer/OU=WHO/0=EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT: SLATE MORNING DELIVERY: Sat., July 24, 1999
“today's papers: Money Talks
--readme: Go to Hell--The Gospel according to George W.
“Culturebox: Blame Blockbuster, Not the MPAA
today's papers
Money Talks
By Maura Kelly
"America's two largest stock markets, the New York Stock Exchange and the Nasdaq market, are moving quickly to convert from non-profit institutions to for-profit corporations," begins the New York Times lead. The LAT goes with the news that, after 1996's Taiwan Strait crisis, the Clinton administration quietly began forging an extensive military relationship with Taiwan. The Washington Post leads a piece on the tax bill the House recently passed and a similar one the Senate's considering.
The House bill contains almost $100 billion in direct tax breaks for business. Among those designated for tax breaks: Multinationals, small business owners and investor Warren Buffett. The Republican-sponsored plans would cut nearly $800 billion in taxes over the next 10 years. The Post waits till the seventh paragraph to mention the bills need to be "sharply scaled down" before Clinton signs it -- wimpy wordy considering Clinton said earlier, "I will not allow a risky plan to become law." Environmental and consumer groups are irked by the bills' concessions to oil, gas and nuclear utilities, though some, er, tree-huggers are happy about a provision allowing timber companies to write off the replanting costs.
The uneasy relationship between the U.S. and China could be further disrupted by the Taiwan news. The Pentagon now has "a considerably more intimate relationship with Taiwan than with China" says the LAT piece. Clinton's administration authorized the Pentagon to engage in dialogue with Taiwan's armed forces to an extent unprecedented since 1979. (Carter's administration severed ties with Taiwan in 1978. The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act required the U.S. to provide Taiwan with weapons to defend itself) Clinton administration officials explained that their intent was to reduce Taiwan's sense of isolation, gain a better sense of Taiwan's armed forces and respond to a pro-Taiwan Republican-dominated Congress.
Yesterday, the New York Stock Exchange confirmed yesterday that it plans to go public by mid-November, says the NYT piece, and Nasdaq announced a Thursday review of a plan that could result in its going public by early next year. "[HJealthier, better financed, more adaptable American markets" could result, says the piece - without explaining how. But the rush to go public "leaves unanswered for now some key questions about how to regulate these markets and contain their near-monopoly power." For-profit stock exchanges have grown in number since 1993 in Europe and the Far East but none exist in the U.S. yet.
WP fronts a story on an Internet communication called instant messaging. It allows users to send notes that pop up in a box on the screen of a recipient with the necessary software as they are being typed. Until Thursday, when Microsoft Corp. announced its MSN Messenger, America Online's Instant Messenger was the only widely-known instant messaging product. However, others existed, like one put out by Prodigy, developed with the idea that AOL supported communication between different systems. Microsoft says its Messenger, unlike AOL's, would allow users to communicate with users of either product. Twice on Friday, AOL blocked Microsoft users from sending messages to AOL users. Though the computer industry had urged AOL to publish technical details of its Instant Messenger to allow other firms to develop software compatible with it, the WP piece claims AOL refused because it "wants to control the messaging market."
NYT's off-lead coverage of the same out-does its WP analog. First, it more clearly explains the technology and does so earlier. Second, it reports facts neglected by the WP. Yahoo also introduced messaging software on Thursday that could also send messages to AOL users. AOL claimed Microsoft and Yahoo violated its copyrights and trademark. The piece explicitly points out the irony in Microsoft's argument that AOL "is using its exclusive technology to prevent fair competition based on open standards," which is "exactly the complaint from Netscape that prompted ... [the] antitrust suit against Microsoft". A discrepancy between the two pieces: NYT says that last month AOL blocked a similar product put out by Prodigy; WP says Prodigy was notified Friday by AOL that Prodigy users would no longer have access to AOL's service.
WP is alone in fronting word that a U.S. Army plane taking "pictures of coca cultivation and scout[ing] for cocaine-producing laboratories" was reported missing yesterday. It's the "first reported disappearance of U.S. military in Colombia" though Pentagon and Colombian authorities have been cooperating for years — WP should say how many - to battle narcotics.
The LAT is alone fronting news that 14 Serbian farmers were shot to death Friday night in the deadliest incident since NATO got to Kosovo last month. No suspects have been apprehended.
The NYT off-leads, and the others front, news of JFK Jr.'s memorial Mass at Manhattan's Church of St. Thomas More. The three Clintons, eeonomist John Kenneth Galbraith, historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Muhammad Ali and hip-hop star Wyclef Jean were among the attendees. In his eulogy. Senator Edward M. Kennedy recounted what his nephew said after being asked what he would do if elected President: " 'I guess the first thing is call up Uncle Teddy and gloat.' I loved that. It was so like his father."
Also in today's Slate http://www.slate.com
Super-Mourner: John Kennedy's Necropublicist http://www.slate.com/Assessment/99-07-22/Assessment.asp
Clinton Spins the Tax-Cut Debate http://www.slate.eom/framegame/entries/99-07-23_32403.asp
The Shopping Avenger Brawls With U-Haul http://www.slate.com/ShoppingAvenger/99-07-22/ShoppingAvenger.asp
readme
Go to Hell: The Gospel according to George W.
By Michael Kinsley
In his current Slate "History Lesson" column, David Greenberg compares George W. Bush and John Quincy Adams. John Q.-as he was not known—is the only president's son so far to become president himself Historian Greenberg finds many parallels but some differences. For example, Q. suffered a "lifelong case of clinical depression," whereas W. has come to "believe that all Jews are bound for hell." While the parallel is unclear, these are certainly two different things. As someone who has long suspected he might be Jewish (based on circumstantial evidence such as his bar mitzvah), I found this latter datum especially interesting. And, of course, it is remarkable to learn that George W. has actual opinions on any subject, let alone strong and controversial ones.
Unless you're a political junkie, or live in Texas, you may have missed this story. The press have reported it, but not with the neurotic intensity you might expect. Why not? Conservative press critics often complain that the media ignore the importance of religion. This may be a case in point, though not one those critics are likely to complain about. Second, there is the inoculation phenomenon: Once a story has "been done," editors and producers don't want to do it again. So, getting it done small is protection against finding it done big. Finally, there may be a feeling among journalists that the whole thing's a bum rap. Which it is and it isn't.
There's no evidence that George W. is an anti-Semite. After college he was even engaged briefly to a half-Jewish woman. Some have suggested that Bush may have dumped her because her father was Jewish, but there's no reason to think he didn't know that all along, if he cared, so the episode weighs in against the anti-Semitism charge, not for it. Bush has had many Jewish business partners and friends. If he believes they're all going to hell, he hasn't held it against them in this life.
So what does he believe? Like the Gospel tales themselves, the story of Bush's views on Jews has several variants. In 1993, discussing his decision around age 40 to accept Christ as his personal savior. Bush told a Houston Post reporter that-as the reporter paraphrased it-"heaven is open only to those who accept Jesus Christ." So at worst. Bush never condemned Jews specifically to hell specifically, but rather condemned most of humanity (anyone who doesn't accept Christ) to what may be, depending on your point of view, a wider geographical area (anywhere outside heaven). I'm not sure if that's better or worse.
Here's where the gospels differ. According to Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard, Bush says his mother then called Billy Graham to straighten him out. Graham advised him to "never play God" by ruling on who gets into heaven. But according to Sam Howe Verhovek of the New York Times, Bush says Graham's intervention occurred earlier, during an informal theological discussion at the Bush Sr. White House. And according to Ken Herman of the Austin American-Statesman, Bush actually made his 1993 comment in the course of recounting the Graham episode. In this version, the evangelist's advice was slightly different: "Graham generally agreed with the theory but cautioned against spending much time worrying about it. Bush said."
So, where does this leave us? If Billy Graham actually convinced Bush long beforehand that we don't know who gets into heaven, then the Houston Post report of 1993 was flat-out wrong and Bush didn't believe Jews were shut out of heaven even at the time. But Bush has never denied the accuracy of the reporter's paraphrase. Nor, needless to say, has he adopted Version 2 of Graham's advice by declaring that Jews won't get into heaven, but he's too busy to care. Bush now answers all questions on the subject of heaven and its admission requirements with this catechistic formulation: "It is not the governor's role to decide who goes to heaven. I believe that God decides who goes to heaven, not George W. Bush."
This won't do. I'm afraid. It was good enough to get him a kosher certification from the Anti-Defamation League, but it makes no sense. No one is asking Bush to "decide" or "rule on" who gets into heaven. We can stipulate that God decides. (Some people—most Jews, for example—believe in God, but not in heaven. Few, if any, people believe in heaven, but not in God.) The issue is whether God has an admissions policy that excludes Jews and whether George W. has an opinion about what that policy might be.
Surely he does. "My faith tells me that acceptance of Jesus Christ as my savior is my salvation, and I believe that," Bush says. Does he think that this principle only applies to him? Does he think that it's possible for others to achieve salvation without accepting Christ? Even nonrecruiting religions such as Judaism claim to be more than just a personal taste or preference. Born-again Christianity claims to be the right answer to the most fundamental questions. So how can Jews possibly get into heaven without converting? Only two ways that I can see. One is if God allows exemptions. But to avoid offending any religious or nonreligious group, the exception would have to be that anyone who does not accept Christ need not accept Christ, which would destroy the rule. The other way out would be if the entire belief system permits doubt about itself-for example, if it's only 50-50 that accepting Christ is mandatory for salvation for anybody, including George W. himself. Neither of these conditions applies to George W.'s faith, as he describes it.
And so what? Why should anyone care whether he or she will achieve salvation by the terms of someone else's religion? What difference does it make if you can't get into a heaven you don't believe in? As a nonbeliever, I find the conventions of ecumenism baffling. I don't want to tell you people how to run your religions. And obviously we want to avoid an outbreak of religious war, or even lesser forms of intolerance, if possible. But why does tolerance require people to pretend they don't believe what they do? Wouldn't tolerance be easier if it only required agreement to disagree peacefully rather than demanding actual sharing of religious doctrines at some level of abstraction? After all, if Bush really believes that accepting Jesus is the only path to salvation, he is pulling a pretty dirty trick on Jews by telling them otherwise. Putting votes before souls: Talk about political expediency!
George W. is lying either when he professes his faith or when he denies its implications. Or he hasn't really thought it through, which itself would cast doubt on the depth of his faith. But 1 doubt this particular dishonesty will keep him out of heaven, since it is imposed on every politician-and even every clergyman with ambitions.
To be sure, there is a certain joy in watching a pol caught in pandering gridlock. Bush plays up his born-again faith to the religious right. He uses it even more than bona fide Christian-right pols do, as Fred Barnes points out, in order to allay suspicions that he may be moderate or indifferent on social issues. Then he has to fudge his faith so that people who don't share it won't take it seriously.
And if he gets this balancing act wrong, he must pander even more furiously to make it up. Going for a twofer a couple of years ago. Bush "confided" to Washington political columnist Andrew Glass that "he enjoys hanging out with country music singer [can you guess? well, obviously ...] Kinky Friedman, who wrote [uh-oh] 'They Ain't Making Jews Like Jesus Anymore.' " Does W. agree with this sentiment? Does he have some problem with the quality of Jews being produced in America today?
culturebox
Blame Blockbuster, Not the MPAA
By David Edelstein
Earlier this week, members of the Los Angeles Film Critics Association condemned the Motion Picture Academy of America for refusing to grant Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut an R rating without a bunch of ludicrous digital alterations during a ritualized orgy. Yippee: another occasion for bashing the ratings board. 1 saw the picture before the fig leaves were applied and the sequence in question was no more erotic than dental surgery—but that's neither here nor there.
My point is that the film critics are blaming the wrong party. The villains in this scenario are not the anonymous fuddy-duddies who sit on the ratings board but the sanctimonious hypocrites who preside over some of the country's largest video and media chains. These are the people who treat any film rated NC-17 as leprous. NC-17 was originally meant to eliminate the pom-related stigma that came with the earlier X rating. But the very same chains that refused to carry ads for X films refuse to carry ads for NC-17fllms. With a film held hostage by Blockbuster et al. any studio with, say, $50 million to $100 million on the line feels compelled to hack at their movie and play footsie with the MPAA until they get their R.
Take Blockbuster, which prides itself on being a "family video store." A stroll through the aisles will take you past displays of such wholesome fare as Meat Cleaver Massacre, as well as innumerable soft-core made-for-video serial-killer-stalking-models-in-lingerie flicks. You have to wonder whose family the store caters to-the Mansons? But Blockbuster and other such outfits have, with the help of the MPAA, given themselves a veneer of righteousness while trafficking in the same kind of sleaze as every other entertainment conglomerate. That's capitalism.
In a column for Daily Variety, Roger Ebert argues that a new rating, A—something between R and NC-17-would allow audiences to see the original cuts of movies such as Eyes Wide Shut and would "provide a category for adult films that would be acceptable to theater owners and advertising outlets." He goes on: "Theaters would not shun them. Everybody understands the concept of an adults-only category. And because NC-17 would remain in business, newspapers, TV stations, and theaters would remain free to discriminate against it."
I wish I could support Ebert's suggestion but I'm not so sure that A would work. Wasn't that the purpose of NC-17 to begin with? And does Ebert really trust the MPAA to distinguish between films that have artistic merit and those that don't? Eyes Wide Shut might be a no-brainer because of the Kubrick imprimatur, but what about South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (a title whose second meaning allegedly passed straight over the MPAA's heads)? Before cuts for its R, there were allegedly lines about sex with the Almighty. A or NC-17? How long before Blockbuster and those big newspaper chains announce that they won't be carrying ads for A films?
The larger issue is what the MPAA's distinctions say about our culture. In its press release, the Los Angles Critics Association note the disturbing "double standard the MPAA continues to maintain when it comes to sexual and violent movie content... The PG-13 rated movie. Wild Wild West, for example, opens with a 'humorous' decapitation, and the PG rated movie. Star Wars: Episode 1-The Phantom Menace, contains numerous violent deaths." I'm fond of citing Albert Brooks' experience in 1985 with Lost in America because it so gorgeously encapsulates the issue. The MPAA gave the film an R rating because of a scene in which Brooks' protagonist babbles to his wife (Julie Hagerty) that he wants to "fuck" her over her office desk. That's unacceptable, said the ratings board, because "fuck" is used in a "sexual context." Brooks pointed out that if the character, instead of saying, "I want to fuck you over this desk" had said, "I want to fuck you over with this desk," the film could have gone out with a PG-13.
But if the MPAA is puritanically intolerant of sex, it also has peculiar notions of "acceptable" violence. A director who frequently tangled with the ratings board told me an instructive story. He did some research on fistfights and discovered that a lot of them last one punch: In real life, one person's nose gets broken and the other person's hand gets broken. There's a lot of blood. I once watched a friend get his nose broken in a (brief) fistfight and it remains one of the most ghastly things I've ever seen. Now, let's pretend I want to film such a fight for the purposes of making violence realistically horrible-so that anyone who sees it will think twice about getting into a fight. 1 put in the sound of cartilage being crunched and show the bright red blood pouring out of someone's nose, and 1 give you a close up of the other person's broken fingers beginning to swell. Agony, right? And very likely--if 1 do my job correctly--an NC-17. Too explicit for children. Now let's pretend I decide to restage that fight and make it painless-ten punches back and forth, Popeye-style, with no blood and both guys walking away unblemished. That's a G, folks. The lesson for kids is that violence is funny and bloodless and without real consequences.
It really won't matter if it's PG-13, R, NC-17, or even A until we figure out just what it is that we wish to protect children from. The next step is to ask ourselves what's wrong with a cinema exclusively for adults—and why we can't seem to keep from stigmatizing it.
The Internet's informed look at politics and culture - SLATE. What Matters, (http://www.slate.com)
E-mail delivery is for SLATE subscribers only. To receive SLATE e-mail deliveries, sign up for an annual subscription and get four weeks free. Cancel at the end of the four weeks and pay nothing. Or, continue with SLATE and we'll charge you $19.95 and send you a thank-you gift. To subscribe to SLATE now, go to http://www.slate.com/subscribe/evening.asp or call (800)706-3330.
SLATE subscribers can add or remove themselves from any SLATE delivery by going to our "E-mail Delivery Services" page at http://www.slate.com/code/reg3/emailservices.asp and checking or unchecking the appropriate boxes. See SLATE Member Services at http://www.slate.com^ode/reg3/memberservices.asp for additional information about SLATE.
This delivery powered by Exactis.com http://www.exactis.com
Copyright (c) 1999 Microsoft and/or its suppliers. All rights reserved. RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Sean P. Maloney ( CN=Sean P. Maloney/OU=WHO/0=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME:24-JUL-I999 18:16:14.00
SUBJECT: NOAA Event: Evelyn Fields Assumption of Command ceremony
TO: Maureen A. Hudson ( CN=Maureen A. Hudson/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ-.UNKNOWN
TO: Daniel W. Burkhardt ( CN=Daniel W. Burkhardt/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT: see attached ---- Forwarded by Sean P. Maloney/WHO/EOP on 07/24/99 06:15 PM
Maria Echaveste 07/23/99 06:42:01 PM Record Type: Record
To: Sean P. Maloney/WHO/EOP@EOP cc: Marjorie Tarmey/WHO/EOP@EOP Subject: NOAA Event: Evelyn Fields Assumption of Command ceremony
Sean-we wanted to see if you could accomodate the request below given the tremendous work that NOAA did on the Kennedy search-I really hope that we can do it. ---- Forwarded by Maria Echaveste/WHO/EOP on 07/23/99 06:15 PM
Anne W. Bovaird 07/23/99 06:00:50 PM Record Type: Record
To: Maria Echaveste/WHO/EOP@EOP, Marjorie Tarmey/WHO/EOP@EOP cc: Thurgood Marshall Jr/WHO/EOP@EOP, Kris M Balderston/WHO/EOP@EOP, Anne E. McGuire/WHO/EOP@EOP, Richard L. Siewert/WHO/EOP@EOP Subject: NOAA Event: Evelyn Fields Assumption of Command ceremony
While Thurgood realizes that this is short notice, he hoped that we would be able to do a presidential message to commemorate the formal Assumption of Command ceremony for Rear Admiral Evelyn Fields as she assumes the position of director of the NOAA Commissioned Corps and the Office of NOAA Corps Operations on Tuesday, July 27 at 9:30am at the Washington Navy Yard. As you know, the NOAA Corps was an integral part of the search and rescue/recovery operation which successfully located the wreckage from the aircraft piloted by John F. Kennedy, Jr. and enabled the Navy divers to recover the victims. In fact, one of the two NOAA hydrographic survey ships which participated in that search, the Whiting, will play a role in the Assumption ceremony. Thurgood feels that this would be an important and timely opportunity for the President to again publicly thank the NOAA Corps for their great efforts in the search for the Kennedy plane.
Since we only learned of this ceremony in the midst of the past week's efforts to recover the Kennedy aircraft, we realize that we have not allowed the proper amount of advance notice required for a presidential message, but we hope that you will be able to assist in securing a letter for this important event.
FURTHER BACKGROUND:
RADM Evelyn Fields was confirmed by the Senate on May 6 as director of the NOAA commissioned Corps and the Office of NOAA Corps Operations, which is composed of officers and civilians. Adm. Fields is the first woman, and first African-American, to be named director. She began her career at NOAA as a civilian hydrographer at the Atlantic Marine Center in 1972 and became a commissioned officer in 1973 - the first African-American woman to do so. She was also the first woman to command a NOAA ship, McArthur, as well as the first woman to command an ocean-going federal ship for an extended period.
On Saturday, July 17, NOAA was called upon by the U.S. Coast Guard to provide its hydrographic capabilities and expertise and assist in the search for JFK Jr.'s missing aircraft, and diverted two ships - the Rude and the Whiting - to search the seafloor. It was the Rude that located the position of the wreckage, enabling Navy divers to find and recover the fuselage and bodies.
Please note that Secretary Daley and Deputy Secretary Mallett will both participate in the assumption ceremony, and we hope to have Thurgood attend as the White House representative as well. RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: White House root
CREATION DATE/TIME:25-JUL-I999 00:12:37.00
SUBJECT: Yesterday's mail for POTUS
TO: Mary U. Binns ( CN=Mary U. Binns/0U=WH0/0=E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT: The attached file is ASCII text. - pr0725.new ======ATTACHMENT 1 ======ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 00:00:00.00
From nobody@wwwl .whitehouse.gov Sat Jul 24 00:31:26 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id AAA0983 9 for
[Connection Information]
CLIENT: 205.188.192.54[205.188.192.54] BROWSER: Mozilla/2.0 (compatible; MSIE 3.0; AOL 4.0; Windows 3.1) URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Mail/html/Mail_President.html
[Sender Information] PERSONAL-NAME: Thelma Diane Elwin EMAIL-ADDRESS: [email protected] ORGANIZATION: n/a RELATIONSHIP: STREET-ADDRESS: 526 Sorrell CITY: Corpus Christi STATE-PROVINCE: Texas ZIP-CODE: 78404 COUNTRY: United States of America
[Message Information]
PURPOSE: Express congratulations, thanks, or condolences TOPIC: No Answer AFFILIATION: Private Citizen SUBJECT: USCG/JFK Jr/media
[Message]
Dear Mr. President, I would like to express my gratitude to you for making the decision to use the USCG in continuing their search for JFK Jr., his wife and sister in law. I agree totally with your decision and thank you for taking a stand and letting the world know, that it was your decision. He was very much a part of "America's Family". In discussions with family, friends & co-workers, everyone feels the same way. Everytime the news comes on, I get teary-eyed. I felt the same way, when Jackie died. My generation grew up with John & Caroline and feel a tremendous loss. Also, something needs to done about the media. Using fancy lenses to get shots of Caroline in mourning at her home through the trees & brush is wrong. Very wrong. There needs to be a line drawn. Let Caroline speak, when she is ready to do so. Leave her & her family alone to mourn & go outside & play with kids in peace. Many thanks, Thelma Elwin
From [email protected] Sat Jul 24 01:26:30 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id BAA2698 1 for
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
-Boundary_(ID_aRGc/KyGi6tpbMf5HBhaSA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Please let us know when you plan on telling the truth.
—Boundary _(lD_aRGc/KyGi6tpbMf5HBhaSA) Content-type: MESSAGE/RFC822
Return-path:
Recipients— Please use this list to contact mass media and ask them why crucial evidence about the JFK Jr. plane crash is being withheld from the public by government agencies, with the apparent acquiescence—even assistance-of mass media outlets.
NewsHawk Inc.
FAIR'S Media Contact List Let your voice be heard! Talk back to the media.
Index to this document:
Network Television Public Broadcasting National Newspapers Magazines
Network Television
ABC
ABC News 47 W. 66 St., New York, NY 10023 Phone:212-456-7777 Fax:212-456-4297 D.C. Bureau phone: 202-222-7777 General e-mail: [email protected]
ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings: Phone: 212-456-4040 E-mail: [email protected]
Nightline: 1717 DeSales St., NW, Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-222-7000 E-mail: [email protected]
PrimeTime Live: Phone:212-456-1600 E-mail: [email protected]
20/20: 147 Columbus Ave., 10th fl. New York, NY 10023 Phone:212-456-2020 Fax:212-456-6533 E-mail: [email protected]
ABC's Good Morning America: 147 Columbus Ave., New York, NY 10023 Phone:212-456-5900 Fax:212-456-7257 E-mail: [email protected]
CBS
CBS News 524 W. 57 St., New York, NY 10019 Phone:212-975-4321 Fax:212-975-1893 D.C. Bureau phone: 202-457-4321 GeneralEmail:[email protected]
CBS Evening News with Dan Rather: Phone: 212-975-3691 or 202-457-4385 Fax:212-975-1893
CBS This Morning: Phone:212-975-2824 Fax: 212-975-7133 or 212-975-2033
60 Minutes: 555 W. 57th St., New York, NY 10019-2985 Phone:212-975-2006 Fax:212-757-6975
60 Minutes II: Phone:212-975-6200
CNN
CNN One CNN Center, Box 105366, Atlanta, GA 30348-5366 Phone:404-827-1500 Fax:404-681-6363 E-mail: [email protected]
CNN Washington Bureau 820 First St. N.E., Washington, DC 20002 Phone: 202-898-7900 Fax: 202-898-7923 E-mail: cnn[email protected]
Crossfire: Phone: 202-898-7655 Fax: 202-898-7611
Larry King Live: Phone: 202-898-7690 Fax: 202-898-7686 NBC
NBC 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10112 Phone:212-664-4444 Fax:212-664-5705
NBC's Washington Bureau 4001 Nebraska Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20016 Phone: 202-885-4200 Fax: 202-362-2009
NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw: Phone: 212-664-4971 or 202-885-4259 Fax: 202-362-2009 E-mail: [email protected]
NBC News' Today: Phone: 212-664-4249 or 202-885-4231 Fax: 212-664-4426 E-mail: [email protected]
Dateline NBC: Phone:212-664-7501 Fax:212-664-7073 E-mail: [email protected]
Public Broadcasting
PBS
PBS 1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: 703-739-5000 Fax: 703-739-0775
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer: 3620 South 27th St., Arlington, VA 22206 Phone:703-998-2150 E-mail: newshour@pbs.org
NPR
National Public Radio 635 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20001-3753 Phone:202-414-2000 Fax:202-414-3329
All Things Considered: Phone:202-414-2110 E-mail: [email protected]
Morning Edition: Phone:202-414-2150 Fax:202-414-3329 E-mail: [email protected]
National Newspapers Los Angeles Times Times-Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053 Phone: 800-528-4637 or 213-237-5000 Fax:213-237-4712 E-mail: [email protected]
New York Times 229 W. 43rd St., New York, NY 10036 Phone:212-556-1234 Fax:212-556-3690 D.C. Bureau phone: 202-862-0300 E-mail: [email protected]
USA Today 1000 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22229 Phone: 800-828-0909 or 703-276-3400 Fax: 703-247-3108 E-mail: [email protected]
Wall Street Journal 200 Liberty St., New York, NY 10281 Phone:212-416-2000 Fax:212-416-2658 E-mail: [email protected]
Washington Post 1150 15th St., NW, Washington, DC 20071 Phone: 202-334-6000 Fax: 202-334-7502 E-mail: [email protected]
Associated Press 50 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10020 Phone:212-621-1600 Fax:212-621-7520 D.C. Bureau phone: 202-776-9400
Magazines
Newsweek 251 W 57th Street, New York, NY 10019 Phone:212-445-4000 Fax:212-445-5068 E-mail: letters@newsweek.com
Time magazine Time & Life Bldg., Rockefeller Center, New York, NY 10020 Phone:212-522-1212 Fax:212-522-0323 E-mail: [email protected] U.S. News & World Report 1050 Thomas Jefferson St., Washington, DC 20007 Phone: 202-955-2000 Fax: 202-955-2049 E-mail: [email protected]
FAIR wants to hear about your media activism. Please send copies of your letters to journalists to
FAIR 130 W. 25th St. New York, NY 10001
Contact FAIR:
FAIR Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting 130 W. 25th Street New York, NY 10001
Tel: 212-633-6700 Fax:212-727-7668 E-mail: [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] mothers@salon .com [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ctc-news@tribune .com [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] thomason@c lark.net [email protected] letter@twtmai 1 .com [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected], [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
-Boundary_(ID_aRGc/KyGi6tpbMf5HBhaSA)-
[email protected] Sat Jul 24 01:30:31 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id BAA2770 6 for
[Connection Information]
CLIENT: 208.226.189.145[208.226.189.145] BROWSER: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.0; Windows 95) URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Mail/html/Mail_President.htmI [Sender Information]
PERSONAL-NAME: Ramona Hill EMAIL-ADDRESS: [email protected] ORGANIZATION: U.S. Citizen RELATIONSHIP: STREET-ADDRESS: P.O. Box 9027 CITY: Incline Village STATE-PROVINCE: NV ZIP-CODE: 89452 COUNTRY: USA
[Message Information]
PURPOSE: No Answer TOPIC: No Answer AFFILIATION: Private Citizen SUBJECT: JFK Jr.
[Message]
Mr. President, I want to thank you for extending the search for John Kennedy Jr. As a child of the JFK era, it was important to me personally that his body be recovered. It was humane and decent to do so and not to be afraid of criticism or charges of preferential treatment. You saved his sister from always wondering.
From [email protected] Sat Jul 24 01:46:32 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id BAA0350 4 for
From: BILLY CUNNINGHAM SR. 1205 WASENA TERRACE S.W. ROANOKE, VA. 24016
President Clinton:
HI [PRESIDENT] BILL, I WAS SO GLAD YOU WENT THE EXTRA MILE IN THE RESCUE AND SALVAGE OF THE KENEDYS AND MISS BISSETT. I KNOW YOU DID NOT HAVE TO GO THAT ROUTE ,BUT I AS AMERICAN
[ OLD MAN 66 RETIRED ] GLAD YOU DID. IF YOU HAD NOT DONE SO SALVAGE HUNTERS WOULD HAVE BEEN ALL OVER THE PLACE IN NO TIME.THIS FAMILY HAS BEEN THRU ENOUGH AS IT IS. I WISH I HAD TEDDY'S ADDRESS OR HIS E-MAIL ADDRESS I WOULD LOVEW TO SEND HIM MY REGRETS ALSO. HEY BILL BOY, I’LL CALL YOU BOY HE,HE, I AM MUCH OLDER THAN YOU. I SURE WISH YOU COULD RUN FOR PRES. AGAIN. I KNOW YOU HAVE HAD A ROUGH ROAD ALSO, BUT I AM PROUD TO CLAIM YOU AS MY PRESIDENT, AND FEEL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY ARE DEAR FRIENDS. MY HOUSEHOLD LOVE YOU ONE AND ALL. YOUR FRIEND ALWAYS, BILL CUNNINGHAM SR. LORA CUNNINGHAM PHONE [540]344-7636.
Sincerely,
BILLY CUNNINGHAM SR.
[email protected] Sat Jul 24 01:53:33 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id BAA0562 9 for
CLIENT: 208.254.88.I4I[208.254.88.I4I] BROWSER: MoziIIa/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; MSN 2.6; Windo= ws 95; DigExt) URL: http://www.whitehouse.govAVH/Mail/htmI/Mail_Presi= dent.html
[Sender Information]
PERSONAL-NAME: Bonnie Franklin EMAIL-ADDRESS: [email protected] ORGANIZATION: =20 RELATIONSHIP: =20 STREET-ADDRESS: 8327 Maid Marion’s Trail CITY: Lakeland STATE-PROVINCE: FL ZIP-CODE: 33809 COUNTRY: =20
[Message Information]
PURPOSE: Express congratulations, thanks, or condolences TOPIC: No Answer AFFILIATION: No Answer SUBJECT: poem on JFK Jr "An Uncrowned Prince"
[Message]
AN UNCROWNED PRINCE We lost this day an uncrowned prince Taken from us in his=20 prime As fate did lift him from this earth Before reaching=20 the age of 39=20
And with the news reports of wreckage being sighted upon the=20 sea Our hearts grew faint and with them our spirits' did=20 speak: How could this be? How could it be true? How could=20 this unspeakable tragedy be happening to you?=20
This little boy we had come to know Jackie's little John=20 John - a prince from long ago Bom into another land, another=20 place, another time Bom into a family we loved - a home=20 which was frozen in time=20
Pictures of a little lad picked up by his dad As they did walk upon the sand together hand in hand Now it=20 seems that father and son are together once again For today=20 it's been announced the dreaded reports have been confirmed=20 true The undreamable, the unthinkable, has happened to you.=20
Once again a nation does weep Once again with poems and=20 flowers the people do seek To share in the pain and the=20 tragedy there Our hearts are so heavy=20
The load is just too much for one family and nation to bear
How could this happen to the one who had grown up =46rom that little boy we had come to love and know almost as=20 our own? Did we not sense the purpose and direction and=20 destiny there? Did we not hope that in his father's footsteps=20 this little one==20
Would pick up the torch and continue down the path that his=20 father shared?=20
Did we not somewhere deep inside hope that within this young=20 man=20
Our nation could recapture a happier and more simple time As=20 once again truth and justice and equality were deemed right, =20 As once again the paths of men did join to fight=20
The cause for what was good and right.
Did we not in the back of our spirits and minds See the leadership and gifting of the father Along with the grace and beauty of his mother Dancing within=20 the heart and the eyes of this son=20
As his life did take shape and design? So many hopes and so many dreams have been stirred in our=20 hearts this day As we discovered with dismay=20
That the lights have gone out in Camelot in such a way Though=20 the king and queen have long since gone,=20
In the passing of the son we have laid all our torches down =20 And Camelot lays dark and empty inside=20
There is no one stirring as outside we do mourn and cry. The loss of a President - the loss of a dream A time where=20 lords and ladies were commonly seen=20
In the banquet halls and gathering rooms of the leaders of the=20 land Leading with such grace, beauty and honor=20
We were so proud to think of them as our king and queen back=20 then.=20
And now that their son has so tragically left our land Never again to walk out under the stars or sail among the=20 waves of the sea Or climb the tall mountains or cross the=20 land=20
Of rich meadows and endless streams This strong tall one=20 afraid of no man or earthly king In one brief moment his life=20 was shattered And in one brief moment ended a country's=20 dream.=20
The dream of being led as a nation by "a king" once again A=20 king of men's hearts, mens lives, hopes and dreams One who=20 would champion the cause of their children and their wives =20 One who would care for the downtrodden, and their pains and=20 their plights A champion of champions; a prince of a king =20 Loved by a nation, and the world now, too it seems=20
For the eyes of the nations are wet with tears And the=20 hearts of the world are united this day Not in a day of=20 rejoicing or in a day of triumph But a day of sadness and=20 grieving and pain. This day is a day of mourning as another=20 of earth's royalty to rest is laid Bom in the spirit of=20 Camelot this young man was the seed=20
Of a hope and a dream of the peoples of the world; For did they not wish to see her resurrected again And play a role in the governing of men? And on this day, as the family does make way for a burial at=20 sea=20
That his spirit may find peace out upon the waves Within our hearts and minds the questions are raised For=20 within the peoples of the world there is no peace. "How can=20 it be? "Why, oh why?" we do say; "Please, God not again; why=20 is it happening this way?"=20
Yet for one brief moment Lord, may you let us take a peek =20 Into the clouds of Heaven and see what the Angels can hear and=20 see For standing there inside the pearly gates may be a royal=20 precession As this treasured prince is now to be welcomed in.=20
Who has come to welcome this young one? Who is standing at=20 the Lord's side? But the leaders of the armies of heaven As=20 well as family and friends who've gone by=20
Princess Diana of the Windsor family And President George of=20 the Washington family tree And of course President John=20 Fitzgerald and his queen, Jacqueline All have stood to=20 attention=20
As John the young prince is escorted in Walking through Heaven's gates with his beautiful wife on arm=20 Comes the young John Jr. - now a prince to live among the=20 stars And through our own tears and heaviness of heart=20
It is almost as if we can see him turn and say,
"Daughters of earth, and sons of man. Why do you weep and cry so for the death of one man? For can=20 you not see to what this so called tragedy has brought me? =20 For once again I am reunited with my living hero and dad For=20 being reunited with my father is the greatest dream I ever=20 dreamed=20
And the greatest gift I've ever had! This is the one gift=20 that no one on earth could ever get for me or buy To have my=20 earthly father back at my side. I wouldn't give him up now to=20 go back to the earth below For now that I've finally found=20 him Earth's life is no longer worth living down below.=20
And though this day far away All of the friends and family that we did love and come to=20 know Have gathered together as the Nation does weep For the=20 loss of a son - "the uncrowned prince of her king & queen" =20 And though even now 1 can see your tears and hear your cries=20
Say not that there are no more sons of Camelot or dreamers of=20 dreams For the dream of the city lies deep within you And=20 the hope is a hope everlasting it seems For in the heart of=20 each young lady and every young man Is the chance to go forth=20 and conquer=20
To become those champions of earth again. Let not your flame and torches forever go out But bring them=20 now into your own homes and villages=20
Lighting the pathways of all, driving the days of darkness out=20 May each one now dip the tip of their torch within the=20 Eternal Flame And go forth to light the lamps of the world=20
As new hope is sparked and new flames are birthed this day Let not the dream of Camelot remain just a cherished dream =20 But in the spirit of her king may all of the knights go forth=20 now And fulfill their destinies Let not this day of so=20 called tragedy quench the hope that lies deep inside=20
The hearts and the minds of the children of earth. But may=20 the youth of the world now rise=20
And become those leaders and champions of the right May the=20 sons and the daughters of the realm continue now to ride Upon=20 the holy quest so that all of mankind be reached and blessed =20 With the hope of God, and of love, and of peace for one and=20 all For one day the Prince of Peace shall come and there will=20 be peace for all.=20
And perhaps one day in earth's future our political life will=20 again take shape For when the Son of God returns to earth,=20
He may need some help running the place. And perhaps then=20 we'll be able to lend a hand=20
In the governing of earth's men as decreed by God's great plan=20 For once again as the Scriptures do teach and say We may=20 rule with Him by his side as princes and as kings =20
So, let all know on earth down below I'm only going to be=20 gone a short while it seems For one day soon, out of the=20 skies of blue I'll be flying again; upon the backs of white=20 horses you'll see The Lord Jesus, accompanied by my father,=20 and me. And with the armies of Heaven he'll reclaim the earth=20 for all time In a government that can't be out voted or=20 destroyed by wars and bombs And we'll take our place in the=20 Lord's dynasty As the name of Kennedy will be forgotten=20
For we'll serve in the Name of the King of Kings." And turning his face from the earth below, he turns his=20 attention=20
To the faces of those he loved and cherished so long ago And=20 as he hugs them close, it is as if we can hear his thoughts as=20 he thinks,=20
"At least my mother was spared the pain That so many on earth are feeling this day For I can tell=20 that these tears upon her cheeks are not of sorrow and of pain=20 But of the joy of being reunited once again with me And=20 perhaps she knows down deep inside as now do 1 That had 1=20 continued and followed the political path as was planned and=20 designed That there may have been another death as with Uncle=20 Bob and my dad And in dying this way she is spared that kind=20 of heartache once again."=20
And again it is as if we can hear him speak, "Mom & Dad, I'm=20 proud for you to meet the one I chose for my wife; She's not=20 only a queen but close friend and soul-mate of mine; And with=20 her sister by her side, our bodies upon the earth have died =20 May you welcome them into your hearts and home as did 1=20
For your son and daughters have come this day To live with=20 you in your eternal home."=20
~ a poem written on July 22, 1999 in memory of John=20 Fitzgerald Kennedy Jr. Copyright =A9 1999 by Bonnie Franklin=20
From [email protected] Sat Jul 24 02:01:34 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id CAA0901 4 for
[Connection Information]
CLIENT: 206.173.168.116[206.173.168.116] BROWSER: Mozilla/2.0 (compatible; MSIE 3.02; Update a; Windows 95) URL: http://wwwl .whitehouse.govAVH/Mail/html/MailPresident.html
[Sender Information]
PERSONAL-NAME: Pam Priest EMAIL-ADDRESS: [email protected] ORGANIZATION: RELATIONSHIP: STREET-ADDRESS: 660 South F Street CITY: Oxnard STATE-PROVINCE: CA ZIP-CODE: 93030 COUNTRY: United States of America
[Message Information]
PURPOSE: Express congratulations, thanks, or condolences TOPIC: No Answer AFFILIATION: Private Citizen SUBJECT: The search for JFK Jr.
[Message]
Thank you for ordering the efforts in the recovery of John Kennedy. He was so much a part of our lives from the time of his birth until his untimely death. No expense would have been too high. Thank you for realizing that we needed non-stop efforts until his body was found or we would never really get over the
tragedy. You did the right thing. Thank you.
[email protected] Sat Jul 24 02:22:35 1999 Received: (from uucp@locaIhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id CAA1459 4 for
[Connection Information]
CLIENT: 209.178.148.135[209.178.148.135] BROWSER: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.5; Mac PowerPC) URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Mail/html/Mail_President.html
[Sender Information]
PERSONAL-NAME: Derek R. Hill EMAIL-ADDRESS: [email protected] ORGANIZATION: RELATIONSHIP: STREET-ADDRESS: 700 Olde Towne Dr. CITY: Irving STATE-PROVINCE: ^ ZIP-CODE: 75061 COUNTRY: USA
[Message Information]
PURPOSE: Register agreement with a position TOPIC: No Answer AFFILIATION: Private Citizen SUBJECT: Backing Your Position to Render All Necessary Services to t he Kennedy Crisis
[Message]
I want to personally congratulate you on taking all of the necessary measures of whatever means to find JFK Jr. & the Bessette's. I admire you more for standing up and taking the responsibility during your speech to the Nation & letting everyone know that it was not the fault of the Coast Guard or anybody else, but you & you alone made that decision. It comes a time in everyone's life that a decision like this must be made & you make it and stood behind it 100%. You are a better person today for it, regardless of what has happened in the past. I truly believe that it was a special & personal moment that you expressed with us about showing the Kennedy's around the White House.
Thank You again for all that you did to help bring closure to everyone from the Kennedy's to myself on this terrible tragedy. We are deeply indebted for your support.
Derek
From [email protected] Sat Jul 24 05:42:49 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id FAA1829 4 for
[Connection Information]
CLIENT: 204.116.50.70[204.116.50.70] BROWSER: Mozilla/3.01C-INFOAVENUE (Win95; I; 16bit) URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/MaiI/html/Mail_President.html
[Sender Information]
PERSONAL-NAME: megan hyman EMAIL-ADDRESS: [email protected] ORGANIZATION: RELATIONSHIP: citizen STREET-ADDRESS: 11495 mooresville rd CITY: davidson STATE-PROVINCE: nc ZIP-CODE: 28036 COUNTRY: US
[Message Information]
PURPOSE: Express congratulations, thanks, or condolences TOPIC: No Answer AFFILIATION: Private Citizen SUBJECT: I WANT TO SEND MY CONDOLENCES TO THE KENNEDY FAMILY
[Message]
I DONT REMEBER WHEN JFK JR FATHER WAS KILLED BUT HE WILL ALWAYS BE OUR PRINCE......
[email protected] Sat Jul 24 06:33:52 1999 Received: (from uucp@IocaIhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.I/uucp-reIay) id GAA1426 I for
[Connection Information]
CLIENT: 209.240.74.148[209.240.74.148] BROWSER: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 98) URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Mail/html/Mail_President.html
[Sender Information]
PERSONAL-NAME: Deborah Ybarra EMAIL-ADDRESS: [email protected] ORGANIZATION: RELATIONSHIP: STREET-ADDRESS: 3335 138th Avenue NW CITY: Andover STATE-PROVINCE: MN ZIP-CODE: 55304 COUNTRY: USA
[Message Information]
PURPOSE: Express congratulations, thanks, or condolences TOPIC: No Answer AFFILIATION: Veteran SUBJECT: JFK Jr. Search Efforts
[Message]
Mr. President: I am writing to thank you for allowing the Coast Guard, etc, to continue to search for JFK Jr and his party. I have seen the articles in the papers with private citizens who have lost loved ones, and did not get the identical search effort JFK Jr did. I have also read many comments online from people who don't think it was fair. Frankly, I am puzzled why they think that way. JFK Jr was not just an average guy, he was a very special person in our country, someone we all watched grow up. Thanks again your decision-it was the right thing to do. Deborah J. Ybarra Retired Navy Chief
[email protected] Sat Jul 24 08:05:57 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id IAA28I3 7 for
[Connection Information] CLIENT: 152.163.197.192[152.163.197.192] BROWSER: Mozilla/2.0 (compatible; MSIE 3.02; Update a; AOL 3.0; Wind ows 95) URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Mail/html/Mail_President.html
[Sender Information]
PERSONAL-NAME: Judith A. Gassman EMAIL-ADDRESS: [email protected] ORGANIZATION: N/A RELATIONSHIP: Citizen STREET-ADDRESS: 70B Texas CITY: Satellite Beach STATE-PROVINCE: FL ZIP-CODE: 32937 COUNTRY: USA
[Message Information]
PURPOSE: Register agreement with a position TOPIC: Defense AFFILIATION: Civil Servant or Armed Forces Member SUBJECT: Use of military resources to recover the bodies of JFK Jr, Carolyn Kennedy and Lauren Bessette
[Message]
Mr. President: Your decision to use military resources to recover the bodies of JFK, Jr, his wife Carolyn, and her sister Lauren Bessette has my full 100% support.
Your decision, 1 pray, had everything to do with "What is the right thing to do?"
Democrat or Republican affiliation aside, JFK, Jr. was the son of a president. The Kennedy family deserves every resource available to help bring comfort during this difficult time.
Your decision to use our nation's military resources to recover these bodies shows the citizens of our country yet another reason to appreciate our men and women in uniform.
Yes, it is with saddness and pride that our country is able to see our military resources being used for such a tragic loss. It is the duty of these men and women to be ready for many different types of missions. This particular type of mission occurs daily within the military structure. It is an all-too-often forgotten duty.
Not to be taken lightly in any way, missions such as this are consdered "part of the job" for our military's active-duty and reserve service members. This mission was given the same professionalism as all other missions. 1 know the men and women involved accomplished this mission with compassion and pride.
There will continue to be many more missions which will not get the same national attention. And that is as it should be! It is one small part of the military way of life.
Your decision surprises noone within the military arena. Well, done, Commaner-ln-Chiefli!
Respectfully submitted, Judith A. Gassman (Spouse of an active-duty service member) 70B Texas Street Satellite Beach FL 32937 (407) 779-3966
[email protected] Sat Jul 24 08:28:58 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id 1AA0974 9 for
[Connection Information]
CLIENT: 152.163.194.211[152.163.194.211] BROWSER: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; AOL 4.0; Windows 98) URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Mail/html/Mail_President.html
[Sender Information]
PERSONAL-NAME: Ashley Harmon EMAIL-ADDRESS: [email protected] ORGANIZATION: RELATIONSHIP: STREET-ADDRESS: 608 Mt.Sinai Coram Rd CITY: MLSinai STATE-PROVINCE: New York ZIP-CODE: 11766 COUNTRY: United States
[Message Information]
PURPOSE: Other TOPIC: No Answer AFFILIATION: No Answer SUBJECT: JFK Jr.
[Message]
Hi my name is Ashley Harmon annd me and My Friend Melissa Are making a documentry on JFK Jr. With photos and things like that and 1 just wanted to let Bill Cliton Know that it is my way of Saying that he was agood man. Please write back! If you would like I could send you the tape when we are finshed with it!
Ashley Harmon
[email protected] Sat Jul 24 09:04:01 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id JAA2363 4 for
Mr. President;
This letter is to complain at your decision to waste my tax dollars on JFK Jr. I am very sorry the man died such a terrible death, but he was in all a NOBODY to this country! What has he done for this country to deserve such an honor as a Military service? Lets see, did he serve in the military? NO! Has he worked for the government? NO! OH yes, he decided to fly his airplane at night in bad weather when instructor pilots felt the conditions were not flyable. Is it because his Uncle Teddy is a senator, or was it that salute to his Father when he was only three? NO, I do not think that qualifies him for a funeral at Government expense. The only thing that 1 can see that JFK Jr. has done is publish a Failure of a magazine!
Now do not get me wrong here, 1 do not feel it was wrong to use the Coast Guard to find him and his family in the ocean. 1 know that is their job. But it was not and is not the responsibility of the US Government to transport him to sea and bury him.
Mr. President you have failed your country very badly, and I thank God that you cannot run for another term! And just so this is not all complaints against you. I think you were 100% wrong in your affair, but that is your personal life and I do not feel as if it should have made the news. And congress was wrong to impeach you.
Sincerely; J. Terrell Butler SSgt. USAF Ret. AKA [email protected]
From [email protected] Sat Jul 24 09:28:02 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id JAA0661 8 for
[Connection Information]
CLIENT: 128.23.196.88[ 128.23.196.88] BROWSER: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (WinNT; I) URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Mail/html/Mail_President.html
[Sender Information] PERSONAL-NAME: Marie L. Lobo EMAIL-ADDRESS: [email protected] ORGANIZATION: RELATIONSHIP: STREET-ADDRESS: 2040 Comingtee Lane CITY: Mt. Pleasant STATE-PROVINCE: SC ZIP-CODE: 29464-6202 COUNTRY:
[Message Information]
PURPOSE: Offer neutral commentary, advice, or a suggestion TOPIC: No Answer AFFILIATION: Private Citizen SUBJECT: JFK JR Search
[Message]
When asked why JFK JR had a longer than "normal" search for his plane and remains, you should have commented: "If we did not find the remains or determine they could not have been found, the tabloid press would have searched until they did find them. The thought of the pictures that would have been in the tabloids was enough to lengthen the search."
I believe the extended search was the appropriate, not because of the heavy losses the family has endured, but because of the circus which would have evolved with the media vultures looking for the remains.
From [email protected] Sat Jul 24 10:11:06 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id KAA2307 8 for
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
-Boundary_(lD_u3rCt2WoJfGpsVUSlPj8sg) Content-type: MULTIPART/ALTERNATIVE; BOUNDARY="Boundary_(ID_SgYhDEZkdn/LXOTNj7FqtQ)"
-Boundary_(ID_SgYhDEZkdn/LXOTNj7FqtQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
IS THIS THE ADMINISTRATIONS' IDEA OF FAIR PLAY?? BOB...
7/24/99 - 4:09 AM For others. Navy burial at sea can take months
NORFOLK, Va. (AP) - When Howard Michael Novak, a Navy veteran of 27 years, died in January, his last wish to be buried at sea by the Navy. Six months later, his ashes remain - along with those of 35 others who died with the same request - in a room at the Naval Medical Center in Portsmouth, V a.
While the USS Briscoe was used to bury the ashes of John F. Kennedy Jr., hi s wife and sister-in-law at sea in private ceremonies Thursday, some wondered w hy their loved ones have had to wait so long for the same respect.
"Here they pick up JFK Jr. yesterday morning and buried him this morning, and they take another Navy ship up there to do it. It's just very upsetting," Novak's ex-wife, Joyce Novak, said Thursday.
"For the last four months the Navy has been telling me no ships were avail able because all of them were in Yugoslavia, or in a shipyard."
After calling Navy officials again on Thursday, Mrs. Novak said she was tol d her ex-husband, who retired from the Navy in 1969, will be buried next month, in conjunction with services for two other men. The burial-at-sea option is available to anyone who left the military with something higher than a dishonorable discharge. Also entitled are U.S. civilian personnel of the Military Sealift Command, dependents of members of the milita ry and "other U.S. citizens who are determined eligible by the chief of naval operations ... due to notable service or outstanding contribution to the U.S."
JFK Jr.'s father. President Kennedy, was a veteran of the Navy.
The Portsmouth medical center, one of five Navy sites that handle the remai ns of individuals who qualify for burial at sea, conducts about 200 services a year.
The Navy does not ordinarily dispatch a ship just to bury a body. It holds such ceremonies generally in the normal course of a ship's departure from port.
The backlog is higher than normal, officials concede.
"We have fewer ships, and the increase in recent operational commitments p rovide fewer opportunities for the burials at sea," a Navy spokesman said. " W e do our very best."
Under normal circumstances, there is a one- to two-month wait between the t ime the hospital receives the remains and when a burial at sea can be scheduled , the Navy said.
In most cases, family members are not present on board for the formal servi ce. Instead, a videotape is sent to the family, along with the flag, a letter f rom the ship's captain and occasionally shell casings from the ceremonial gun s alute.
Mrs. Novak said she does not begrudge naval hospital officials for the dela y-
"They have been very nice to me and said 1 can call them every day," she said. "But here I'm living in a Navy town and see those ships going in and out every day.
"It's Just not right."
Copyright 1999 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
From [email protected] Sat Jul 24 10:36:08 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id KAA2867 1 for
-Boundary _(lD_zttZJMxVrumbk.lsKd9ZW6g) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7B1T
-Boundary_(lD_zttZjMxVrumbklsKd9ZW6g) Content-type: MESSAGE/RFC822
Return-path:
Reply-to: [email protected] Message-id: < 199907240441 .VAA [email protected]> Organization: Anomalous Images MlME-version: 1.0 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by wizard.magiclink.net id VAA 13070 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.11) Content-type: text/plain; charset=lSO-8859-l Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Comments: Sender has elected to use 8-bit data in this message. If problems arise, refer to postmaster at sender’s site.
-> SNETNEWS Mailing List
DPI Confirms Kennedy Radioed Martha's Vineyard Airport=20
By John A. Quinn/NewsHawk
Here is the UPl article which states that JFK Jr. WAS IN CONTACT with=20 flight controllers at Martha's vineyard Airport at 9:39 Friday evening, July=20
16. The UPl article ALSO states that both WCVB-TV in Boston AND ABC=20 News reported the same CRUCIAL information. =20
Additionally this radio contact by Kennedy has subsequently been=20 confirmed through direct contact with airport personnel. =20
This extremely significant information is what is now MISSING from EVERY=20 SINGLE account of the event now being spewed by the robots in gutless,=20 miserable cloned mass media outlets. =20
THIS CRUCIAL fNFORMATION HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE=20 PUBLIC RECORD BECAUSE IT UTTERLY fNVALIDATES THE OFFICIAL=20 BULLSHIT WE ARE BEEN FORCE-FED ABOUT THE CAUSE OF JFK=20 JR'S DEATH! =20
As I've stated time and again this crucial information PROVES that=20 seconds BEFORE Kennedy's plane went into a headlong dive there was=20 not the SLIGHTEST indication of the much-regurgitated garbage that pilot=20 error and/or mechanical malfunction (other than outright sabotage of a=20 critical component of the aircraft) were responsible for this headlong, full= -on=20 nosedive to certain oblivion. =20
NEITHER such fictional pilot error NOR any standard mechanical=20 malfunction could POSSIBLY result in this craft dropping like a rock. =20
Kennedy was at that moment engaged in no unusual or troublesome=20 maneuvers. He had only SECOND BEFORE FINISHED HIS RADIO CALL!=20 =20
He knew EXACTLY where he was not only in relation to the coastline but=20 also to the airport—10 miles from the coast and 13 miles from the airport. =20
What's more, we have received additional confirmation from residents of=20 the Connecticut shore and Martha's Vineyard that visibility was=20 EXCELLENT in the area at this time-from 10 to 12 miles at least. In such=20 conditions it's ludicrous to think the Kennedy would not been able to have=20 seen at LEAST the GLOW from the many lights in the well-populated=20 Martha's Vineyard area at the distance he was, and thus have been=20 thoroughly able to distinguish direction in all senses of the word (altitude= ). =20
The ongoing disinformation about poor visibility being the reason such an=20 inexperienced pilot (which he was NOT!) would get completely=20 discombobulated and fly into the sea is completely unfounded in fact. The=20 guy was hardly hundreds of miles out over the middle of the Atlantic. Why=20 then would he decide to land in the sea if he knew where he was in relation=20 to the land? Please... spare me. =20
Here is the pertinent text from about halfway through the UPI article. This = is=20 the TRUTH... BEFORE the spin-doctors and manipulators got to work. =20
"At 9:39 p.m. Friday, Kennedy radioed the airport and said he was 13=20 miles from the airport and 10 miles from the coast, according to WCVB-TV=20 news in Boston. He reportedly said he was making his final approach. =20
"Moments later, radar operated by the Federal Aviation Administration=20 showed the plane went into a dive and dropped 1,200 feet in just 12=20 seconds, according to ABC News. =20
"In his final approach message, WCVB-TV said Kennedy told controllers at=20 the airport that he planned to drop off his wife's sister and then take off=20 again between 11 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. for Hyannis Airport." =20
Other CRUCIAL information which has now been removed from all official=20 accounts is the fact that a NUMBER of witnesses on the beach at Martha's=20 Vineyard that evening fNCLUDfNG a Vineyard Gazette reporter saw an=20 AIRBORNE explosion at this same time right in that area of the sky where=20 Kennedy was flying. I quote here the relevant text from the UPI article. =20
"A reporter for the Vineyard Gazette newspaper told WCVB-TV in Boston=20 that he was out walking Friday night about the time of the crash and saw=20 "big white flash in the sky" off Philbin Beach." =20
A report from about 3 PM on Saturday by Shephard Smith of FOX-TV=20 named another one of these witnesses-in fact a guest at the scheduled=20 wedding JFK. Jr. was due to attend AND a friend of Smith's producer at=20 Fox. =20
Every single flight instructor Kennedy ever had as well as other first-hand=20 witnesses describe Kennedy as an extremely cautious and safety minded=20 pilot. He also had HUNDREDS of hours of experience, NOT one hundred. =20
For example here's a quote from a CNN article in which a FEDERAL=20 PILOT EXAMINER who TESTED Kennedy's flying skills describes his=20 abilities. =20 http://www.cnn.eom/US/9907/18/BC-CRASH-KENNEDY- LICENSE.reut/index.html ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters) - A federal pilot=20 examiner who tested John F. Kennedy Jr.'s flying skills said he was an=20 "excellent pilot," a newspaper reported Sunday.... =20
..."He was an excellent pilot," John McColgan of Vero Beach, Florida, told=20 the Orlando Sentinel. "I put him through the paces, and HE PASSED=20 EVERYTHING WITH FLYING COLORS."... =20
...He said Kennedy had a lot of flight experience for someone with a pilot's=20 license for 15 months... =20
"He flew a lot," McColgan said. "In fact, by now he probably has ENOUGH=20 HOURS TO BE A COMMERCIAL PILOT...." =A9 1999 CNN =20
I rest my case. JFK Jr. WAS KILLED. =20
John Quinn/NewsHawk =20 =20
Steve Wingate
California Director SKYWATCH INTERNATIONAL
Anomalous Images and UFO Files http://www.anomalous-images.com
-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to [email protected] -> Posted by: "Steve Wingate"
~Boundary_(ID_zttZjMxVrumbklsKd9ZW6g)-
[email protected] Sat Jul 24 10:55:11 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id KAA0561 0 for
-Boundary _(lD_HBCLOfg2JyfhZFKJhvasEw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=lSO-8859-l Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
In a message dated 7/22/99 8:19:58 PM Central Daylight Time =20 [email protected] writes:
« >X-Sender: [email protected] >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (32) >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 07:41:53 -0700 >To: [email protected] >From: clarence
>airbome explosion to the southwest of the Vineyard right around the =20 >time the plane apparently went into it's fatal dive.=20 > >Are we supposed to believe that it was Kennedy's supposed lack of >experience that caused the plane to ignite into a fireball in MIDAIR >while in the middle of a perfect, uneventful and untroubled flight? And >the American public is BUYING such utterly worthless, intentionally >disinformative garbage analysis? If people insist on being this stupid I >can only conclude they may well deserve the government they have. > >And in regard to this last issue-it is considered an open secret that >in addition to contemplating a N.Y. Senate campaign against Hillary >Clinton, JFK Jr. was CERTAINLY considering a run for president in the >year 2000. It has been suggested by knowledgeable sources that he was >quite cognizant of the fact that his father and uncle were murdered by a >covert government cabal and would CERTAINLY have endeavored to bring >down the house of cards and the walls of lies and silence surrounding >these wretched chapters in our national history. > >As noted, Kennedy's George magazine had recently published an interview >with George Wallace—focusing in strongly on the obvious conspiracy >behind the attempted assassination on HIM, as well as a expose of the >Rabin assassination in Israel. > >Other information reveals that some the upcoming articles he had planned >for George magazine included an investigation into the Roswell incident >AND one involving a substantial airing of Hillary Clinton and company's >"dirty laundry." Moreover Kennedy was in the process of setting up an >interview with Attorney General Janet Reno, and in fact had just >submitted a formal request for such with the Justice Department! >Considering the gallons of innocent blood on the hands of Reno, her >bosses in the White House and on the hands of so many of the Clintons' >cohorts, this impending grilling of Reno regarding such savage, hideous >events as the Waco massacre may well have been the straw that broke the >camel's back. > >Suspicious in all this has been the extremely muted reaction from >Kennedy family members to this nightmare-almost as if they know damn >well what was really going on with JFK Jr.'s death, and are literally >powerless to do anything about it. Only his sister Caroline >Kennedy-Schlossberg has made any public indications that all may not be >right with the offieial story. > >Now we hear that family members—supposedly—have requested a burial at >sea. This seems a distinctly odd request and one can only wonder why >this would be desirable.=20 > >Another aspect which seems quite suspicious is the fact that before just >about anyone else. Bill Clinton was informed early Wednesday morning, >July 21, of the fact that divers had located the wreckage of Kennedy's >plane and the passenger's bodies: in fact it was the White House which >made the official announcement to the media of the location and immanent >recovery of same. > > >Does anyone out there still think that John F. Kennedy Jr. just came >completely unglued on a completely smooth flight in excellent flying >weather with NO indication of mechanical problems AT ALL and dove his =20 >plane with two other passengers into the deep blue sea? > >GET A CLUE, AMERICA! > > >=A9 1999 NewsHawk Inc. >A11 Rights Reserved >(Rights of UNALTERED reproduction/distribution hereby waived.) >=20 =20 =20 »
[email protected] Sat Jul 24 11:07:11 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id LAA0900 7 for
[Connection Information]
CLIENT: 205.188.192.157[205.188.192.157] BROWSER: Mozilla/2.0 (compatible; MSIE 3.02; Update a; AOL 4.0; Wind ows 95) URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Mail/html/Mail_President.html
[Sender Information]
PERSONAL-NAME: DEBORAH J BLANCHARD EMAIL-ADDRESS: [email protected] ORGANIZATION: RELATIONSHIP: STREET-ADDRESS: 1215 SAUNDERS CRESCENT CITY: ANN ARBOR STATE-PROVINCE: MICHIGAN ZIP-CODE: 48103 COUNTRY: USA
[Message Information]
PURPOSE: Express congratulations, thanks, or condolences TOPIC: No Answer AFFILIATION: Private Citizen SUBJECT: THANK YOU EXTENDING THE SEARCH FOR JFK JR
[Message]
DEAR PRESIDENT CLINTON; 1 THINK YOU MADE A GREAT DECISION TO EXTEND THE SEARCH TO LOCATE JOHN,CAROLYN AND LAURENS BODIES. 1 HAVE BEEN THROUGH A SUDDEN DEATH, MY MOTHER IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT AND IT WAS HORRIBLE SHOCKING SAD BUT AT LEAST I COULD BURY HER ASHES WHERE SHE I NDICATED SHE WOULD LIKE TO BE....
I HAVE BEEN VERY ANOIDED AT THE MONEY SPENT ON INVESTIGATIONS..INTO VARIOUS ASCEPTS OF THE MONICA LEWINSKY AND THE IMPEACHEMENT. I FELT SAY SORRY AND DROP IT, AND DONT SPEND MY MONEY ON THIS..BUT GLADDLY I GIVE MY TAXES TO PAY FOR THE EXTENDED SEARCH OF THE BESSETTS AND JFK JR.
I FELT SO RELIEVED FOR THE BESSETS AND KENNEDYS THAT YOU EXTENDING THE SEARCH AND THEY FOUND THE BODIES AND THE AUTOPSY REVEALED DIED INSTANTALLY....SO THANK YOU FOR MAKING A GOOD DECISION FOR THEM..AND I THINK FOR ME HAVING BEEN THERE EMOTIONALLY LOSING A LOVED ONE IN ATRAGIC ACCIDENT.
IF YOU WERE RUNNING AGAIN I WOULD BE FIRST IN LINE TO VOTE FOR YOU JUST FOR THE COMPASSIONATE ACT OF THIS.
BEST WISHES!!!!!
DEBBIE BLANCHARD
From [email protected] Sat Jul 24 00:16:23 1999 Received: (from uucp@IocaIhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.I/uucp-reIay) id AAA0427 8 for
-Boundary_(ID_Ghnbv4nMHfqPULbjfWFBgw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-l Content-transfer-encoding: TBIT
Dear Mr. President, I just want to thank you for representing America today at the funeral of JFK, Jr. 1 can only imagine what it must be like to have to witness so closely the loss of so many children and adults who have gone on to heaven in your stay at the White House. I pray that you will continue to lead our country in the next year with far less tragedy. God Bless.
Jennifer Passi teacher and American
From [email protected] Sat Jul 24 00:39:26 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id AAAI 114 7 for
1 have a great idea...lets get the TRUTH out about this abomination of a murder, this murder of JFK, Jr.!!!!! Tell the truth about this, surprise the people!!!!Because they are completely fed up with the compromised, cowardly press and their constant lies....!!!! SO, surprise us all, tell the TRUTH!!!! We shall avenges John-John's death, one way or the other, we shall avenge his death...!!!!!!!!!!! July 19, 1999 Location On-Site; Long Island, New York
Subject: Aircraft Crash And Apparent Death Of John F. Kennedy Jr. Requesting Agency; FBI
Document: Initial Report
Status: Open =96 subject to final review =96 management and General Assembly. Nature =96 Suspect, Repeat =96 Suspect. Case review =96 Final =96 non-withst= anding review. Request open Status pending Final. Eyes Only =96 Chief Bureaus.
Subject, John F. Kennedy, Jr., left Essex County Airport, Caldwe= 11, N.J., at 8:38 P.M. Friday, July 16, 1999 in a Piper Saratoga II TC. Aircraft was built i= n 1995, purchased last year by subject. It has been reported to have been in excellent condition =96 simple and comfortable to fly. Subject did NOT file a flight plan (?) and it is suspected he altered his route. We strongly (suspect) this to be true because subject KNEW he = was under surveillance. Visibility was eight (8) miles =96 I say again =96 visibility was eig= ht(8) miles. Media reports of =93hazy=94 or =93foggy=94 conditions are untrue. Subject=92s flight path took him over the Connecticut shore, aft= er passing over the south western tip of Rhode Island. Aircraft banked and began its approach t= 0 Martha=92s Airport at 9:26 P.M. Subject was expected at Martha=92s Vineyard Airp= ort by no later than 10:00 P.M. At 9:39 P.M. JFK radioed the Martha=92s Vineyard Airport giving = his location. Subject was completely calm, giving no indication of any difficulties, stating th= at he was making his final approach, no more than 10 miles from the shore, and 13 miles from the airport. Subject then began his (final) descent. Subject was at 5,600 feet when he headed out ove= r the ocean. When he radioed at 9:39 P.M., 17-18 miles West of Martha=92s Vineyard, he was= at 2,500 feet. When detected on radar 29 seconds later, he was at 1,800 feet, 16 miles We= St of Martha=92s Vineyard. He was then lost off radar. No MAYDAY was ever heard. Tower personnel at Martha=92s Vineyard Airport verified previous data. Within app. 10 seconds of this final radio contact at 9:39 P.M.,= an aircraft fitting the description of the subjects (aircraft) and in that same general location was identified on Radar by both Military personnel and Martha=92s Vineyard Airport t= ower personnel as descending 1,200 feet in 12 seconds =96 a full, head-long dive, in other words. A reporter for the Vineyard Gazette newspaper told WCVB-TV in Boston that he was out walking Friday night about the time of the crash and saw a =93big white flash= in the sky=94 just off Philbin Beach. Luggage, a tire, plexiglas, pieces of the cowling have all washed up on Philbin Beach. Said reported has now partially recanted his story by stating that =93perhaps It was a bright light from an explosion, but he just cannot be sure= =94. Reporter has been =93gotten to=94, compromised. Unknown as to who, at this time. Severa= 1 local news reports initially (reported) that several people SAW and Heard an explosion i= n the air over the ocean South of Martha=92s Vineyard towards Eastern Long Island, at th= e same time that subject=92s plane =93went missing=94. We have confirmed these reports= by speaking with 4 of the witnesses whom have asked to remain anonymous. Detected definite fear on their part. All evidence at this time indicates that aircraft was in a fiery, head-long crash dive within seconds after the 9:39 radio transmission. Aircraft was equipped with=
radar transponder That transmit a 4-digit ID code and the altitude. Aircraft contained =
406 MHz satellite distress beacon which would have notified the FAA of exact lat.&long. Device was NOT Activated. Believe reason as aircraft disintegrated instantly. Coast Guard claims of an Emergency beacon thought to belong to this aircraft being activated a= nd heard, by the Coast Guard at 3:40 A.M., Saturday, in Long Island, New York, are as = yet unsubstantiated. Subject has been reported by all interviewed, including 3 flight instructors, to be an excellent pilot who did not take chances. Subject had logged many hou= rs and had acquired an abnormal amount of expertise for an individual holding a pilots license for only 15 months. In fact, it has been reported that JFK, Jr. had logged enough hours, = and acquired enough expertise to qualify as a Commercial Pilot! He had passed instrument checks with no reported difficulties. Although subject did not like Flying at night, all information indicates he did so efficiently. Media=92s reports of =93pilot error=94, =93failed instru= ment test and checks=94 and =93scared to fly at night=94 are patently untrue. Standard American Media disinformation. When SK Alpha team began investigating weather anomalies and any possible phenomena, (weather). Radar images/data that have proven useful in such investigations, to include the observations of Electromagnetic/radio frequency phenomena, where discovered to be missing =66rom the archives for the Eastern Long lsland/Martha=92s Vineyard a= rea during the two (2) critical hours in which JKF Jr=92s Plane apparently crashed/disappear= ed. This is/was more than suspect. After demanding said data from air control personnel, and receiving stammering, red faced explanations as to it=92s whereabouts, team notes data has been intentionally =93misplaced=94, or in fact lost. This indicates that the subject=92s aircraft was ind= eed =93shot out of the sky=94, with either a C4 charge, placed aft the cabin, a bomb, activated on descent by a barometric switch or a Particle Beam Laser, fired from Montauk Point. Agency is quite familiar with the evil legacy of Montauk Point. Technology reputed to be null and void = is in fact known to be in existence there, and being employed against the American public. T= his includes not only this Laser, but (Mkultra) mind-control. Remote Viewing, the infamous =93Montauk chair=94, and so on. We strongly suspect one of the latter two technologies was use= d against subject=92s aircraft. Currently, evidence points to the Laser, although this cann= ot be completely substantiated. Intrigue Assessment is based on following facts;
(1) A bright light, or explosion was observed by app. 10 people in th= e area of the aircraft=92s disappearance., (2) The headrest, steering yoke, pieces of the cowling, plexiglas and carpeting where literally tom apart from/off the plane, floating up on Gay Head Beach. This indicates a mid-air explosion not a stall and crash. Debris from the crash have al= so been washing up on the West end of Martha=92s Vineyard, creating a very wide spread ar= ea of destruction (in other words, the remains of the aircraft are spread out over a very large area of space on the Ocean, indicating a mid-air explosion, not a stall and crash). Team has examined all recovered physical evidence and corroborates damage assessment=
[email protected] Sat Jul 24 01:33:31 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id BAA2798 2 for
First of all we know you get a lot of mail you will not print...We would like to say we are very disappointed that the RGJ while running the JFK, Jr story front page for 5 days has not printed "one" word about our two soldiers killed in the line of duty in Kosovo and the one killed in Macedonia while traveling into Kosovo...Our question is why? While we know you will not print this, we would like to show our disdain for our president lowering the flag to half mast today for JFK, Jr...We also were very saddened with the events leading up to his death...But other than being a son of an assassinated President he was really nothing more than a person other than one that helped the unfortunate...Our country is filled with this type of people of which the majority will never get credit...However, the President who is a known military hater, and the RGJ never said or printed one word about our 3 dead soldiers in a 3rd world country we do not belong in...Instead President Clinton orders the lowering of the flag for a do gooder instead of heroes who he put in harms way...Where is the justice? Larry and Diana Gunkel 2230 Frisco Way Sparks, Nevada 89434 email: [email protected] Would like to say that we really do not expect any answer back from anyone except Jim Gibbons the only conservative to receive this message...That has been the past history of our concerns....
[email protected] Sat Jul 24 01:48:32 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id BAA0461 5 for
-Boundary_(ID_76CuBiymYhB5015v VCmOSA) Content-type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCll Content-transfer-encoding: 7B1T
....that is what you have left behind you. there is a long list of people that you have had "disposed" of since you became the so called president...... now the JFK, jr. death is on your conscience, maybe you should call it quits since the american people know what you're up to now....! come get me...... i have too many people that know about this email...... i dare you, you inbred Arkansas hick.
From [email protected] Sat Jul 24 01:49:35 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id BAA0517 6 for
Pro forma: Susan J. Norman, Realtor, Skogman Realty, Cedar Rapids, la., licensed in Iowa, e-mail: [email protected]. Bye.
July 24, 1999
My dear Mr. President and Mrs. Clinton,
I want to thank you both for your presence this morning at the service for JFK, Jr. and his wife, Carolyn. 1 am certain that on your own you would not have missed this opportunity to pay tribute to this family, but 1 am very happy that you were there for me. 1 thank you for giving Caroline, Ted Kennedy and the Bessette family the photo albums.
Throughout this past week 1 have taken every opportunity to learn what 1 can about this remarkable young man, his wife and his family. 1 have watched CNN into the night until 1 could not stand to stay up any longer.
1 was there when his father passed away, watching it all on our black and white tv. 1 was nine and in fourth grade. 1 will never forget JFK, Jr. being nudged by his mother, and then saluting. 1 think Jackie Kennedy understood instinctively how important such a gesture would be for future remembrances.
Sometimes photos are all that we have left. They are so important. Again, thank you for this kind gesture toward these families.
1 hope both of you are well. Take care.
Sincerely,
Susan J. Norman Cedar Rapids, la.
From [email protected] Sat Jul 24 02:40:37 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id CAA2120 5 for
Dear Mr. President: As we have watched this past week of the tragic and sudden death of John F. Kennedy, Jr., Lauren Beset, and her sister, 1 admire the support from the nation for the Kennedy's. My question to you is have we forgotten as a nation the historic anniversary of'Mankind's Voyage' to the Moon this past week? As Withdrawal/Redaction Marker Clinton Library
DOCIIMEINTNO. subjectatitle DATE RESTRICTION AND TYPE
001. email To Mary U. Binns, from White House root, re: Yesterday's Mail for 07/25/1999 b(6) POTUS [partial] (1 page)
COLLECTION: Clinton Presidential Records Automated Records Management System [Email] WHO ([JFK, Jr]) OA/Box Number: 500000 FOLDER TITLE: [07/24/1999 -07/25/1999]
2017-0713-F bgll9 RESTRICTION CODES Presidential Records Act -144 U.S.C 2204(a)! Freedom of Information Act -15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
PI National Security Classified Information 1(a)(1) of the PRAj b(l) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA| P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office 1(a)(2) of the PRAj b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRAj an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA[ P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA[ financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA[ b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial PS Release would disclose confidential advice between the President information 1(b)(4) of the FOIA[ and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA[ b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy 1(b)(6) of the FOIA[ personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA[ b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA| C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of of gift. financial institutions 1(b)(8) of the F01A[ PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C. b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information 2201(3). concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA[ RR. Document will be reviewed upon request. an ordinary citizen 1 have watched the NASA program for my 30 years. 1 am an ordinary man in the flooring industry. I am 30 years old. Bom on (b)(6) Ool f(b)^ was adopted by two extremely loving parents, for witch 1 am very L thankful for. 1 have watched our country grow over my years. Have we become a country of news watchers and not participators?
In a lot of ways 1 see good. But still the media has a way of bringing drama to our family rooms. Yet, just that is what disturbs me. Is that what our country was founded for, media ratings of drama, not to mention our children's viewing eyes?
You and the rest of the Government have done much to ensure our safety, continuation, and success. Not too babble on but, 1 do understand our task for the next millennium. Does the government?
Yet, still I am still concerned for the USA. 1 support you and your family, not to mention Hillary in her efforts to become a Senator. Even still 1 am concerned and want to help...the Nation and Her. This is why at the right time 1 will consider public life in government. Like JFK, Jr., 1 do care about my community and my country. With his passing 1 have now looked towards the future. For the first time in my life 1 feel a sense of purpose and service, through him and your administration. 1 admire you and your courage though it all you stood tall, (You have done your job well) as did your wife. 1 admire her more than you could ever imagine. Someday, as I venture to my dream as President I hope and pray that 1 can find a wife to stand beside me as she did for you. For now 1 will continue to serve the flooring industry in my best professional manor. 1 have been a positive contributing professional in the flooring industry. Working as a flooring installer, graduating as a manufacturer representative and now owning my very own Flooring Consulting business. For all of this 1 thank my country.
This past week, we as a nation, buried the promise of the next millennium. JFK, Jr., his wife and his wife's sisters deaths were tragic yet, they represented the new millennium and though this is why, 1 step forward today.
Although, 1 did not vote for you 1 have become a supporter of your administration. Why? 1 was brought up as a republican. (LOL) However, though you, the media events, and investigation 1 have come to admire your courage and loyalty to the USA, not to mention your wife. Though JFK Jr's unfortunate death 1 have found some of my very own solis on this day in July. Mr. President though you and JFK, Jrs., celebrated life have realized my dream and destiny. 1 too someday will serve my country as President. Thankyou! Thankyou JFK, Jr.
1 David R. Stowell, promise to make it a reality to my mother and my nation.
1 also wanted to take the time to express the interests as an ordinary man to lobby for the 'Ordinary Man' to join the efforts in space. We as one 'Government for the People of the People' have put a man on the moon, yet never have we put an ordinary man in space. 1 certainly know as do the rest of my fellow Americans know the need for NASA and there efforts towards exploration in space. JFK "The Great" said that we (The USA) should be the first on the moon. We the people of the USA did that ($$$). 1 ask you as citizen and a fan of your administration to consider an "Ordinary Man." It has been the peoples money over the years to support NASA, and that is good, but how about the 'Ordinary Man' in space...? JFK would have agreed. Do you? 1 am aware of the possible future lotteries for space ventures but we as a pubic need it NOW. That alone would bring the public to commitment of dollars towards the next millennium. It would bring that much more to our country, our forefathers, the promise to our people, and Mankind. Do you agree?
Thank you for your service, Mr. President, to me and my follow Americans!
Your friend, supporter, fellow American, and someday President, David R. Stowell (Just how its sounds) President - Floor System Consultants Inc. 727-781-2334
[email protected] Sat Jul 24 05:59:50 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id FAA2783 0 for
About the most 1 could muster was "good riddance." The Kennedy's have never done anything that was to the benefit of most Americans. They were, and are, socialists who love poor unarmed peasants.
If you or 1 had done precisely what he did, we would have qualified to have our picture in the dictionary next to the definition of "Fool." But because it was "Bonnie Prince John," we're supposed to go into some kind of national mourning... Humbug.
From [email protected] Sat Jul 24 05:59:50 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id FAA2783 4 for
[Connection Information]
CLIENT: 168.126.72.12[168.126.72.12] BROWSER: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; CNETHomeBuil d03171999) URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/MaiI/html/Mail_President.html
[Sender Information]
PERSONAL-NAME: John Hall EMAIL-ADDRESS: [email protected] .net ORGANIZATION: RELATIONSHIP: STREET-ADDRESS: CITY: STATE-PROVINCE: ZIP-CODE: COUNTRY:
[Message Information]
PURPOSE: No Answer TOPIC: No Answer AFFILIATION: Private Citizen SUBJECT: Authorization for Burial at Sea of JFK, Jr and his wife and sister in law
[Message]
Mr. President, Many are expressing their displeasure with you and Secretary Cohen's decision to authorize the burial of JFK, Jr. using a Navy destroyer and spending tax payers money. For those of us who were there when John Kennedy was assisinated and saw his children, both John and Carolyn, going through that terrible ordeal, they became the adopted children of all Americans regardless if we were Kennedy supporters or not. It is true they, as all the Kennedy's have lived a very priveleged life, but anyone who can remember John Junior saluting his fathers coffin as it past by and does not get a frog in their throat, well I just have to doubt their compassion for anyone. You made the right decision. You did not allow the recovery effort to go on simply for the Kennedy family, you allowed it to go on for all Americans who have been touched by the events of this family. If you had not done this, America's adopted son would still be missing and there would be a void in all Americans. I don't feel this was done for an influencial family, it was done for a greaving nation. Thank you Mr. President for having the courage to do the hard right thing for our country. You will be critized certainly, but they are the few, the majority 1 believe was given the closure they had to have.
From [email protected] Sat Jul 24 07:14:53 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id HAA0264 8 for
[Connection Information]
CLIENT: 208.29.101.254[208.29.101.254] BROWSER: MozilIa/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 98; Compaq) URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Mail/html/Mail_President.html
[Sender Information]
PERSONAL-NAME: Jeannie Workinger EMAIL-ADDRESS: [email protected] ORGANIZATION: RELATIONSHIP: STREET-ADDRESS: R. D. 3, Box 347-L CITY: Huntingdon STATE-PROVINCE: PA ZIP-CODE: 16652 COUNTRY: USA
[Message Information]
PURPOSE: Register agreement with a position TOPIC: No Answer AFFILIATION: Private Citizen SUBJECT: JFK, JR. Search
[Message]
I wish to thank you for allowing the Navy and Coast Guard to continue the search of JFK, Jr. I can't imagine you would have done anything less. The Kennedy's have been in our lives for so many years, they are like "family". They may not feel that way but we do. Also, thank you for being willing to take on the "worst" job in the country. You by far have exceeded any President in my lifetime - you did make a difference. 1 wish you and your family the best when you return to private life. Again, you've done a magnificant job even with all the controversy you've had to deal with. Shows what a strong man you are.
[email protected] Sat Jul 24 09:36:03 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id JAA1087 4 for
CLIENT: 208.165.199.53[208.165.199.53] BROWSER: MoziIIa/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 95) URL: http://www.whitehouse.govAVH/Mail/html/MaiI_President.htmI
[Sender Information]
PERSONAL-NAME: Rhonda K. Riebeling EMAIL-ADDRESS: [email protected] ORGANIZATION: RELATIONSHIP: STREET-ADDRESS: 2126 Camp Street CITY: E. Carondelet STATE-PROVINCE: Illinois ZIP-CODE: 62240 COUNTRY: U.S.A.
[Message Information]
PURPOSE: Express congratulations, thanks, or condolences TOPIC: No Answer AFFILIATION: Private Citizen SUBJECT: Thoughtfullness
[Message]
1 just read that the President and First Lady presented Sen. Kennedy, Caroline, and the Bessette Family with photo albulms of JFK, Jr. and Carolyn Bessette Kennedy's visits to the White House during their administration. 1 Just wanted to say that I thought it was an extremely thoughtful thing to do and I'm sure that all parties involved will cherish that very special rememberance. With the hundreds of things that the President and First Lady are responsible for on a daily basis to ensure a better quality of life for the nation and the world, it is nice to know that they are still thoughtful and grounded enough to present such a thoughtful and personal gift for those families that are obviously in a great deal of pain. Good Job!
[email protected] SatJul24 10:59:10 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id KAA0623 8 for
-Boundary_(ID_P2ty+bk8QSspxKvBUC+CWA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
In a message dated 7/22/99 8:25:20 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
« >X-Sender: [email protected] >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (32) >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 08:30:46 -0700 >To: [email protected] >From: clarence
> > Within app. 10 seconds of this final radio contact at 9:39 P.M., an >aircraft fitting the description of the subjects (aircraft) and in that >same general location was identified on Radar by both Military personnel >and Martha's Vineyard Airport tower personnel as descending 1,200 feet >in 12 seconds — a full, head-long dive, in other words. > >A reporter for the Vineyard Gazette newspaper told WCVB-TV in Boston >that he was out walking Friday night about the time of the crash and saw >a "big white flash in the sky" just off Philbin Beach. Luggage, a tire, >plexiglas, pieces of the cowling have all washed up on Philbin Beach. >Said reported has now partially recanted his story by stating that >"perhaps It was a bright light from an explosion, but he just cannot be >sure". Reporter has been "gotten to", compromised. Unknown as to by >who, at this time. Several local news reports initially (reported) that >several people SAW and HEARD an explosion in the air over the ocean >South of Martha's Vineyard towards Eastern Long Island, at the same time >that subject's plane "went missing". We have eonfirmed these reports by >speaking with 4 of the witnesses whom have asked to remain anonymous. >Detected definite fear on their part. > >A11 evidence at this time indicates that aircraft was in a fiery, >head-long crash dive within seconds after the 9:39 radio transmission. >Aircraft was equipped with a radar transponder That transmit a 4-digit >ID code and the altitude. Aircraft contained a 406 MHz satellite >distress beacon which would have notified the FAA of exact lat. & long. >Device was NOT Activated. Believe reason as aircraft disintegrated >instantly. Coast Guard claims of an Emergency beacon thought to belong >to this aircraft being activated and heard, by the Coast Guard at 3:40 >A.M., Saturday, in Long Island, New York, are as yet unsubstantiated. > >Subject has been reported by all interviewed, including 3 flight >instructors, to be an excellent pilot who did not take chances. Subject >had logged many hours and had acquired an abnormal amount of expertise >for an individual holding a pilots license for only 15 months. In fact, >it has been reported that JFK, Jr. had logged enough hours, and acquired >enough expertise to qualify as a Commercial Pilot! He had passed >instrument checks with no reported difficulties. Although subject did >not like Flying at night, all information indicates he did so >efficiently. Media's reports of "pilot error", "failed instrument test >and checks" and "scared to fly at night" are patently untrue. Standard >American Media disinformation. > >When SK Alpha team began investigating weather anomalies and any >possible phenomena, (weather). Radar images/data that have proven useful >in such investigations, to include the observations of Electromagnetic/ >radio frequency phenomena, where discovered to be missing from the >archives for the Eastern Long Island/Martha's Vineyard area during the >two (2) critical hours in which JFK Jr's Plane apparently >crashed/disappeared. This is/was more than suspect. After demanding said >data from air control personnel, and receiving stammering, red- faced
>explanations as to it's whereabouts, team notes data has been >intentionally "misplaced", or in fact lost. This indicates that the >subject's aircraft was indeed "shot out of the sky", with either a C4 >charge, placed aft the cabin, a bomb, activated on descent by a >barometric switch or a Particle Beam Laser, fired from Montauk Point. > >Agency is quite familiar with the evil legacy of Montauk Point. >Technology reputed to be null and void is in fact known to be in >existence there, and being employed against the American public. This >includes not only this Laser, but (MK-Ultra) mind-control. Remote >Viewing, the infamous "Montauk chair", and so on. We strongly suspect >one of the technologies was used against subject's aircraft. Currently, >evidence points to the Laser, although this cannot be completely >substantiated. > > >lntrigue Assessment is based on following facts: > >A bright light, or explosion was observed by app. 10 people in the area >of the aircraft's disappearance. > >The headrest, steering yoke, pieces of the cowling, plexiglas and >carpeting where literally tom apart from/off the plane, floating up on >Gay Head Beach. This indicates a mid-air explosion not a stall and >crash. Debris from the crash have also been washing up on the West end >of Martha's Vineyard, creating a very wide spread area of destruction >(in other words, the remains of the aircraft are spread out over a very >large area of space on the Ocean, indicating a mid-air explosion, not a >stall and crash). > >Team has examined all recovered physical evidence and corroborates >damage assessment. Recorded conversations with air traffic control all >indicate a calm, relaxed pilot in full command of the flight, with no >difficulties in the final approach. Seconds after the last transmission, >the explosion was observed and contact was lost with subject's plane. >Previously mentioned weather and electromagnetic/radio frequency data >has been lost, or misplaced. Since this typically NEVER happens, a >cover-up of some sort is strongly suspected. > >The wings of the aircraft where NOT tom off, which they would have been >had subject's plane gone into uncontrollable dive, as being reported by >the American press. If aircraft had had engine trouble, as reported, it >should/could have simply gone into a slow glide and made a soft-water landing. > >No MAYDAY was ever heard, indicating catastrophic occurrence. No >satellite distress beacon was activated, indicating pilot did not have >time to do so. Forensics and physical evidence thus far in regards to >suitcases, pieces of the aircraft, etc., indicate a violent explosion of >some sort, but not that of a C4 type device. > >The aircraft plummeted from the sky at Terminal Velocity. All reports >from subjects flight instructors indicate a very good pilot, who did not >take unnecessary chances or risks. Qualified for all aspects of flight >for the particular aircraft being flown. The chances of him losing >control and plummeting in the manner now being described by the mass >media is almost impossible. >
> >We have learned that subject was preparing to either run against Hillary >Clinton in the New York Primary, or for the Presidency in 2000 (which we >believe he would have won). Knowing Clinton's methods of political >intrigue, and the app. 300 murders he and his wife are guilty of, it is >possible this is three more to add to the tally. Also, knowing the >saga of the Kennedy bloodline, and the Illuminati's obsession with this >bloodline issue, the Kennedys certainly being a member of this >organization, it is entirely possible that these murders where ordered >by (the Illuminati) because of a reported feud between the >Kennedys and the Rockefellers or the Cameron's. The Kennedy's have long >been very unhappy with the (Illuminati) due to the murder of JFK, Sr., >having been threatened and blackmailed into silence. > >Every indicator points towards JFK, Jr. having "had enough" of this >humiliation and planning on turning his magazine "George" into a true >political vehicle for change. For the American public, not for the New >World Order. In fact, he had already begun this process by publishing >factual exposes on George Wallace and the Rabin assassination. This >alone is enough to have gotten him killed. > >Subject had begun looking into his Father's murder, and had developed >plans to slowly expose those involved (in his magazine). Also; subject >was preparing to interview Attorney General Janet Reno for a fall issue >of his magazine, focusing on women in politics. Kennedy requested the >interview by telephone and letter several weeks ago and, to help advance >his request, had made sure that Justice Department officials had copies >of previous issues in which he had interviewed well-known public >figures. > >Among those Kennedy previously interviewed were Secretary of State >Madeleine Albright; former White House press secretary Mike McCurry; >Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan; evangelist Billy Graham; and >Richard Mellon Scaife, a wealthy contributor to conservative groups. >After an introduction by Kennedy, the interviews were published in >question-and-answer format. Information we have received indicates that >there was concern over the nature and content of some of the questions >subject intended to ask (Janet Reno). Apparently, in a change of venue, >the format of his questions had been (changed), deciding instead to >broach such subjects as Waco, the failed impeachment of Clinton, the >refusal to indict Gore for campaign contribution abuses, Johnny Huang >and so fourth. It would appear that these questions were too "close to >home", in a sense, requiring Reno to either tell the truth concerning >her failure to do her job and fulfill the oath she took to uphold the >Constitution, or once again commit perjury in a public (format). This >fits with the known change in political awareness and direction of the >subject. > >Subject's wife may have been pregnant. Again, the bloodline obsession of >the Illuminati, not wanting to risk another JFK (for the people) and his >offspring, had them killed instead. There has long been rumors from this >evil entity that it was considered a mistake that when in 1963 JFK, Sr.
>was killed, that the remaining family were allowed to live. Perhaps they >decided to "rectify that mistake". > >The American Press/mass media are now releasing news reports that are >far from factual. In fact, they can be considered, at best, to be >(classic) disinformation, if not outright lies. > >In the initial reports that where released, the essential truth of the >situation, the facts were there. However, what is now being reported is >(essentially) leaving out the essence of truth and simply glossing over >what actually occurred. Again, what we regard as standard American Press >procedures, disinformation at best. This strongly indicates a cover-up, >or else the truth would still be reported. > >Although requested onsite by Federal agencies, team has been coerced to >"back off, albeit subtly and quietly. This particular tactic speaks >well for itself. We have not "backed off, nor will we. > >Kennedy family will NOT comment, other than a prepared speech by >Caroline. End of prepared statement definitely indicates full knowledge >and awareness of events surrounding JFK Jr's murder. We attempted to >interview her, but there were 6 other individuals surrounding her, >rendering meaningful dialog almost non-existent. > > >Conclusion: >Subject was a qualified pilot, in control of his flight, flying a >reasonably new aircraft, in excellent condition. Visibility was 8 miles. >Wind, calm. All indication from Forensics and Physical evidence >investigations lend themselves to a violent explosion, either from an >altitude or barometric pressure device, or from a Particle Beam Laser. >Aircraft "broke up" in mid-air, as evidenced by widespread debris >gathered from the ocean and several different beaches, and the >nature of collateral damage to recovered aircraft parts, and items on >board or from (the aircraft) such as the headrest, foot pedals, steering >yoke carpeting and so fourth. All showed signs of violent damage, >having been "ripped" or blown from their normal positions/locations. >This can only be caused by an onboard explosion, or an attack by a >missile or Laser. > >Considering the nature of current political leanings of subject, >and today's political atmosphere in America, and the before mentioned >facts, there is little doubt that subject was assassinated. In fact, >team considers this a Political Assassination of the highest order, ft >was meant to alleviate a potential threat to the ruling elite. And it >succeeded. > >Request final authorization — return file copy. Eyes Only. >
»
-Boundary_(ID_P2ty+bk8QSspxKvBUC+CWA) Content-type: MESSAGE/RFC822
Return-path:
>X-Sender: [email protected] >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (32) >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 08:30:46 -0700 >To: [email protected] >From: clarence
> >Within app. 10 seconds of this final radio contact at 9:39 P.M., an >aircraft fitting the description of the subjects (aircraft) and in that >same general location was identified on Radar by both Military personnel >and Martha's Vineyard Airport tower personnel as descending 1,200 feet >in 12 seconds - a full, head-long dive, in other words. > >A reporter for the Vineyard Gazette newspaper told WCVB-TV in Boston >that he was out walking Friday night about the time of the crash and saw >a "big white flash in the sky" just off Philbin Beach. Luggage, a tire, >plexiglas, pieces of the cowling have all washed up on Philbin Beach. >Said reported has now partially recanted his story by stating that >"perhaps It was a bright light from an explosion, but he just cannot be >sure". Reporter has been "gotten to", compromised. Unknown as to by >who, at this time. Several local news reports initially (reported) that >several people SAW and HEARD an explosion in the air over the ocean >South of Martha's Vineyard towards Eastern Long Island, at the same time >that subject's plane "went missing". We have confirmed these reports by >speaking with 4 of the witnesses whom have asked to remain anonymous. >Detected definite fear on their part. > >A11 evidence at this time indicates that aircraft was in a fiery, >head-long crash dive within seconds after the 9:39 radio transmission. >Aircraft was equipped with a radar transponder That transmit a 4-digit >ID code and the altitude. Aircraft contained a 406 MHz satellite >distress beacon which would have notified the FAA of exact lat. & long. >Device was NOT Activated. Believe reason as aircraft disintegrated >instantly. Coast Guard claims of an Emergency beacon thought to belong >to this aircraft being activated and heard, by the Coast Guard at 3:40 >A.M., Saturday, in Long Island, New York, are as yet unsubstantiated. > >Subject has been reported by all interviewed, including 3 flight >instructors, to be an excellent pilot who did not take chances. Subject >had logged many hours and had acquired an abnormal amount of expertise >for an individual holding a pilots license for only 15 months. In fact, >it has been reported that JFK, Jr. had logged enough hours, and acquired >enough expertise to qualify as a Commercial Pilot! He had passed >instrument checks with no reported difficulties. Although subject did >not like Flying at night, all information indicates he did so >efficiently. Media's reports of "pilot error", "failed instrument test >and checks" and "scared to fly at night" are patently untrue. Standard >American Media disinformation. > >When SK Alpha team began investigating weather anomalies and any >possible phenomena, (weather). Radar images/data that have proven useful >in such investigations, to include the observations of Electromagnetic/ >radio frequency phenomena, where discovered to be missing from the >archives for the Eastern Long Island/Martha's Vineyard area during the >two (2) critical hours in which JFK Jr's Plane apparently >crashed/disappeared. This is/was more than suspect. After demanding said >data from air control personnel, and receiving stammering, red- faced
>explanations as to it's whereabouts, team notes data has been >intentionally "misplaced", or in fact lost. This indicates that the >subject's aircraft was indeed "shot out of the sky", with either a C4 >charge, placed aft the cabin, a bomb, activated on descent by a >barometric switch or a Particle Beam Laser, fired from Montauk Point. > >Agency is quite familiar with the evil legacy of Montauk Point. >Technology reputed to be null and void is in fact known to be in >existence there, and being employed against the American public. This >includes not only this Laser, but (MK-Ultra) mind-control. Remote >Viewing, the infamous "Montauk chair", and so on. We strongly suspect >one of the technologies was used against subject's aircraft. Currently, >evidence points to the Laser, although this cannot be completely >substantiated. > > >Intrigue Assessment is based on following facts: > >A bright light, or explosion was observed by app. 10 people in the area >of the aircraft's disappearance. > >The headrest, steering yoke, pieces of the cowling, plexiglas and >carpeting where literally tom apart from/off the plane, floating up on >Gay Head Beach. This indicates a mid-air explosion not a stall and >crash. Debris from the crash have also been washing up on the West end >of Martha's Vineyard, creating a very wide spread area of destruction >(in other words, the remains of the aircraft are spread out over a very >large area of space on the Ocean, indicating a mid-air explosion, not a >stall and crash). > >Team has examined all recovered physical evidence and corroborates >damage assessment. Recorded conversations with air traffic control all >indicate a calm, relaxed pilot in full command of the flight, with no >difficulties in the final approach. Seconds after the last transmission, >the explosion was observed and contact was lost with subject's plane. >Previously mentioned weather and electromagnetic/radio frequency data >has been lost, or misplaced. Since this typically NEVER happens, a >cover-up of some sort is strongly suspected. > >The wings of the aircraft where NOT tom off, which they would have been >had subject's plane gone into uncontrollable dive, as being reported by >the American press. If aircraft had had engine trouble, as reported, it >should/could have simply gone into a slow glide and made a soft-water landing. > >No MAYDAY was ever heard, indicating catastrophic occurrence. No >satellite distress beacon was activated, indicating pilot did not have >time to do so. Forensics and physical evidence thus far in regards to >suitcases, pieces of the aircraft, etc., indicate a violent explosion of >some sort, but not that of a C4 type device. > >The aircraft plummeted from the sky at Terminal Velocity. All reports >from subjects flight instructors indicate a very good pilot, who did not >take unnecessary chances or risks. Qualified for all aspects of flight >for the particular aircraft being flown. The chances of him losing >control and plummeting in the manner now being described by the mass >media is almost impossible. >
> >We have learned that subject was preparing to either run against Hillary >Clinton in the New York Primary, or for the Presidency in 2000 (which we >believe he would have won). Knowing Clinton's methods of political >intrigue, and the app. 300 murders he and his wife are guilty of, it is >possible this is three more to add to the tally. Also, knowing the >saga of the Kennedy bloodline, and the Illuminati's obsession with this >bloodline issue, the Kennedys certainly being a member of this >organization, it is entirely possible that these murders where ordered >by (the Illuminati) because of a reported feud between the >Kennedys and the Rockefellers or the Cameron's. The Kennedy's have long >been very unhappy with the (Illuminati) due to the murder of JFK, Sr., >having been threatened and blackmailed into silence. > >Every indicator points towards JFK, Jr. having "had enough" of this >humiliation and planning on turning his magazine "George" into a true >political vehicle for change. For the American public, not for the New >World Order. In fact, he had already begun this process by publishing >factual exposes on George Wallace and the Rabin assassination. This >alone is enough to have gotten him killed. > >Subject had begun looking into his Father's murder, and had developed >plans to slowly expose those involved (in his magazine). Also; subject >was preparing to interview Attorney General Janet Reno for a fall issue >of his magazine, focusing on women in politics. Kennedy requested the >interview by telephone and letter several weeks ago and, to help advance >his request, had made sure that Justice Department officials had copies >of previous issues in which he had interviewed well-known public >figures. > >Among those Kennedy previously interviewed were Secretary of State >Madeleine Albright; former White House press secretary Mike McCurry; >Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan; evangelist Billy Graham; and >Richard Mellon Scaife, a wealthy contributor to conservative groups. >After an introduction by Kennedy, the interviews were published in >question-and-answer format. Information we have received indicates that >there was concern over the nature and content of some of the questions >subject intended to ask (Janet Reno). Apparently, in a change of venue, >the format of his questions had been (changed), deciding instead to >broach such subjects as Waco, the failed impeachment of Clinton, the >refusal to indict Gore for campaign contribution abuses, Johnny Huang >and so fourth. It would appear that these questions were too "close to >home", in a sense, requiring Reno to either tell the truth concerning >her failure to do her job and fulfill the oath she took to uphold the >Constitution, or once again commit perjury in a public (format). This >fits with the known change in political awareness and direction of the >subject. > >Subject's wife may have been pregnant. Again, the bloodline obsession of >the Illuminati, not wanting to risk another JFK (for the people) and his >offspring, had them killed instead. There has long been rumors from this >evil entity that it was considered a mistake that when in 1963 JFK, Sr.
>was killed, that the remaining family were allowed to live. Perhaps they >decided to "rectify that mistake". > >The American Press/mass media are now releasing news reports that are >far from factual. In fact, they can be considered, at best, to be >(classic) disinformation, if not outright lies. > >In the initial reports that where released, the essential truth of the >situation, the facts were there. However, what is now being reported is >(essentially) leaving out the essence of truth and simply glossing over >what actually occurred. Again, what we regard as standard American Press >procedures, disinformation at best. This strongly indicates a cover-up, >or else the truth would still be reported. > >Although requested onsite by Federal agencies, team has been coerced to >"back off, albeit subtly and quietly. This particular tactic speaks >well for itself. We have not "backed off, nor will we. > >Kennedy family will NOT comment, other than a prepared speech by >Caroline. End of prepared statement definitely indicates full knowledge >and awareness of events surrounding JFK Jr's murder. We attempted to >interview her, but there were 6 other individuals surrounding her, >rendering meaningful dialog almost non-existent. > > >Conclusion: >Subject was a qualified pilot, in control of his flight, flying a >reasonably new aircraft, in excellent condition. Visibility was 8 miles. >Wind, calm. All indication from Forensics and Physical evidence >investigations lend themselves to a violent explosion, either from an >altitude or barometric pressure device, or from a Particle Beam Laser. >Aircraft "broke up" in mid-air, as evidenced by widespread debris >gathered from the ocean and several different beaches, and the >nature of collateral damage to recovered aircraft parts, and items on >board or from (the aircraft) such as the headrest, foot pedals, steering >yoke carpeting and so fourth. All showed signs of violent damage, >having been "ripped" or blown from their normal positions/locations. >This can only be caused by an onboard explosion, or an attack by a >missile or Laser. > >Considering the nature of current political leanings of subject, >and today's political atmosphere in America, and the before mentioned >facts, there is little doubt that subject was assassinated. In fact, >team considers this a Political Assassination of the highest order. It >was meant to alleviate a potential threat to the ruling elite. And it >succeeded. > >Request final authorization — return file copy. Eyes Only. >
—Boundary _(ID_P2ty+bk8QSspxKvBUC+CWA)—
From [email protected] Sat Jul 24 00:12:22 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id AAA0294 6 for
[email protected]; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 00:09:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 1249 invoked by alias); Sat, 24 Jul 1999 04:09:03 +0000 Received: (qmail 1237 invoked by uid 0); Sat, 24 Jul 1999 04:09:02 +0000 Received: from dialupe242.tcsn.uswest.net (HELO pop.tcsn.uswest.net) (209.180.112.242) by tcsnpopl.tcsn.uswest.net with SMTP; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 04:09:02 +0000 Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 21:08:01 -0700 From: Kevin Hampton
In the past week or so I have witnessed something in this country that 1 feel is appalling. It seems that honors traditionally reserved for those who have served their country are now up for sale. Or, if not for sale, can be obtained even if not earned if your family has the right amount of political clout. I am referring to the burial at sea of John F. Kennedy Jr., his wife Carolyn Bessette Kennedy, and Lauren Bessette from a U.S. Navy ship. I am also referring to the flag above the White House being lowered to half staff in their honor. According to national news reports, the Navy had to "bend" the rules a little in order to be able to perform the burial. It seems that the only "qualifier" for Mr. Kennedy was that he gave generously to charity. As nobel as that is, it does not meet the test of being national service. My only sources of information are the news services and the internet, but 1 can find no national public office that Mr. Kennedy ever held. He was never a political appointee. He never served in the armed forces. And he never served in any national service organization that 1 am aware of. 1 do not want to give the impression that 1 have no sympathy for the Kennedy or Bessette families in this terrible tragedy and loss. 1 know that the Kennedy family specifically has suffered and given greatly in the service of this country. Both families have my heartfelt condolences. But 1 do not think honors like these that traditionally and by law had to be earned by personal service to this country should so casually be handed out simply because of who your family is. Many who have earned these honors did it by paying the ultimate price of their lives. We should not cheapen what they have given by allowing these honors to be bought with money or to be given simply because of who your father was.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Kevin D. Hampton 7601 E. Dogwood Tucson, AZ 85730
[email protected] Sat Jul 24 00:13:23 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id AAA0343 9 for
[Connection Information]
CLIENT: 12.72.38.86[12.72.38.86] BROWSER: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt; AT&T WNS5.0) URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Mail/html/Mail_President.html
[Sender Information]
PERSONAL-NAME: Eric C. Moloy EMAIL-ADDRESS: [email protected] ORGANIZATION: RELATIONSHIP: STREET-ADDRESS: CITY: STATE-PROVINCE: ZIP-CODE: COUNTRY:
[Message Information]
PURPOSE: Register agreement with a position TOPIC: No Answer AFFILIATION: Private Citizen SUBJECT: Kennedy, Taxes
[Message]
I would support your veto of the new tax breaks, and 1 support your decision to continue the Coast Guard's search for the plane/remains. You should be applauded for such a decision, not "blamed".
From [email protected] Sat Jul 24 00:28:24 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id AAA0823 2 for
[Connection Information]
CLIENT: 24.95.28.12[24.95.28.12] BROWSER: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 98) URL: http://www.whitehouse.govAVH/Mail/html/Mail_President.html
[Sender Information]
PERSONAL-NAME: Brandy Donahue EMAIL-ADDRESS: [email protected] ORGANIZATION: RELATIONSHIP: STREET-ADDRESS: P.O.Box 7154 CITY: Scarborough STATE-PROVINCE: Maine ZIP-CODE: 04070 COUNTRY: United States
[Message Information]
PURPOSE: Other TOPIC: Social Issues AFFILIATION: Young Person - under 18 years of age SUBJECT: Thoughts On the John F. Kennedy Jr. Tragedy
[Message]
Mr. President, 1 realize you are troubled with much greater importantance. I'm not even sure if you will even see this or if it will just get an auto response from some secretary. None the less I wanted to share this with you. I hope you enjoy it as much as everyone I have shown it to has. I wrote a poem about Mr. Kennedy's death. 1 hope 1 am not imposing by sending you this. J.F.K.Jr. - - The times with you,runs through my mind as i watch it one more time In disbelief of all that has occured after all that your family have endured
You touched our hearts, then later our lives It was too soon to depart Why did you have to die?
Leaving poor Caroline alone No else to feel her pain Now that she is without you, nothing will ever be the same
When you left, you took her too Now she doesnt know what to do Tears simply fall from her eyes, remembering all the times she cried
You must be her angel. To save her from her grief The tree that grows within her has lost its final leaf, leaving her in disbelief
Sincerly, Brandy Donahue
From [email protected] Sat Jul 24 02:58:39 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteFIouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id CAA2919 8 for
[Connection Information]
CLIENT: 24.94.10.253[24.94.10.253] BROWSER: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 98) URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Mail/html/Mail_President.html [Sender Information]
PERSONAL-NAME: Miss Monica K. Davila RN EMAIL-ADDRESS: mdavilal @san.rr.com ORGANIZATION: RELATIONSHIP: STREET-ADDRESS: CITY: STATE-PROVINCE: ZIP-CODE: COUNTRY:
[Message Information]
PURPOSE: Express congratulations, thanks, or condolences TOPIC: No Answer AFFILIATION: No Answer SUBJECT: John F. Kennedy Jr.
[Message]
Dear Mr. President, What you did for the Kennedey family, in allowing the search to continue is no less than JFK Sr, would have done for your own child, were the situation reversed.
I respect and Thank You for doing that for them and for us. John F. Kennedy Jr. was our "darling", and he along with Carolyn and her Sister Lauren, will be missed.
Monica K. Davila RN
From [email protected] Sat Jul 24 04:16:43 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id EAA0781 3 for
PROFANING A TRAGEDY WITH LIES New York Post Saturday, July 24, 1999
What is it about Bill Clinton that requires him to concoct irrelevant and unnecessary lies to simulate emotional ties to other Americans?
Four years ago, during the nationwide uproar over an apparent new wave of church arson, an emotional Clinton spoke of his personal memories of black churches being burned in his native Arkansas while growing up in the segregated South. One problem, which a local newspaper discovered after careful research: No black churches were burned in Arkansas during the '50s and '60s.
Last week, the president once against felt compelled to tell a whopper when discussing the tragic death of John F. Kennedy Jr. And, once again, the lie was totally meaningless and unnecessary.
"John Kennedy had actually not been back to the White House since his father was killed until I became president," Clinton told a nationally televised news conference. "He came back to the Oval Office where he saw the desk that he took the famous picture in - you know, coming through the gate for the first time since he was a little boy."
It was obviously an emotional moment for Bill Clinton, who has tried to pattern his life and career after JFK Sr. As one network correspondent described it, Clinton "seemed to think that the visit helped John Kennedy come to terms not only with his own life, but [with] his family's history."
Except, of course, that what Bill Clinton said wasn't remotely true.
In fact, John Kennedy and his sister Caroline had been back to the White Housetwice before - both times at the invitation of Republican presidents.
Richard Nixon had the Kennedy family over for a private, unpublicized visit in 1971, where the then-10-year-old boy first revisited the Oval Office and living quarters, trying to recall the times when he had scampered there with his father. After the trip, Jackie Kennedy sent the Nixons a deeply felt, handwritten letter of thanks, asking, "Do you have any idea what kind of a gift you've given me?"
Ten years later, John and Caroline returned to the White House for a ceremony in which President Reagan presented their aunt, Ethel Kennedy, with a gold medal in honor of her late husband's service to the nation.
But that didn't stop Bill Clinton from trying to portray himself as the first president with whom John Kennedy felt comfortable enough to revisit the White House. (Nor did it stop a host of Clinton fans at the networks from parroting the president's tale on their newscasts without checking it out.) What is it about this president that not only moves him to tell unnecessary lies, but also compels him to insert himself into every emotional event? No one questions the emotion he, like all Americans, felt over JFK Jr.'s death; why did he feel the need to invent a story about his own supposed role in bringing "closure" to the Kennedys?
Consider it yet another example of Clinton's deeply flawed character - one that exaggerates his self-importance and renders any historical event irrelevant unless he can place himself, truthfully or not, at its center.
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
Bill Clinton achieves a feeling of superiority over, while directing contempt upon, people by lying to them. He gets away with it because people can't believe he's doing it. Posted on 07/24/1999 00:27:01 PDT by RLK
What a shame! A man is president who is unqualified to be even the village dog catcher. Either we need to redefine the Presidency downward to keep it on an even keel with Resident Clinton's low character, or continue to ignore the feloneous, psychopathic man squatting at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
"1 knew John Kennedy. John Kennedy was a friend of mine. You, Bill Clinton, are no John Kennedy."
Posted on 07/24/1999 00:37:37 PDT by Cultural Jihad
What is it about this president that not only moves him to tell unnecessary lies, but also compels him to insert himself into every emotional event?
What is it about the media that they continually let him get away with lying?
Posted on 07/24/1999 00:39:41 PDT by Schnucki
What is it about the media that they continually let him get away with lying?
They share the same contempt for the people in this country.
Posted on 07/24/1999 00:48:37 PDT by RLK
From [email protected] Sat Jul 24 04:19:43 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id EAA0928 0 for
[Connection Information]
CLIENT: 209.240.200.106[209.240.200.106] BROWSER: Mozilla/3.0 WebTV/1.2 (compatible; MSIE 2.0) URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/MaiI/html/Mail_President.html
[Sender Information]
PERSONAL-NAME: Santa McDowell EMAIL-ADDRESS: [email protected] ORGANIZATION: none RELATIONSHIP: none STREET-ADDRESS: 5 North 12th Street, 1 st fir. CITY: Hawthorne STATE-PROVINCE: New Jersey ZIP-CODE: 07506-3701 COUNTRY: US
[Message Information]
PURPOSE: Express congratulations, thanks, or condolences TOPIC: No Answer AFFILIATION: Private Citizen SUBJECT: Thank You for what you did for the Kennedy Family
[Message]
Dear Mr. President: I wish to thank you for the humanitarian aide you gave to the Kennedy family in locating their loved ones. I don't care what anyone else says. I personally believe that you and your family did the right thing. Years ago when my mom and dad and us lived in Manhattan NY my father transported both Caroline and John F. Kennedy Jr. to their private schools. I am glad that my father was not alive to witness this sad moment in history. As long as 1 live I will always remember John John saluting his fathers coffin as it passed in front of him. We will all miss him very much as we shall also miss his beautiful wife and sister in law. Mr. President we are very proud of you and what you have done. I would expect nothing less from a humanitarian man as yourself and your family. In this country 1 have noticed one thing you damned if you do and damned if you don't you can't please everybody. With this I shall close with much love and appreciation towards your family and your efforts on behalf of the McDowell family in NJ.
[email protected] Sat Jul 24 07:37:55 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id HAA1486 7 for
[Connection Information]
CLIENT: 207.115.63.16[207.115.63.16] BROWSER: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.0; Windows 95) URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Mail/html/Mail_President.html
[Sender Information]
PERSONAL-NAME: P. David Mittiga EMAIL-ADDRESS: [email protected] ORGANIZATION: RELATIONSHIP: STREET-ADDRESS: 365 Devon Court CITY: Valparaiso STATE-PROVINCE: fN ZIP-CODE: 46385-7705 COUNTRY: USA
[Message Information]
PURPOSE: Other TOPIC: No Answer AFFILIATION: Private Citizen SUBJECT: Support of Presidential Action [Message]
Dear Mr. President; In the past I have written to express my dissatisfaction with either your actions and/or position on issues. However, during the past week I have been positively impressed with your public expression of support to the Kennedy family during their time of crisis due to death of John F Kennedy Jr, his wife, and sister-in-law. You did the right thing in using your full authority and resources as President of our country, when you took full responsibility for using government resources to assist in search/rescue & search/recover. God bless you and your family. Best regards, P. David Mittiga. 365 Devon Court, Valparaiso, IN 46385-7705
From [email protected] Sat Jul 24 10:26:07 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id KAA2712 9 for
Mr. President, 1 applaud you on your decision to extend the Coast Guard time to find the bodies and airplane the Kennedy's and Lauren Bessette were in. I feel this was a tragic loss for our country. John Kennedy Jr. had so much potential.
Gary Powers gpowers@ph 1 .cc.va.us
From [email protected] Sat Jul 24 10:50:10 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.I/uucp-relay) id KAA0281 5 for
[Connection Information]
CLIENT: 63.13.89.148[63.13.89.148] BROWSER: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 98) URL: http://www.whitehouse.govAVH/Mail/html/Mail_President.html
[Sender Information]
PERSONAL-NAME: Paul Harke EMAIL-ADDRESS: [email protected] ORGANIZATION: RELATIONSHIP: STREET-ADDRESS: 5111 Woodmere Drive #101 CITY: Centreville STATE-PROVINCE: VA ZIP-CODE: 20120 COUNTRY: USA
[Message Information]
PURPOSE: Register disagreement with a position TOPIC: No Answer AFFILIATION: Private Citizen SUBJECT: John Kennedy Jr.
[Message]
Mr. President: What is the justification of lowering the flags to half-staff at the Whit House for the Kennedy funeral? Can we expect to see the flags lowered to half-staff upon the deaths of the children of Presidents Carter and Reagan? Or, is the flag only lowered for millionaire friends of yours?
Thanks, Paul R. Harke
From [email protected] Sat Jul 24 11:05:12 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id LAA0886 2 for
[Connection Information]
CLIENT: 206.187.210.140[206.187.210.140] BROWSER: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; Compaq; DigE xt) URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Mail/html/Mail_President.html
[Sender Information]
PERSONAL-NAME: Paul K. Adams EMAIL-ADDRESS: [email protected] ORGANIZATION: RELATIONSHIP: STREET-ADDRESS: 726 N. Fifth St. - Apt. # 3 CITY: Festus STATE-PROVINCE: MO ZIP-CODE: 63028-1759 COUNTRY: USA
[Message Information]
PURPOSE: Register agreement with a position TOPIC: No Answer AFFILIATION: Private Citizen SUBJECT: Handling of John F. Kennedy Jr. Matter
[Message] I was proud of the way you handled ALL of the matters pertaining to the John F. Kennedy Jr. Tragedy. You was very graceful and thoughtful about the whole affair and I am behind you 100% in this matter.
From [email protected] Sat Jul 24 02;12;36 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id CAAl 199 5 for
[Connection Information]
CLIENT: 209.240.200.56[209.240.200.56] BROWSER: Mozilla/3.0 WebTV/1.2 (compatible; MSIE 2.0) URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Mail/html/Mail_President.html
[Sender Information]
PERSONAL-NAME: Richard J. Muzio EMAIL-ADDRESS: [email protected] ORGANIZATION: citizen RELATIONSHIP: STREET-ADDRESS: 3133 frontera way #235 CITY: Burlingame STATE-PROVINCE: ca ZIP-CODE: 94010 COUNTRY: USA
[Message Information]
PURPOSE: Express congratulations, thanks, or condolences TOPIC: No Answer AFFILIATION: No Answer SUBJECT: JF Kennedy, Jr
[Message]
Thank you Mr. President for your kindness and generosity extended to the Kennedy and Bessette families. You made me feel proud as a mourning American. Your thoughfulness served as a source of comfort for many of us. Sincerely, Richard J. Muzio
[email protected] Sat Jul 24 02:27:37 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id CAA1637 7 for
Dear President Clinton, 1 wish to go on record that 1 urge the United States to take a stand and defend and restore the civil, moral, legal and medical rights of the women and girls of Afghanistan. What is happening to them is criminal by any standards. How can the world stand by and allow this to continue?
As I am writing to you, I want to take this time to tell you that 1 feel you did the only correct thing one could do by directing the Coast Guard to find and recover the bodies of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Jr., Carolyn Bessette Kennedy and Lauren Bessette. As human beings they deserved this and as a Country we owed it to them and to their families. Thank you with all my heart. Constanee Thaxton
From [email protected] Sat Jul 24 04:56:46 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id EAA2719 0 for
[Connection Information]
CLIENT: 152.163.194.208[ 152.163.194.208] BROWSER: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; AOL 4.0; Windows 98) URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Mail/html/Mail_President.html
[Sender Information]
PERSONAL-NAME: Jamie Henry EMAIL-ADDRESS: [email protected] ORGANIZATION: RELATIONSHIP: STREET-ADDRESS: 501 Hahaione St., #7K CITY: Honolulu STATE-PROVINCE: HI ZIP-CODE: 96825 COUNTRY:
[Message Information]
PURPOSE: Express congratulations, thanks, or condolences TOPIC: No Answer AFFILIATION: No Answer SUBJECT: John F. Kennedy, Jr.
[Message]
Dear Mr. President: Thank you for authorizing the continuation of the search for John Kennedy's plan and remains. Your decision was entirely appropriate and Justified. 1 was 5 years old when President Kennedy was asassinated and I feel like I sort of grew up with John Kennedy, Jr. His death was so tragic.
He and his family have given so much to our country. Thanks again.
Aloha,
Jamie Henry
[email protected] Sat Jul 24 09:51:05 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id JAA1550 6 for
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
-Boundary_(lD_W/pKZW6vVn 1 ola+vE7r95 A) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-l Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Dear Mr. President:
I was very sad about the death of John F. Kennedy, Jr., Carolyn Kennedy, and L auren Bessette, and my heart goes out to their families. 1 admired John for li ving his own life in an honest, dignified, and self directed manner; and for be ing a good example and bringing honor to a family name that at times needed rep air. I am also glad that they were all found in order to bring closure to the families.
However, your decisions to extend the search and rescue clearly over stepped th e bounds and showed favoritism, privilege, and social class distinction to the Kennedy name in our society where "all men are created equal." It was clearly a personal and political decision, Mr. President.
Yes, John contributed to society, as do many other Kennedy's, and as do many ot her Americans. Yes, the Kennedy family has sustained many tragedies and losses , as have many other families. However, the Kennedy losses are no more tragic or meaningful because their name is Kennedy.
Not many Americans think of the Kennedys as "America's royalty," and many like me, strongly object to the concept. And there is no "Kennedy mystique" for mos t Americans. These are concepts created by the media to romanticize a family i n order to sell more of their medium.
Many of us simply have a sincere appreciation for their contributions and publi c service and the recognition that they are flawed just like the rest of us - a nd more, in the case of some Kennedy family members - with many skeletons in an d out of their closet.
You set a precedent, Mr. President. So the question is — if any member of my family or any other American citizen who lives a good, honest, hardworking, taxpaying life is lost over the Atlantic, will you authorize all of the rescue and recovery efforts that came to bear to find John, Carolyn, and Lauren? And if not, why not?
You see Mr. President, I and any other family would want my loved ones found ju St as much as the Kennedys and Freeman/Bessettes wanted their loved ones found. There is no difference.
Sincerely,
Lynn F. Coulam Austin, Texas
[email protected] SatJul24 11:22:12 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id LAA1281 6 for
From: Norbert Kidd 21 Marston / P.O.Box 02298 Detroit,, MI 48202
President Clinton:
Thank you, Mr. President, for the compassionate and dignified way you represented us all in these tragic days. I am a teacher, just a couple of years older than you. I share the vivid memories of President Kennedy's death, especially at this time.The death of John Kennedy, Jr., and his family reaches deep into our national memory and touches emotions that still seem poignant, thirty-five years after our shock. By decisively using the resources of our country to bring this sad event to closure, you have truly honored the memory of President Kennedy. I am deeply moved by the photo of you meeting President Kennedy when you were a young man. I know the esteem you have for him and the family, and your actions this week speak to this esteem. Thank you for helping us all bring this tragedy to a dignified conclusion,and for being there to represent not only yourself, but all of us, who remember. While I realize that you probably will not see this message, I felt 1 had to express my gratitude and support of your actions. You and your family are in my daily prayers.
Sincerely,
Norbert Kidd
END ATTACHMENT 1 RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Mark A. Kitchens ( CN=Mark A. Kitchens/0U=WH0/0=E0P [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME-.25-JUL-1999 20:27:15.00
SUBJECT: CNN Late Edition, July 25, 1999
TO: Anne W. Bovaird ( CN=Anne W. Bovaird/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael K. Gehrke ( CN=Michael K. Gehrke/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michele Ballantyne ( CN=Michele Ballantyne/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ruby Shamir ( CN=Ruby Shamir/0U=0PD/0=E0P@E0P [ OPD ] ) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Aprill N. Springfield ( CN=Aprill N. Springfield/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ann C. Hertelendy ( CN=Ann C. Hertelendy/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Erica S. Lepping ( CN=Erica S. Lepping/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Saladbar 23
TO: Rajiv Y. Mody ( CN=Rajiv Y. Mody/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. O’Shea ( CN=Sean P. 0'Shea/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura J. Lewis ( CN=Laura J. Lewis/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ-.UNKNOWN
TO: James E. Kennedy ( CN=James E. Kennedy/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ-.UNKNOWN
TO: Katharine Button ( CN=Katharine Button/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alejandro G. Cabrera ( CN=Alejandro G. Cabrera/0=0VP@0VP [ UNKNOWN ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joshua S. Gottheimer ( CN=Joshua S. Gottheimer/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN TO: Clara J. Shin ( CN=Clara J. Shin/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ-.UNKNOWN
TO: Edward F. Hughes ( CN=Edward F. Hughes/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sarah E. Gegenheimer ( CN=Sarah E. Gegenheimer/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rachael E. Sullivan ( CN=Rachael E. Sullivan/0=0VP@0VP [ UNKNOWN ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey A. Shesol ( CN=Jeffrey A. Shesol/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark A. Kitchens ( CN=Mark A. Kitchens/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gordon Li ( CN=Gordon Li/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven J. Naplan ( CN=Steven J. Naplan/0U=NSC/0=E0P@E0P [ NSC ] ) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura D. Schwartz ( CN=Laura D. Schwartz/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gene B. Sperling ( CN=Gene B. Sperling/0U=0PD/0=E0P@E0P [ OPD ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne M. Edwards ( CN=Anne M. Edwards/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa M. Murray ( CN=Melissa M. Murray/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Eli G. Attie ( CN=Eli G. Attie/0=0VP@0VP [ UNKNOWN ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Peter A. Weissman ( CN=Peter A. Weissman/0U=0PD/0=E0P@E0P [ OPD ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark D. Neschis ( CN=Mark D. Neschis/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thurgood Marshall Jr (CN^Thurgood Marshall Jr/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lowell A. Weiss ( CN=Lowell A. Weiss/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julia M. Payne ( CN=Julia M. Payne/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN TO: Beverly J. Barnes ( CN=Beverly J. Bames/0U=WH0/0=E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jordan Tamagni ( CN=Jordan Tamagni/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Megan C. Moloney ( CN=Megan C. Moloney/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ-.UNICNOWN
TO: Brenda M. Anders (CN=Brenda M. Anders/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dominique L. Cano ( CN=Dominique L. Cano/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Leslie Bernstein ( CN=Leslie Bemstein/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:U7MKNOWN
TO: Anthony R. Bernal ( CN=Anthony R. Bemal/0=0VP@0VP [ UNKNOWN ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joseph P. Lockhart ( CN=Joseph P. Lockhart/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jenni R. Engebretsen (CN=Jenni R. Engebretsen/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Natalie S. Wozniak ( CN=Natalie S. WozniakyOU=NSC/0=EOP@EOP [ NSC ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dawn M. Chirwa ( CN=Dawn M. Chirwa/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David Vandivier ( CN=David Vandivier/0U=0MB/0=E0P@E0P [ 0MB ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lindsey E. Huff ( CN=Lindsey E. Huff/0U=NSC/0=E0P@E0P [ NSC ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven Reich ( CN=Steven Reich/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kimberly S. Anderson ( CN=Kimberly S. Anderson/OU=OA/0=EOP@EOP [ OA ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robin J. Bachman ( CN=Robin J. Bachman/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas D. Janenda (CN-Thomas D. Janenda/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Toby C. Graff ( CN=Toby C. Graff/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN TO: Michael A. Hammer ( CN=Michael A. Hammer/0U=NSC/0=E0P@E0P [ NSC ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Victoria L. Valentine ( CN=Victoria L. Valentine/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rebecca L. Walldorff ( CN=Rebecca L. Walldorff/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Heather M. Riley ( CN=Heather M. Riley/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan M. Prince ( CN=Jonathan M. Prince/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa J. Prober ( CN=Melissa J. Prober/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steve Ricchetti ( CN=Steve Ricchetti/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julie B. Goldberg ( CN=Julie B. Goldberg/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rochester M. Johnson ( CN=Rochester M. Johnson/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ-.UNKNOWN
TO: June Shih ( CN=June Shih/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jason H. Schechter ( CN=Jason H. Schechter/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alison Muscatine ( CN=Alison Muscatine/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julie E. Mason ( CN=Julie E. Mason/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Paul K. Engskov ( CN=Paul K. Engskov/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael Waldman ( CN=Michael Waldman/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ-.UNKNOWN
TO: Barry J. Toiv ( CN=Barry J. Toiv/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ-.UNKNOWN
TO: Sara M. Latham ( CN=Sara M. Latham/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: William A. Halter ( CN=William A. Halter/0U=0MB/0=E0P@E0P [ 0MB ]) READ:UNKNOWN TO: Nanda Chitre ( CN=Nanda Chitre/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READiUNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer Ferguson ( CN=Jennifer Ferguson/OU=OMB/0=EOP@EOP [ 0MB ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan A. Kaplan ( CN=Jonathan A. Kaplan/0U=0PD/0=E0P@E0P [ OPD ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey M. Smith ( CN=Jeffrey M. Smith/0U=0STP/0-E0P@E0P [ OSTP ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth R. Newman ( CN=Elizabeth R. Newman/0U-WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Richard L. Siewert ( CN=Richard L. Siewert/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dag Vega ( CN=Dag Vega/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robin M. Roland ( CN=Robin M. Roland/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa G. Green ( CN=Melissa G. Green/0U=0PD/0=E0P@E0P [ OPD ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer M. Palmieri ( CN=Jennifer M. Palmieri/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Douglas B. Sosnik ( CN=Douglas B. Sosnik/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT: CNN Late Edition PrimeTime Aired July 25, 1999 - 12:00 p.m. ET
Lance Armstrong Wins Tour de France; World Leaders Attend Funeral of Morocco's King Hassan 11; JFK Jr. Remembered; Congress Debates Tax Cut
WOLF BLITZER, HOST: Ifs noon in Washington; 9:00 a.m. in Los Angeles; 4:00 p.m. in Rabat, Morocco; and 8:00 p.m. in Moscow. Wherever you’re watching from around the world, thanks for joining us for this 90- minute LATE EDITION.
We'll get to our guests shortly, including a remembrance of John F. Kennedy Jr., but first, a look on the hour's top stories.
American Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France. Less than an hour ago in Paris he became the second American ever to win the grueling three-week cycling race. Armstrong's victory caps a remarkable personal comeback. Just three years ago, the 27-year-old Texan was diagnosed with testicular cancer.
We now go to Morocco where a 40-day mourning period for King Hassan began on Saturday. The 70-year-old monarch died Friday after suffering a heart attack. Numerous heads of state, including President Clinton and French President Jacques Chirac, are in the Moroccan capital of Rabat for his funeral. CNN's Charles Bierbauer is also in Rabat and joins us now. Charles.
CHARLES BIERBAUER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, indeed. President Clinton, and Mr. Chirac along with King Abdullah of Jordan, Juan Carlos of Spain, and many other heads of state and government are at this moment walking in a procession, to go about three miles, from the palace to burial, location, for King Hassan.
They are walking accompanying King Mohammed, the new king of Morocco in this event, which marks the transition for Morocco's government from father to son, though indeed most people here say it will not be much of a change at all. And for president Clinton, that is considered a positive sign since this is a governmental which has — and a kingdom which has long between sympathetic to the United States and has also functioned as a catalyst much behind the scenes, in promoting a Middle East peace.
Indeed, earlier, as they were gathered at the royal palace here, President Clinton met for about five minutes, with Prime Minister Barak of Israel, and with the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Small meetings taking place as often happened at gatherings such as this, to try and move the process, along. President Clinton also met briefly with the new king. King Mohammed. He is the 35-year-old eldest son of King Hassan and, as I indicated, U.S. officials expect not much change in the way of foreign policy and that is considered good news.
One missing person here who certainly Mr. Clinton, and also Prime Minister Barak of Israel would have like to have seen and met with would have been Syria's President Asad. He is the individual now seen as key towards moving to the next step in the Mideast peace process.
All this taking place as massive throng of people moves through streets of Rabat. Once procession left the palace it was engulfed by probably hundreds of thousands of Moroccans paying their last respects — and all these leaders are sort of the eye of what looks like a hurricane of activity, relatively calm moving behind the coffin. But a great deal of enthusiasm, as well as tearfulness, on the part of many people, here in the capital of Morocco. Wolf.
BLITZER: 1 noticed, Charles, that on the arrival President Clinton was joined on Air Force One by Former President George Bush, Former Secretary of State James Baker. There has been a longstanding U.S. relationship with Morocco, not only in terms of the peace process, but Morocco's close relationship with the United States.
King Hassan was pivotal player. How important though is this loss to the United States?
BIERBAUER: Well, it's a loss of a close friend both in terms of policy, and personal relationships.
BIERBAUER: I talked briefly with President Bush about this. Of course, he has been here both as vice president, and briskly stopping through on a presidential trip between points and they all remember King Hassan that way. They even remember him as an ardent golfer who learned his golfing from American pros, such as Billy Kasper, who came over here and taught him how to play. So this is a friend of the United States in that respect. And, one who has maintained a constant allegiance and support to U.S. policies in this area, even at a time once during Cold War when he sought to improve relations with the Soviet Union, it was never at a cost of relations with the U.S.
And probably the most important role is the one that King Hassan played in helping bring Israel and some of its Arab neighbors together, quietly behind the scenes, but he was a key there.
Now, the Israelis are in a position where they can do that themselves but certainly it's significant to see Ehud Barak joining Arab leaders in this procession. Wolf
BLITZER: CNN senior Washington correspondent Charles Bierbauer reporting live from Rabat. And joining us now to talk about the impact of King Hassan's death, here in Washington, Professor Azizah al Hibri of the University of Richmond Law School, and in New York, Raghida Dergham, senior diplomatic correspondent for the "Al-Hayat" newspaper. Raghida, let's begin with you. The political ramifications of seeing the Israeli prime minister with a large Israeli delegation in Morocco for this funeral. How significant a development is this, in a leader of the Arab world, the new king, Mohammed welcoming such a large, impressive Israeli delegation?
RAGHIDA DERGHAM, "AL-HAYAT": Of course, it is significant, but it's not the first as you know, before that, the king during the funeral of the King of Jordan, King Hussein, delegation a very large Israeli delegation headed at that time by prime minister then Benjamin Netanyahu attended that funeral. So it's not a first, but, it is significant, as it will always be because this is a new page between the Arabs and the Israeli's that we see a large Israeli or any Israeli leader come to a funeral of Arab king of head of state. So it's new and it's important and it's significant because, as was noted earlier, the late King Hassan played a pivotal role in bringing about this new relationship, between the Arabs and Israelis.
As to the absence of President Asad of Syria, again, we were told that he was supposed to attend, whatever made him change his plans, I don't read any political significance, or any political message. I should say, I believe that he had already crossed that threshold when he went to the funeral in Amman five months ago. And I don't think it is related at all, to the presence of Mr. Barak.
In fact, as you know, they have been talking with each other through the media, through intermediaries and things look to be improving or maybe going on the right track between the Israelis and the Syrians.
BLITZER: Professor al Hibri, walk us through a little bit of the Islamic ritual that we're now seeing for this burial ceremony for King Hassan.
AZIZAH AL HIBRI, UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND LAW SCHOOL: If I may, just interject before I go on, and comment about the friendship between the U.S. and Morocco. It is very significant, in the days of the deceased king, but I must say that Morocco executed with the U.S. one of the earliest ever friendship treaties with the United States. So the relationship between them is quite old.
As to the practice now, and the funeral services, you are going to see people walking behind the funeral. This is very important, because as you walk behind the deceased, you are asking God for his forgiveness. God in all his mercy should forgive this person who had died. That's what you are asking for and by asking for that, you're getting rewards yourself.
Those people who are on the street also, praying that God may forgive the king, are also only remembering his good deeds. When a person dies, in a Muslim tradition, you do not remember something that he might have done wrong, but you focus on the good that he might have done. And you ask for God's forgiveness.
You continue until the procession goes into the Mosque, and there will be a brief — a prayer for the deceased, and after that, he will be taken to his burial place and he will be lowered into the ground. Usually Muslims do not bury the deceased in a coffin. He will only be buried in the cloth in which he is wrapped.
BLITZER: Raghida, we see now a new generation of leaders taking charge in some of the countries in the Arab world. King Abdullah taking over for King Hussein. Now we see. King Mohammed taking over for King Hassan. And we see a lot of older leaders still in power, president Asad, the PLO, the Palestinian authority. President Yasser Arafat, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia. What about this new generation, of Arab leaders? Where will they differ, if they will differ, from their predecessors?
DERGHAM: In style above all. Wolf, because the use will dictate its own terms because they may go on with policies of their fathers. But 1 think the fact that they are youthful, that they have been educated abroad, that they will bring about an impact one way or another. And also 1 would have noticed that in the case of King Abdullah of Jordan, there was worry that elder generations of rulers in the Arab world might become too patronizing of him, to treat him like the young one around. Let's see how we tell him what to do. That hasn't been the case, so that is a healthy sign, that the elders are in the that they are not resisting, the newcomers.
Definitely, in Morocco we will see an impact, because more Moroccoans have been ruled by a young man then for 38 years, and now, we have a new young king, who will have his own emphasis. He and his brother and nephews are all a young generation. So it is the army, and the new king have had very good relations. He, in effect, his late father made sure that he is up in ranks with the army, almost a chief of the military. They support him. 1 think the political sector, the business sector supports him, and, obviously the Moroccoans at large are, right now as was noted earlier by professor, they are of course, emphasizing the good deeds. They are not going to dissect what will the new king do.
BLITZER: Raghida al-Dergham and Azizah al Hibri, thank you you very, very much for joining us, and for offering us your insight into what is obviously a sad day in Morocco and elsewhere around the world.
And here in the United States, mourners are remembering the lives of John F. Kennedy Jr., his wife, Carolyn and her sister Lauren this week. Joining me now to look back on this remarkable week in the United States, in New York, author and Kennedy biographer, Ed Klein. Here in Washington, former Senator Harris Wofford of Pennsylvania, a long-time friend of the Kennedy family and historian and author, Haynes Johnson.
Gentlemen, thank you so much for Joining us on LATE EDITION. I'll begin with Harris Wofford, you knew both President Kennedy and his son John Kennedy Jr. Talk to us a little bit about the differences, between these two men.
FORMER SEN. HARRISON WOFFORD (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Well, 1 think John Kennedy Jr. inherited the best parts of his father; the sense of service, of adventure, of loving politics, and a sense of humor. From his mother, however, he has integrity, and interest in politics, beyond politics, and interest in life, which she undoubtedly encouraged. But made his own life, and seems to me, like John Kennedy in his time, in the '50s when he emerged, this John Kennedy, not necessarily seeking office, was emerging as one of the promising leaders of the kind of new generation of leaders we need in this country not just in Morocco.
BLITZER: And Haynes Johnson, a lot of people don't realize, don't focus on the fact that John Kennedy Jr. was 38 years old when he died. His father. President Kennedy, was what? Only 46.
HAYNES JOHNSON, HISTORIAN: Forty-six.
BLITZER: Forty-six years old. Not great deal of difference, although we still think of John Kennedy Jr. as relatively little boy, and President Kennedy as an adult.
JOFTNSON: For a lot of us. Wolf, you know we will never quite believe. We thought John Kennedy, the president when he was killed, how young. He was the youngest president ever elected and at 46, to be gone, and the idea of watching the young boy that we saw, grow up, and change and all the camera pictures that we have seen all this last week, younger, far younger than his father. That is part of why the story had such an enormous impact on people, 1 think. There is a human tragedy here.
BLITZER: And Ed Klein, you have written about the Kennedys, Jackie Kennedy Onassis. A lot of people are paying tribute to her now, for raising this remarkable son as a single mother.
Talk to us a little bit about her unique role in shaping, not only John Kennedy Jr., but Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, his sister.
ED KLEIN, KENNEDY BIOGRAPHER: Well you know Jackie had a picture of John, Jr. in her house. When I would visit her she would point at picture and say with a very, very positive, and loving way, "Oh, John, he's always in the doghouse."
She had always great deal of concern that John was this laid-back fun loving fellow, very much indeed like his father was in the 1950s. You know there was something that a push that was required to get John Kennedy, Sr., go into politics from his father. And John, Jr. was a reluctant person as well.
And 1 think, you know, Jackie felt that John was with a spread apart, not very disciplined the way his sister was. She always referred to Caroline as disciplined and focused and John spread apart. And I think she was hoping that as he matured, he would gain more of that kind of focus that his sister had.
BLITZER: Senator Wofford you saw how this mother raised this son and daughter. Talk to us about that a little bit.
WOFFORD: Well, 1 know how she protected the private realm and I know how she encouraged his interested in arts and literature. She didn’t have to probably encourage his interests in sports. But he was maturing and we have discovered - part of whafs happened this week, thanks to the media - is that we have discovered John Kennedy Jr., at about the age his father was emerging, we have discovered him in ways that the pictures conveyed a lot of it. The fun that he was bringing back I think into public life. But the words that you have given us from John Kennedy Jr. show that along with his actions, his politics of service, of patriotism on home front was maturing very, very promisingly.
BLITZER: And you covered that period. You were a scribe in effect during Camelot...
JOHNSON: Along with everybody else. BLITZER:... during these years. So this week's must have brought back powerful memories to you.
JOHNSON: Of course it did and I think for whole country. For those of us alive at the time, who were shaped by it, you had to — you were affected by it.
And I don't need scenes of pictures when the drums were beating at Kennedy procession down Pennsylvania Avenue for the funeral, it still has an impact you on.
But 1 have to say something else about this. This has been extraordinary week this is the age of media. This is the age of television. The John Kennedy assassination was the event that brought the country together through the lens of the camera. And 1 think we have seen that again now. It's an age of excess. You can go too far - mythology and all that.
But you also — it is great history lesson when, as Harris, said you actually see the people that did affect our lives even if they weren't around. Then they can now look back and get some sense of what was being affected by those people at the time.
BLITZER: Ed Klein, as one who has written extensively about the Kennedys, how surprised you were this past week by seeing this remarkable outpouring of coverage, and sympathy, mourning if you will for the three passengers, the three people in that plane?
KLEIN: You know it's always occurred to me that people ascribe to media more power than we really have. The media can't manufacture an event unless there is a public — a receptive public ready to express its deep emotions. And 1 think the American people had a deep psychic connection with John. He was really -- he really embodied the classic son story, the son who he was as I said fun loving, laid back, but, yet knew that eventually, he was going to have to emerge from the shadows of this powerful father.
Shakespeare wrote about that in Henry IV, parts 1 and II. And we are seeing the same thing play out now with George W. Bush who is also emerging from the shadows of his father. Kennedy's story was a classic son story. BLITZER: All right, we are going take a quick break. We have a lot more to talk about, including the next generation of Kennedys. What will we anticipate from them?
Stay with us as conversation and remembrance of John F. Kennedy Jr. continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
THOMAS LEONARD: I cannot help but reflect that the tragic deaths of John Kennedy and Carolyn Bessette Kennedy, and Lauren Bessette, somehow mirrors the tragic events of 1963.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Monsignor Thomas Leonard speaking at an Irish memorial mass Thursday.
Welcome back to LATE EDITION. We're continuing our conversation with Kennedy biographer, Ed Klein, former Senator Harris Wofford, and historian, Haynes Johnson.
Senator Wofford, let me read to you a few little excerpts from Senator Ted Kennedy's eulogy that was delivered on Friday.
"From the first day of his life, John seemed to belong not only to our family, but to the American family. He had only just begun. There was in him a great promise of things to come," and he continued by saying, "Like his father, he had every gift but length of years." When you hear Senator Kennedy have to endure yet another eulogy, of a relative of a close family associate like that, what goes through your mind?
WOFFORD: Well, when you see the Kennedy's, and Ted Kennedy lowering the flag on the Kennedy compound, your spirits go down once again, but, you know, I think the American people know that flag is going to go back up, and that same Ted Kennedy, after those eloquent words, will be back in battle in Congress, for the Patients' Bill of Rights. The rest of the family, one by one as you saw them into the church, Caroline herself, will be picking up the Profiles In Courage awards that she and John started and will give her profile in courage.
Shrivers, back into special Olympics. Tim Shriver's great leadership of that, carrying on from Sarge and Eunice Shriver.
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend going back to being Lieutenant Governor and pioneering service learning in Maryland, where all students are required to serve in the tradition that John Kennedy senior and junior would like. It's an extraordinary family of public service in the broad sense, not just seeking office.
BLITZER: Haynes Johnson, do the American people put too much pressure on the Kennedy - the Kennedy's to deliver? JOHNSON: Sure, not just the American people, we do in press, too. 1 mean, there's a whole process here that it's almost inescapable. You can't get away from shadow of fame and we live in this age of fame and celebrity and scandal and so forth.
But you know, you remember Jack Kennedy said that wonderful line, life is unfair. And this is a human story, whatever happens in the next generation, these are bright family star-crossed afflicted and the rest. They will make their mark in their own way, and I think one reason we do have this sense of intimacy about it because we did go through it and now another generation sees in this, another tragedy closing the circle.
BLITZER: Ed Klein, the decision to bury the three - the three who died last week at sea. How surprising of a decision was that to you who's someone who has closely watched the Kennedy's?
KLEfN: It was very surprising to me. You know, I was thinking about whether John Kennedy Jr. legend would live on. Like Marilyn Monroe, he had been this glamorous figure, the object of great desire. Like James Dean, he was cut short in the promise of life. Like Princess Di, he died in a circumstances that were violent and he left behind all these vivid graphic images of himself that will be played over and over again through the years to come, and will keep his legend alive.
The one thing missing, of course now, is a place where people can go to pay their respects because there is no grave site. There is no tomb, there is no memorial place for John Kennedy, and 1 think that's going to cause people some discomfort and some difficulty.
WOFFORD; There is a place they can go. They can go and join Special Olympics as a volunteer. They can go to the south Bronx where John Kennedy Jr. was a volunteer for most of a year in a domestic Peace Corps program.
They can go to the environmental programs that Maxwell Kennedy and Robert Kennedy are part of They can go to a thousand other programs on the home front, that he was backing, championing and giving some leadership in.
BLITZER: We only have a few seconds, Haynes Johnson, but the decision that has been reported, reported to taken by Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, Senator Kennedy, to try to keep some privacy, to keep a low profile, not go out and talk about all of this, and word going out to the extended George magazine family, don't go out and talk about it. That sort of seems fitting for what the Kennedy's have been through.
JOHNSON: Well bravo, and for the country too because the erosion between public and private have been so shredded that a little dignity and privacy and privacy in grief, is a good thing for us to remember, and 1 don't think we need memorials. I don't think — that's not what life and death were all about. We have our own private memorials that we can do. And as Harris says, you make your own life as you go forward. BLITZER: OK. Haynes Johnson, Harris Wofford, Ed Klein in New York, thanks again to all of you for joining us.
And when we return. Senator Edward Kennedy once again assumed his role as patriarch of an American dynasty, comforting and leading his family in the face of great tragedy. We'll ask two senators. Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison and Democrat Dick Durbin, about the heavy burden on their colleague and the busy week ahead for them in the Senate.
LATE EDITION will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD (D), CONNECTICUT: Those of us who have come to know him can only admire his courage and perseverance in the face of adversity which would wither the will of other men.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Senator Chris Dodd, offering support on the Senate floor to his friend. Senator Ted Kennedy. Welcome back to LATE EDITION. Joining me now, two members of the Senate: in Dallas, Texas, Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison; and in Springfield, Illinois, Democrat Dick Durbin. Welcome, Senators, to LATE EDITION.
Senator Durbin, how does your friend. Senator Kennedy, manage to do it year after year after year, during these enormous amounts — the painful adversity that he goes through?
SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: I've just been amazed at Ted Kennedy in the two and half years I've served with him in the Senate. I knew about him when I was a House member and I knew he was involved in a lot of things. But he brings two things to it: an amazing energy level — he is just constantly on the go, fighting for the causes he believes in — and a real heart.
Here is a man who continues to champion the causes of those who don't have the high-paid lobbyists in Washington. But 1 think many times we overlook the fact that there is a family side and a personal side. And we saw it over the past week when he had to rally again with another famous eulogy. And as I read it yesterday I was touched again by this combination of Irish humor and sadness to talk about the death of John Kennedy, and Carolyn Bessette and Lauren Bessette. He is an extraordinary man and an amazing asset to the United States Senate.
BLITZER: 1 know. Senator Hutchison, that on a lot of votes you and Senator Kennedy are in different sides of the aisle, but what goes through your mind as you take a look at your colleague Senator Kennedy? SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON (R), TEXAS: Well, when you know someone personally and you work with them, your heart goes out in a tragedy, and I think the whole Senate feels that way. Ted Kennedy is a powerful adversary. We have the same goals, but we have different ways of getting there. But 1 have worked with Ted Kennedy. He has supported border health issues that are very important to me and my state. And 1 think that in the Senate we close ranks on friendships, and we work together, and we grieve when our colleagues are grieving.
BLITZER: A lot of Americans, Senator Hutchison, probably don't remember that you once served as the vice chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. You know a lot about aviation. Should there be some greater controls now on small planes and pilots, in the aftermath of this tragedy?
HUTCHISON: Wolf, I have been in constant touch with the chairman of the NTSB on this, because I do relate to what he's going through. I've gone through it myself. And certainly, they are going to be looking at a lot of the private airplane issues.
One of the particular issues is weather and how weather is reported to pilots, and if there can be improvements in that. For instance, if you have a haze, and no moon, should that be put together in a report?
So I think that we will learn some things, here. But all in all, our private aviation is very safe, just as our commercial aviation is, and we just want to keep working to make it as safe as possible.
BLITZER: All right. Senator Durbin, let's switch gears now, talk about the fight that's going to be taking place in the U.S. Senate beginning this week over tax cuts. The House of Representatives passed an $800 billion tax cut package this past week, over the next 10 years. The Senate has some different ideas but roughly the same sum, about $800 billion. The president wants to it be only $250 billion. What's going to happen in the Senate this week?
DURBIN: Well the question is whether or not the Republicans will stand as one, and vote for something similar to the tax break package that passed in the House of Representatives. You would expect me to be critical. You would expect Senator Hutchison to be supportive. But let's try to step aside and ask someone who is dispassionate: Alan Greenspan.
He was asked repeatedly, is this the right thing to do for our economy now to make sure that it moves forward in the best direction? And he said no. The best thing to do is the Democratic plan, spend down national debt invest the money in Social Security and Medicare, and don't get committed to a tax cut program that could frankly fuel the fires of inflation and raise interest rates, and kill this economic expansion. So after you have heard the Democrats and the Republicans, I think Chairman Greenspan gives us the best advice.
BLITZER: All right. Senator Hutchison, let's listen precisely to what Chairman Alan Greenspan who's a Republican, who is widely credited for helping this economic boom in the United States, let's listen to what he said earlier this week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALAN GREENSPAN, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD: I would far prefer to hold off on significant further tax cuts when we will need them to keep this process going.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: What do you think about that recommendation from Chairman Greenspan to hold off right now on the tax cuts, see where the economy is going and then you can always come back with tax cuts. But right now, it is not necessarily the right moment for this $800 billion tax cut package?
HUTCHISON: Well, I think that is exactly what the Republicans tax cut plans do. The Republican tax cut plans do not use the Social Security surplus. They use the surplus that is gained from surpluses brought in by income taxes. And that is why some of the tax cuts are in the out years. 1 think we are doing exactly what the Chairman said. We are going to be paying down Social Security first. We are going to have enough for Medicare reforms in our proposal.
But we do believe fundamentally that the money that is surplus from income tax deductions, should be returned to the people who earned that money, so they can make the choices for their families, the way they would, rather than government making those choices.
BLITZER: You know. Senator Durbin, a lot of observers thought that at some point down the road the Clinton White House would in effect split the difference with the Republicans in the House and Senate. They want $800 billion in tax cuts, the president wants $250 billion, perhaps somewhere around $500 billion, but listen to what the treasury secretary earlier today and the White House economic adviser. Gene Sperling said on television. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GENE SPERLING, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: The president will veto a tax cut of $800 billion or $500 billion, because it threatens our ability to secure Medicare and Social Security and pay down our national debt.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: And the Treasury Secretary Larry Summers said same thing, a $500 billion tax cut will be vetoed by the president as well. Were you surprised to hear the White House outline that veto threat this morning?
DURBfN: Not at all. We had a private meeting with both of those gentlemen, earlier this week, as well as John Podesta. They made it clear, we understand after the analysis by Chairman Greenspan and others, that the Republican plan, of $800 billion, and a compromise if it would be such, of $500 billion, are equally dangerous. Think about this. Wolf. Two years ago the Republicans were adamantly arguing for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, to let federal courts force Congress to stop spending. They said that the deficits were out of control. Twenty-four months later, they are calling for an $800 billion to $1 trillion tax cut.
I would just suggest to my colleagues Senator Hutchison, her statement was correct. The Republican tax break package will not touch Social Security until 2005. And then you have to turn and draw money out of Social Security to pay for these tax breaks for wealthy Americans. That just doesn't make sense.
BLITZER: Senator Hutchison, is that right that Social Security money will have to be used to pay for this proposed Republican tax cut?
HUTCHISON: No. For one thing, as you saw in the House plan, if we don't continue to pay down debt, the tax cuts would go into a freeze, and 1 think we are responsibly addressing this, but Wolf, you have to determine if you think the money that people earn belongs to them or it belongs to the government to decide how to spend it.
The president's plan would increase taxes and increase spending. The trillion dollars that is now surplus off Social Security, that the president is proposing, would have increased spending and increased taxes. And we think that is a ludicrous suggestion in a time when we have surpluses that we have taken from the people, we don't need to spend it, except for Social Security and Medicare, which we provide for, and the rest should go back to the people who earn it.
BLITZER: Well, let's get back to this point though that the White House is now making even $500 billion will be vetoed by the president. Do you think there will be some sort of compromise in the $300 billion range that would be acceptable to House and Senate Republicans, or will this be an issue that will be an issue in the campaign next year, the election campaigns next year?
HUTCHISON; It depends on what is in the tax cuts. If we can see real tax cuts, either an across-the-board tax cut that gives everyone a break or eliminating the marriage tax penalty. If we could eliminate the marriage tax penalty in this country, I would support it even if it is less than the $800 billion. But I think we would draw a line if the tax cuts are not going to be felt by the American families.
So 1 think a lot of this is going to be negotiated, starting after the Senate bill passes, which 1 think it will this week, then we'll go to conference, and 1 hope the president will weigh in. I hope the president will not walk away from the marriage tax penalty, where a policeman marries a schoolteacher and owes $1000 more, just because they got married. That's not right.
BLITZER: All right senators, we have to break. Just ahead, the race for the White House is heating up. We'll ask Senator Hutchison about her fellow Texan, George W. Bush, and we'll ask Senator Durbin if the Democrats can stop him. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. We're continuing our conversation with Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, and Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois.
Let me begin with Senator Hutchison. One of your ~ and 1 want to talk about your fellow Texan, Governor Bush, in a second, but another one of your fellow Texans, Lance Armstrong, Just won the Tour de France,the three-week bicycle race in France, it must be an exciting moment for you.
HUTCHISON: Oh Wolf, thank you for letting me say how proud 1 am of Lance Armstrong. Of course, we all know that he is a cancer survivor. He had a very advanced stage of cancer, he fought it. He determined that he was going to go back into cycling, and his wife is pregnant with their first child, due in October, and we in Texas are very proud of this man who never ever gave up and now is at the top of his game. Thank you.
BLITZER: I know you're also a big supporter of Governor Bush. Can he be stopped right now in the Republican field in capturing the presidential nomination?
HUTCHISON: I think he is doing everything right. 1 think that he is a terrific candidate, the more people see him, the more they like him, and 1 don't see anything stopping him. 1 think he's going to be terrific, and I think he is representative of what we're looking for in a president.
BLITZER: Senator Durbin, why do all the polls show Governor Bush trouncing the incumbent vice president A1 Gore in November of 2000?
DURBIN: Well, I think there are several reasons. First, I think the Republican field other than Governor Bush, is very weak. And secondly, I have to say that A1 Gore, for example, has taken positions on major issues. On a national basis, people know who he is and what he stands for. The same is not true when it comes to Governor George W. Bush.
I think when he goes on the campaign trail, he will have to explain why, as governor of Texas, he supported the concealed carry issue, the NRA's favorite issue to allow people to carry handguns into shopping malls and restaurants and sporting events. Why he vetoed the Patients' Bill of Rights in Texas as governor, an issue which overwhelmingly Democrats, Republicans and independents support.
So the time will come when his positions will become better known, and then of course we should take a poll to see how he is doing at that point.
BLITZER: Senator Hutchison, the governor has been slow in coming up with policy positions on a lot of these substantive issues and he's being criticized for that, but I assume you anticipate he's going to be coming up with his positions fairly quickly. Right? HUTCHISON: Oh, absolutely. First let me say that he vetoed a Patients' Bill of Rights, but signed a Patients' Bill of Rights that has become the Texas law. And it was actually the model for the Patients' Bill of Rights bills that we were looking at last week on the Senate floor.
It has an internal renew, an external renew and then it does allow even for lawsuits. So, we do have a Patients' Bill of Rights, which he did sign.
But he is going to be substantive. Certainly, he had to wait until the legislative session was finished. He wanted to go out, and start meeting people in a campaign mode. But i think you are going to start seeing the meat start going on the bones for Governor Bush. And I think people are going to feel that he does have the right views on the issues and that he will have a strong foreign policy, a strong domestic policy for our country.
BLITZER; Are you surprised. Senator Durbin, your former colleague. Senator Bill Bradley is chasing the Vice President A1 Gore for the Democratic nomination, apparently very effectively?
DURBIN: He is a substantive candidate. As a former United States Senator, and man well-known for his career in basketball, he is well-known to a lot of people in our party and respected. He has taken on some tough issues. There are many prominent Democrats in Illinois who were supporting Bill Bradley.
I would say majority though support the vice president. And it is likely after some ups and downs in primaries, that A1 Gore will be the nominee of Democratic Party.
BLITZER: And one of those people from Illinois -- who at least used to live in Illinois -- the former Chicago Bulls Coach Phil Jackson, is going to be on LATE EDITION: PRIMETIME Tuesday night talking about his friend Bill Bradley.
Senators we are all out of time for this segment. I want to thank both of you for joining us once again on LATE EDITION. Thank you so much.
HUTCHISON: Thank you. Wolf.
DURBfN: Thank you.
BLITZER: And straight ahead. House Republicans are celebrating a tax cut they say will benefit middle class Americans. But Democrats say wealthy Americans are the only the big winners.
We'll talk about that with the House Majority Leader Dick Armey when LATE EDITION continues. Staff with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. CHARLES RANGEL (D), NEW YORK: Ninety percent of the tax cut goes to the wealthiest Americans. But it's not as irresponsible as some people are saying. Why? Because you know the bill is not going anywhere. What you want is a veto from President Clinton. He becomes the scrooge.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel on the Republican plan for the largest tax cut in almost 20 years. Welcome back to LATE EDITION. Joining me now is the House Majority Leader Dick Armey. Mr. Leader, welcome to LATE EDITION.
You heard your friend Charlie Rangel. Is that what you want a presidential veto, so he becomes the scrooge - this becomes big issue in campaign 2000?
REP. RICHARD ARMEY (R-TX), MAJORITY LEADER: No, not at all. Charlie is a great colorful guy and we all enjoy him. He also asserts things that are not necessarily true. But the fact of the matter is we believe this is necessary. We have took $2 trillion — we set it aside for Social Security and Medicare and to buy down the debt. We did that first.
And then we said with that additional money we should not spend it as the president says, and as Charlie Rangel says we ought to give it back to the people that paid it in. And we are giving it back to the people that paid it in. This tax package gives relief to people who are punished because married, punished because they die, punished because they save, punished because they invest. It is a good tax package. It's a good relief for all of Americans that are feeling the pressures of excess taxation.
BLITZER: Well, the president totally disagrees. I want you to listen to what he said in his Saturday Radio Address.
(BEGfN AUDIO CLIP)
WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It is so large and balloons in size so dramatically in future years, that it would make it impossible to invest our surplus, to save Social Security, to save and strengthen Medicare with the prescription drug benefit, to pay off our national debt.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
ARMEY: Well, you know the president, again, is being very assertive here. The fact of the matter is CBO scores are set aside for the national debt, Social security, Medicare as larger than the president's.
BLITZER: That is Congressional Budget Office.
ARMEY: That's the Congressional Budget Office. The fact of the matter is we already have locked away more money for debt buy down. Social Security, and Medicare than what he has ever even proposed. And then secondly, he proposes to spend all of that, and to in fact raise taxes in order to do so.
Indeed even the Democrats' substitute they brought to floor was a $4 billion tax increase that they were flying as a substitute tax decrease.
ARMEY: So the fact -- first you have to get your facts right. Secondly you have to get in touch with what the American people really need and want. They don't need a larger government. Eight hundred billion dollars worth of tax reduction over the next 10 years, against the government that is going to take $23 trillion from the American people.
BLITZER: You were with the Republican leadership and the Democratic leadership that met a couple weeks ago with the president, and you emerged from that meeting, relatively upbeat, optimistic. You said nice things about what you heard from the president.
Now, his advisers, Larry Summers, the treasury secretary, his economic adviser. Gene Sperling, say that even if it is $500 billion, the president will veto that kind of tax cut.
ARMEY: Well, there is always this kind of disconnect between what the president says in his enthusiasms and then what his advisers say. But that was an interesting day for me. The president who just a few months ago said that we would have to wait 15 years to reduce taxes, was saying at that meeting, yes we need to reduce taxes, the president...
BLITZER: But only $250 billion worth.
ARMEY: No, he did not say that and that was very important to me. 1 listened carefully for that. He talked in terms of our number and maybe having to come down a little off our number, but never talked about his number being a ceiling. He said we need to work together on this. He also, incidentally, endorsed our lockbox which at that very moment was being tied up in the Senate, by the Senate Democrats. That instrument by which we would set aside the $2 trillion for Social Security, Medicare, and debt reduction. The president turned directly to Tom Daschle and said we can get that done, can't we. And Tom Daschle said yes, I think by the end of the week.
We went to the floor the following week with that encouragement from the president and the minority leader and once again the Democrats, people like Dick Durbin, came out and filibustered to stop it from happening.If they want to set that money aside for Social Security and Medicare, the quickest most effective way to do that is to get it locked up as we have done in the House and as they should in the Senate.
BLITZER: If it winds up, the president says he is going to veto $500 billion in the 10-year tax cut and it comes down to, let's say $300 billion, is that something that you think the Republicans in the House can live with.
ARMEY: No, 1 don't think we will. I can see this as the way the president will come to the table and say, look, 1 want to veto your tax cuts and here are all my spending increases that I want.
Now, we all made a commitment, the president did in his budget, we did in the House. They did in the Senate. The Democrat's substitute made a commitment to hold fiscal responsibility, not increase spending.
The president is now saying, I want to take that money that is left over after you set that $2 trillion aside and 1 want to use it for new big government spending programs. We're saying, no we ought to give it back to people that paid too much in taxes.
BLITZER: We have CNN/"USA Today"/Gallup poll numbers. I want to go over them with you. Listen to what the American people are saying at least according to this poll.
The Republican tax cuts are targeted toward the rich: 51 percent believe that that is the case. The middle class, only 13 percent believe that is the case. And both equally, 30 percent. And on this question, whose approach do you prefer on cutting taxes and funding government programs, the president gets 48 percent, the Republicans, get 40 percent. On this gut issue for the Republicans, tax cuts, the president has higher support with American people, according to this poll, than the Republicans do. How do you explain that?
ARMEY: 1 don't - 1 don't try to explain that. But let me just tell you, when you start sitting down at the table mom and dad, and my son with his wife, and maybe your children, and they say look, honey they are going to remove this penalty that is in the tax code for us being married. They're going to allow us to save more for our son's education than before. When dad dies, government is not going to take 50 percent of everything he built all his life, it will come to us. That if we save and invest we won't be double and triple taxed on that savings. If we have a savings account $200 at least will be except of taxation.
When people see this working in their lives as it was written to do, and designed to do to remove the unfairness and the excesses of the tax policy affecting the lives of the average American, they're going to say this is good policy. It's good for us; it's good for our family. We can spend that money better on what we need in our family than they can in Washington.
BLITZER: The White House numbers, the White House estimates that 80 percent of the benefits of your $800 billion tax cut, will go to the 20 percent richest of Americans.
ARMEY: Well these estimates are always difficult. I'll give you an example. Take a poor old farmer in North or South Dakota, struggling all his life on a piece of land, maybe making $30,000 or $40,000 a year off it, just keeping his family alive. On the day he sells that farm he becomes an instant millionaire and is counted as such. And he is double taxed on his capital gains which were never adjusted for inflation, and are probably in fact capital losses.
If he dies and wants to give it over to his son as his dad did before him, the government comes in and says, you have to pay taxes, on $500,000 worth of property, property that never generated more than $30,000 a year income. And then the son has to sell that. That is the way the - White House counts that. Now the fact of the matter is you cannot count who is the beneficiary of the estate of a dead person, and it's not fair to do as the White House does, count it against the poor fellow that just died.
BLITZER: All right. Congressman, Mr. Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, Dick Armey, we have to take a quick break, but we have a lot more to talk about.
For our international viewers, world news is up next, coming up for our north American viewers -- another 30 minutes of LATE EDITION, including a check of the hour's headlines. Plus, your phone calls for the House Majority Leader Dick Armey.
And we'll go round the table as well with Roberts, Page and Carlson, when LATE EDITION continues. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back to LATE EDITION. We'll get to our conversation with House Majority Leader Dick Armey in just a moment, but first here's Marina Kolbe in Atlanta with a check of the hour's headlines.
(NEWSBREAK)
BLITZER; Thanks, Marina, we continue our conversation with House Majority Leader Dick Armey. Before we do that, let's take a quick caller from San Francisco, please go ahead with your question for the House Majority Leader.
CALLER: Yes, as Alan Greenspan touched on in his testimony last week, we are experiencing record low unemployment, inflation is very low, and we are in the sort of the middle or as many people view, the end of a very long economic boom.
Forgetting the politics of the issue, what's the economic reality of cutting taxes at this point in time when inflation is definitely in check.
BLITZER: And put on your cap as a former economics professor.
ARMEY: That's right. As former economics professor, I learned to listen to the entire testimony of people like Alan Greenspan. He said first we should buy down debt. We're doing that to the tune of $2 trillion, $2 of debt reduction for every dollars worth of tax deduction.
He said, secondly be sure you do not increase government spending, which is what the president is trying to do. So, as a matter of fact on both his two major points, we're performing better than the White House is. The White House is buying down less debt, and increasing spending, and increasing taxes.
The other thing that Alan Greenspan has argued that 1 agree, it's the high-tech economy, driven mostly by entrepreneurial young people, that are driving this economy through productivity. That's where such things as capital gains tax reduction become very, very important, because an extraordinary rapid rate of obsolescence in high-tech America.
So, I say this tax package is crafted in such a way as to maintain the vitality and the productivity increases that defeat inflation, that come from the most dynamic sector of economy. And I have to tell you. I'm sure Alan Greenspan will applaud our effort relative to the president's effort to buy down less debt and increase government programs, most often obsolete in their thinking and counterproductive in their impact.
BLITZER: It's - other economists and critics of the Republican tax cut proposal say that when Ronald Reagan pushed through his very big 1981 tax cut the economy was in bad shape, the economy needed some sort of economic spur to get it going, and that's why that tax cut worked at that time, even though others say it eventually did lead to those huge deficits.
Right now the economy is very strong and some fear that a tax cut would overheat the economy, forcing Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates, which in effect would negate the potential economic benefit of this tax cut.
ARMEY: That fear would be reality-based if this were the '70s or perhaps even the early '80s. What 1 think people do not understand is the extraordinary impact of high-tech America and the rapid changes in increase in productivity, so our growth and our prosperity is sustained by that increase in productivity. Now, that is essentially the antithesis of inflation -- it's too many goods chasing too few dollars.
So the threat of inflation not there as it has been, but again, it's Chairman Greenspan's job to be obsessive about inflation, even as a possibility in the future. We applaud his dedication to his task, but again, at the same time, you want to sustain the prosperity, too. You want to maintain the dynamics in that industry, and you want to reward those courageous, and innovative young families, by specifically removing the unfair burdens on them when they try to save for their children, take care of their own health care, as so often as they do, take care of elderly senior in their home. There's so much compassion in this package, that 1 have to tell you my heart warms when 1 think of the way it affects a family at home.
BLITZER: Let's take a caller from Sarasota, Florida. Please go ahead with your question.
CALLER: Hi. It seems that the Democrats are having much more an effective method of getting their point of view to public. Why are the Republicans ~ party struggling with that so much?
ARMEY: Well, it's always a struggle, and 1 always -- of course, we Republicans love to remember during the '80s Ronald Reagan drove the Democrats crazy. The fact of the matter is you drive a message better through the White House than you do through Congress.
And the other side of the question is that the Democrats, particularly in the House, clearly by their own testimony on the front page of the Washington Post just a few weeks ago said, we are not going to do anything on public policy. It is our mission to just stop and obstruct everything that — that happens here.
So they have a unified naysaying voice out there. without any of the constructive energies that go into trying to really build a public policy that over the next 10 years will eliminate unfairness, and preserve stability and Social Security, Medicare, and buy down debt.
BLITZER; Mr. Leader, a year ago you were on this program speaking eloquently, movingly, about the shooting death of two Capitol Hill Police officers, Jacob Chestnut, John Gibson. This past week there was a commemorative ceremony. Is the U.S. Capitol safer today, a year later, after that tragic incident?
ARMEY: I think it is. it is somewhat safer because, again - first of all, my applause to these two fallen officers and to the whole Capitol Police. They are dedicated professionals, they have made some adjustments in the way they do business and we will be able to do more, 1 think, to create more security. But the one thing that they do is they protect freedom and openness, so that you're safe if you work there and you're safe if you come visit. I'm very proud of the Capitol Police and the job they do.
BLITZER: OK. House Majority Leader Dick Armey, always good to have you on LATE EDITION. Thank you so much for joining us. We have to take anther quick break. When we return, the JFK legacy, the fight over tax cuts, and the state of the Reform Party. We'll go 'round the table with Roberts, Page and Carlson.
LATE EDITION will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. Time now for our LATE EDITION roundtable. Joining me, Susan Page, White House bureau chief for USA Today, Steve Roberts, contributing editor for U.S. News & World Report and Tucker Carlson, political writer for The Weekly Standard. Steve, did the media go overboard this past week in its coverage of the deaths of John F. Kennedy Jr., his wife and his sister-in-law?
STEVE ROBERTS, CNN COMMENTATOR: A little bit. You know, I think we now have fallen into this pattern in the media where when there's a big story, O.J., Monica, we just rip everything else out and go wall- to-wall 24 hours. This family did have a unique hold on American myth and American memory so there were reasons for it.
But you know, when you think about it, this discussion you just had with Dick Armey and earlier with the senators about taxes, can affect a whole lot more American families and a lot more of our viewers out there than Kennedy. So, yes, I think we went overboard a little bit. I think this is a pattern that's been set and 1 think we'll continue to do it.
BLITZER: What do you think. Tucker?
TUCKER CARLSON, CNN COMMENTATOR: I agree with that. I think the shame is, though, that too much coverage of anything can make you cynical about it. And in this case it's really a shame because I think he was a decent person and a good guy. And it is a shame to be cynical about the death of someone so young and promising, but it's inevitable. I mean, if there's nothing else on television, people wind up that way.
BLITZER: And Susan, the - I mean, we know that King Hassan of Morocco died and we're covering that. But certainly — and he played a very important role in helping the Israeli-Palestinian, the Israeli- Arab peace process going behind the scene. He was a very important figure in North Africa. We're not covering it, the news media in general, anywhere close to how we covered the deaths of John F. Kennedy Jr., his wife and sister-in-law. SUSAN PAGE, CNN COMMENTATOR; Clearly the Kennedy story strikes a chord with American viewers in a very special way and you can't deny that. Now, President Clinton did, kind of unexpectedly choose to go to funeral in Morocco and there are some meetings going on there. I mean, that's going to get some coverage too because it's part of another story: the hopes being revived for Middle East peace process. So that will get coverage too. But it is true I think, we do tend to go overboard with the story of the moment, especially if it's a story that involves celebrities.
BLITZER: 1 know you have some thoughts about Senator Kennedy, and how he came through this past week.
PAGE: I thought it was interesting to watch Senator Kennedy, who has been a controversial figure, done some things in his own past that I'm sure he's not proud of, but we've seen him ag^in and again as the patriarch of this family. As the person called on to deliver the eulogy, to hold the family together, which he has done, once again. I read the eulogy he delivered at the funeral in New York and thought it was really quite eloquent and it comes -- this tragedy comes on the heels of him being, you saw him working as a senator, in a very effective way on the Patients' Bill of Rights just two weeks ago, so you see both sides of the senator.
ROBERTS: You know, it's interesting. 1 covered Ted Kennedy's presidential campaign in 1980. He was not a very good presidential candidate. He wasn't nearly as good as either of his brothers as presidential candidate. He would walk into a room and people would cheer louder when he came in than when he left.
But as a senator, he is much better, than either of his brothers, neither of whom served very long in the Senate, neither of whom were very interested in the business of the Senate. But Senator Kennedy has emerged contrary to sort of the Republican mythology of this ideological liberal, as a very flexible pragmatic person. Kay Bailey Hutchison pointed out how she worked with him on health.
People forget, he is a very close friend of Orrin Hatch, a very conservative Republican he has worked with. He cosponsored a bill with Dan Quayle of all people, on job training at one point. So he is both a patriarch but also a very effective legislator.
BLITZER: All right. We have to take a quick break. When we come back, we'll ask the roundtable if lower taxes are on horizon. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. THOMAS DASCHLE (D-SD), MINORITY LEADER: I will say this: the president has said over and over he will veto a tax cut of that magnitude. And we have more than enough votes to sustain a veto. So a tax cut of that magnitude is not going anywhere.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: The Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle on the Republican tax package which passed the House of Representative this past Thursday.
Welcome back. We are continuing our conversation with our roundtable. And Tucker Carlson, what's the purpose of all this fighting over a tax cut. The White House says even a $500 billion tax cut package, the president's going to veto.
CARLSON: And I think he probably will. There are two purposes. One is, this is something the Republicans do. Republicans cut taxes or talk about it. It's hard to imagine a Republican Caucus that didn't try to effect a tax cut every Congress. Second, this is a way, and it was a successful one for Denny Hastert to show that he is in fact in charge of Republicans in the House. The margin is tiny. He was able to pull it off and it says a lot about his ability to pull Republicans together.
BLITZER: Clearly, the White House this morning decided they were going to send a very powerful message. Even $500 billion will be vetoed.
PAGE: They were trying to set a new ceiling on what the tax cut would be. 1 mean, 1 really think what we're seeing is a poker game. Clinton said $250 billion over 10 years. House Republicans said $792 billion over 10 years. President Clinton is trying to get that ceiling a little lower.
But it looks to me like there is every possibility that in the end there will be a tax cut of some kind, of some significant magnitude. And the only question is exactly how big, exactly what kind, and who gets most of the credit.
ROBERTS; Well, the politics are very interesting because Tucker said he's right. The Republicans have this elemental impulse to cut taxes. Fair enough. It's defined their party. It's worked very well for them.
But one of the reasons they're pushing this now, is because so many of the other issues that have worked for them in the Reagan era — and Congressman Armey (INAUDIBLE) - are not on the table anymore. They don't have the communists to run against. Welfare reform in many ways is off the table. Remember the welfare queens of the Ronald Reagan era? Law and order is no longer the same potent issue.
So, you look at the issues that are out there, it's their best one left. But the American public clearly does not care about this. There was a Pew Research poll this week. People were asked to set their national priorities. Tax cuts, ninth - ninth. And I talked to a lot of moderates up there this week, and the best line was from Cheri Bowler (ph) from upstate New York. He said what his voters were telling him eould be summed up in one word, in one sentence, "don't screw it up."
And so there's a big risk for the Republicans, both in terms of fiscal policy, also in terms of polities to be pushing this.
BLITZER: All right. Let's talk about the Reform Party eonvention, which is taking place this weekend in Dearborn, Miehigan. We inaceurately reported earlier in this half hour that the Reform Party was going nominate their presidential candidate. They're not, they're picking a new chairman, but there is a battle between Jesse Ventura, the governor of Minnesota and Ross Perot. Listen to what Jesse Ventura said on MEET THE PRESS earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. JESSE VENTURA (REFORM PARTY), MINNESOTA: It is time now for Mr. Perot, I think, to take a supportive role on the sidelines, certainly we still need him, but it's time for him to step aside and let the party expand and grow and let it become truly a third alternative for people in the United States of America at all election levels.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Tucker, the reason a lot of people are paying attention to the Reform Party is because they will have $13 million to fund a presidential eandidate whieh could affect the two big parties.
CARLSON: Pretty disturbing isn't it. People actually, I don't think, having been paying close enough attention to the Reform Party. One of the great untold or little told stories about this convention in Dearborn is the prominence of a woman named Lenore Filoney (ph), former head of the communist new alliance party. She was recruited by Perot and Russ Vemey in 1996. She's a real fringe character and an anti-semite, someone who is really, really really out there, and yet a lot of power in the Reform Party. 1 think it's interesting that a party could get access to $13 million bucks. PAGE: This is the points where the third parties traditionally tend to fall apart though. After two elections, the Reform Party's had some influence in the debate, if not winning an election. The last third party that managed to be influential in a third election, was the Republican party, about 150 years ago. This is the point where it's really hard for a third party to go from being kind of a cult personality to being a real consistent performer on the election scene.
ROBERTS: My view about this is that Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura deserve each other. 1 mean here are two people who sort of have made their political career by saying, everybody else is a scoundrel. Everybody else is tainted. Everybody else is corrupt, I'm the only pure one. Please. The fact is that most politicians are honorable people. I'm glad the third party's out there, but I'm also glad they're going to have a lot less influence than Tucker thinks they're going to.
BLITZER: All right, Susan, this past week. President Clinton had a pretty interesting news conference.
PAGE: Pretty long news conference.
BLITZER: On Wednesday, very long. 1 want you to listen to what he said, 1 know you were there. Listen to what he said on his immediate future.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: I don't feel myself winding down. 1 feel myself keying up, I want to do more. 1 want to try to make sure that 1 give the American people as much as 1 can every day. (END VIDEO CLIP)
PAGE: He's back.
BLITZER: It seems to me that he wants to exploit every minute of his remaining presidency, to be as active, to be as involved as he possibly can, knowing he's going to miss it a lot after January 20th, 2001.
PAGE; The war in Kosovo is over. The Monica Lewinsky scandal is over, he's back. He is obviously loving it. I wasn't sure he was ever going to leave the stage at that news conference. He wants to be influential and the weaker that A1 Gore looks in the presidential election, the more enthusiasm there may be among Democrats to get done what you get done while you still have a Democrat in the White House.
BLITZER: We have to unfortunately leave it there, all out of time. Susan, Tucker, Steve, always great to have you on our round table, and when we return, we'll reveal what's on the cover of this week's major news magazines in the United States.
Plus, Bruce Morton's last word.
(BEGfN VIDEO CLIP)
BRUCE MORTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: In all of this horse race stuff, we may be underreporting a serious fact about the state — its farmers are in terrible trouble.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: As the candidates flock to Iowa for next month's important straw poll, are they paying enough attention to the American farmer? Bruce Morton poses that question next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Time now for Bruce Morton's last word on a problem presidential candidates may be missing.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MORTON (voice-over): Most of the stories about next month's Republican presidential straw vote are about who might be forced out — forced in the sense that if your money dries up, it's hard to campaign.
And the names you hear are former Vice President Dan Quayle, who spent one recent day in the state watching a golf tournament. Lamar Alexander, who is already finding fund raising difficult, maybe Gary Bauer. In all this horse race stuff, we may be underreporting a serious fact about the state: its farmers are in terrible trouble.
Prices for what they grow and breed; com, soybeans, cattle, hogs, are at levels unseen since the Great Depression. Candidates offer remedies: fast track authority so the next president can negotiate trade deals this president hasn't been able to; membership for China in the World Trade Organization; increased use of ethanol, which is made from com, in gasoline. Any or all of these might help. But a farm woman put the basic question to Vice President Gore the other day, and it wasn't about any of those.
Fact is, she said, family farms can't compete with corporate agriculture, and they're forcing us out of business. The vice president was sympathetic, but short on specifics.
Americans have always had a sentimental feeling for the family farm, but has it outgrown its usefulness? For years, subsidies, price supports for their products, kept family farmers in business. Then the Freedom to Farm Act ended most of those and family fanners, producing more than ever, can't earn a living.
CLfNTON: The people who put in that Freedom to Farm acted like there never would be a bad year on the farm. And now, last year we dealt with it. Even though we're doing better than we've ever done, there's still a lot of people that aren't part of this train.
MORTON: So the next presidents and the country may have to decide, should the rest of the taxpayers subsidize family farms because they are somehow morally valuable, something the country wants to preserve — or should family farmers, if they can't compete, find other work?
On a political note: not, probably, in the August straw vote, but this coming winter when it's cold and farmers may face bankruptcy, lowans may notice a candidate who's good at fanning economic anger, who preaches economic nationalism, standing up for your own. His name is Pat Buchanan.
In the 1996 caucuses, he finished second. I'm Bruce Morton.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Thanks, Bruce. Now a look at what's on the cover of this week's major news magazines in the United States. All three deal with the death of JFK, Jr.
Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, along with other family members, are on the cover of "Newsweek" with a report called "A Sad Goodbye."
"U.S. News" calls its story "America's Farewell," with a smiling, pin-striped John Kennedy Jr. on the cover.
And his famous salute at his father's funeral is recalled on the cover of "Time" magazine.
That's your LATE EDITION for Sunday, July 25th. Be sure to join us Tuesday at 8:00 p.m. Eastern for LATE EDITION PRIMETIME. Among our guests: Bill Bradley friend and L.A. Lakers coach Phil Jackson. And we'll be back here next Sunday and every Sunday at noon Eastern for the last word in Sunday talk.
For now, thanks very much for watching. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.
END RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Irma L. Martinez ( CN=Irma L. Martinez/0U=WH0/0=E0P [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME:25-JUL-I999 11:43:17.00
SUBJECT: re: final approved press release
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT: did you fax this to Jake Seiwert?
Rebecca Werbel
To: Irma L. Martinez/WHO/EOP cc: Subject: re: final approved press release
We went word for word on the edits that you gave us. So the draft that is in the below e-mail is the one that will go out tomorrow. I'll be getting an official hard copy in the morning that I'll fax to you and Jake (if you give me his fax#).
I hope this is sufficient for now. If not, let me know. Thanks....
Original Text From:
(Embedded image moved Rebecca Werbel
Please respond to [email protected] Record Type: Record
To: Irma L. Martinez/WHO/EOP cc: Subject: re: final approved press release
I should be getting the final via e-mail any minute. It will be released tomorrow morning. I'll forward it to you as soon as 1 get it. Do you mind forwarding it to Jake? I don't have his e-mail address. Thanks.
Original Text From:
(Embedded image moved Rebecca Werbel
Please respond to [email protected] Record Type: Record
To: Irma L. Martinez/WHO/EOP cc: Subject: re: final approved press release
I've passed on comments to our press office. Thank you so much for getting this done so quickly.
Original Text From:
Irma L. Martinez 07/22/99 11:19:49 AM Record Type: Record To: [email protected] @ inet cc: Subject: final approved press release Please note the changes below. Please ensure that every single change is made. Call me if you don't recognize were the changes were made below, thanks STATEMENT BY THE PRES1DENT7S COMMITTEE ON MENTAL RETARDATION ON THE DEATH OF JOHN F. KENNEDY, JR. The President?s Committee on Mental Retardation Joins the Kennedy family and all Americans in mourning the tragic death of John F. Kennedy, Jr., member of the Committee. President Kennedy established the Committee in 1961 and John?s active participation represented his and his family?s commitment to full citizenship for people with mental retardation. John F. Kennedy, Jr. was fiercely dedicated to social justice for all people. He devoted himself to enhancing opportunities for people with disabilities and the people who provide direct support and assistance to them. He had a keen understanding of the relationship between poverty and disability, and was working to find ways to help people achieve self-sufficiency. We will miss John and will honor his life and spirit by continuing to work for social justice for people with disabilities with the grace, dignity and respect that he inspired. RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Mark A. Kitchens ( CN=Mark A. Kitchens/0U=WH0/0=E0P [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME:25-JUL-I999 20:38:22.00
SUBJECT: CBS Face The Nation, July 25, 1999
TO: Anne W. Bovaird ( CN=Anne W. Bovaird/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael K. Gehrke ( CN=MichaeI K. Gehrke/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michele Ballantyne ( CN=MicheIe BaIlantyne/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ruby Shamir ( CN=Ruby Shamir/0U=0PD/0=E0P@E0P [ OPD ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Aprill N. Springfield ( CN=AprilI N. SpringfieId/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ann C. Hertelendy ( CN=Ann C. HerteIendy/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Erica S. Lepping ( CN=Erica S. Lepping/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Saladbar 23
TO: Rajiv Y. Mody ( CN=Rajiv Y. Mody/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. O'Shea ( CN=Sean P. 0'Shea/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ.UNKNOWN
TO: Laura J. Lewis ( CN=Laura J. Lewis/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: James E. Kennedy ( CN=James E. Kennedy/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Katharine Button ( CN=Katharine Button/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alejandro G. Cabrera (CN^AIejandro G. Cabrera/0=0VP@0VP [ UNKNOWN ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joshua S. Gottheimer ( CN=Joshua S. Gottheimer/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN TO: Clara J. Shin ( CN=Clara J. Shin/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READiUNKNOWN
TO: Edward F. Hughes ( CN=Edward F. Hughes/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sarah E. Gegenheimer ( CN=Sarah E. Gegenheimer/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rachael E. Sullivan ( CN=Rachael E. Sullivan/0=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ] ) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey A. Shesol ( CN=Jeffrey A. Shesol/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark A. Kitchens ( CN=Mark A. Kitchens/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gordon Li ( CN=Gordon Li/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven J. Naplan ( CN=Steven J. Naplan/0U=NSC/0=E0P@E0P [ NSC ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura D. Schwartz ( CN=Laura D. Schwartz/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ] ) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gene B. Sperling ( CN=Gene B. Sperling/0U=0PD/0=E0P@E0P [ OPD ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne M. Edwards ( CN^Anne M. Edwards/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa M. Murray ( CN-Melissa M. Murray/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Eli G. Attie ( CN=Eli G. Attie/0=0VP@0VP [ UNKNOWN ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Peter A. Weissman (CN=Peter A. Weissman/0U=0PD/0=E0P@E0P [ OPD ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark D. Neschis ( CN=Mark D. Neschis/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thurgood Marshall Jr ( CN=Thurgood Marshall Jr/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lowell A. Weiss ( CN=Lowell A. Weiss/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julia M. Payne ( CN=Julia M. Payne/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN TO: Beverly J. Barnes ( CN=Beverly J. Bames/0U=WH0/0=E0P [ WHO ]) READ.UT^KNOWN
TO: Jordan Tamagni ( CN=Jordan Tamagni/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:LTNKNOWN
TO: Megan C. Moloney ( CN=Megan C. Moloney/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Brenda M. Anders ( CN=Brenda M. Anders/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dominique L. Cano ( CN=Dominique L. Cano/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Leslie Bernstein ( CN=Leslie Bemstein/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anthony R. Bernal ( CN=Anthony R. Bernal/0=0VP@0VP [ UNKNOWN ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joseph P. Lockhart ( CN=Joseph P. Lockhart/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jenni R. Engebretsen ( CN=Jenni R. Engebretsen/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Natalie S. Wozniak ( CN=Natalie S. Wozniak/OU=NSC/0=EOP@EOP [ NSC ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dawn M. Chirwa ( CN=Dawn M. Chirwa/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David Vandivier ( CN=David Vandivier/0U=0MB/0=E0P@E0P [ 0MB ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lindsey E. Huff ( CN=Lindsey E. Huff/0U=NSC/0=E0P@E0P [ NSC ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven Reich (CN=Steven Reich/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kimberly S. Anderson ( CN=Kimberly S. Anderson/OU=OA/0=EOP@EOP [ OA ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robin J. Bachman ( CN=Robin J. Bachman/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas D. Janenda ( CN=Thomas D. Janenda/0U=WH0/0-E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ-.UNKNOWN
TO: Toby C. Graff ( CN=Toby C. Graff/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN TO: Michael A. Hammer ( CN=Michael A. Hammer/0U=NSC/0=E0P@E0P [ NSC ]) READiUNKNOWN
TO: Victoria L. Valentine ( CN=Victoria L. Valentine/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ-.UNKNOWN
TO: Rebecca L. Walldorff ( CN=Rebecca L. Walldorff/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ] ) READ-.UNKNOWN
TO: Heather M. Riley ( CN=Heather M. Riley/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan M. Prince ( CN=Jonathan M. Prince/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa J. Prober ( CN=Melissa J. Prober/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steve Ricchetti ( CN=Steve Ricchetti/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julie B. Goldberg ( CN=Julie B. Goldberg/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rochester M. Johnson ( CN=Rochester M. Johnson/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: June Shih ( CN=June Shih/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jason H. Schechter ( CN=Jason H. Schechter/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alison Muscatine ( CN=Alison Muscatine/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julie E. Mason ( CN=Julie E. Mason/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Paul K. Engskov ( CN=Paul K. Engskov/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael Waldman ( CN=Michael Waldman/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Barry J. Toiv ( CN=Barry J. Toiv/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sara M. Latham ( CN=Sara M. Latham/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: William A. Halter ( CN=William A. Halter/0U=0MB/0=E0P@E0P [ 0MB ]) READ.-UNKNOWN TO: Nanda Chitre ( CN=Nanda Chitre/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer Ferguson ( CN=Jennifer Ferguson/OU=OMB/0=EOP@EOP [ 0MB ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan A. Kaplan ( CN=Jonathan A. Kaplan/0U=0PD/0=E0P@E0P [ OPD ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey M. Smith ( CN=Jeffrey M. Smith/0U=0STP/0=E0P@E0P [ OSTP ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth R. Newman ( CN=Elizabeth R. Newman/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Richard L. Siewert ( CN=Richard L. Siewert/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dag Vega ( CN=Dag Vega/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robin M. Roland ( CN=Robin M. Roland/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa G. Green ( CN=Melissa G. Green/0U=0PD/0=E0P@E0P [ OPD ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer M. Palmieri ( CN=Jennifer M. Palmieri/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Douglas B. Sosnik ( CN=Douglas B. Sosnik/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT: CBS FACE THE NATION Aired on JULY 25, 1999
SPEAKERS: BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST, CBS FACE THE NATION GLORIA BORGER, U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT CORRESPONDENT ARTHUR SCHLESINGER, KENNEDY HISTORIAN LETITIA BALDRIGE, JACQUELINE KENNEDY'S SOCIAL SECRETARY LAWRENCE SUMMERS, U.S. SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY U.S. SENATOR PETE DOMENICI, (R-NM) U.S. SENATOR JOHN BREAUX, (D-LA)
SCHIEFFER: Today on FACE THE NATION we'll look back at an extraordinary outpouring of national grief over the death of John F. Kennedy, Jr., and we'll look ahead to the coming battle in Congress over tax cuts. He had every gift but length of years, the eulogy for John F. Kennedy, Jr., said. Why does this tragedy affect Americans so? We'll ask the noted historian and Kennedy family friend Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and Letitia Baldridge, social secretary at the Kennedy White House. Then we'll turn to what will happen in the coming week in the Senate as it takes up the huge $800 billion being tax cut passed by the House. Is there room for compromise? Is there any need for a tax cut at all? We'll talk with Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, and Senator John Breaux, Democrat of Louisiana. Then we'll get the White House view from Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. Gloria Borger will be here, and I'll have a final word on playing politics. But first, the Kennedy legacy on FACE THE NATION. ANNOUNCER: FACE THE NATION, with Chief Washington Correspondent Bob Schieffer. And now from CBS NEWS in Washington, Bob Schieffer. SCHIEFFER; Good morning again. Historian Arthur Schlesinger is in New York this morning, with us here in Washington, Letitia Baldrige, who of course was the social secretary during the Kennedy administration. Professor Schlesinger, put it in perspective for us. What did this week mean and why, really, did it happen? SCHLESINGER: I think the outburst of emotion and concern and grief derives partly from the fact that this is one more chapter in a saga of people cut off - a promising young man cut off in the midstream, high promise unfulfilled. And partly I think, because people feel a great pent-up need for a larger measure of idealism, concern for others ~ the kind of thing for which the Kennedys have consistently stood. The sense that if you are lucky enough to be bom to privilege, you owe something to the people who are not that lucky. 1 think there's a great feeling that that kind of idealism is missing in American life today. SCHIEFFER: Ms. Baldrige, one of the things that struck me throughout all of this was a kind of the dignity of John Kennedy, he was a celebrity who seemed comfortable with that and with himself You knew him when he was a very small boy. BALDRIDGE: He was a little boy, yes. SCHIEFFER: How did he get to be the way he turned out to be, as it were? BALDRIDGE: Well, the parents. You know, his parents were a tremendous influence, even though he was a little boy and baby and he doesn't remember too much. His mother had a great sense of history, and Arthur, as a historian, will certainly bear me out on that. There were history books everywhere in the house and they were read avidly. They went to museums; he and Caroline went to museums. They also went to the circus and did fun things, but they had a tremendous sense of the history of Washington. And when the president and Mrs. Kennedy gave a dinner at Mt. Vernon, again, the sense of history. And that's the way they were raised. And also the grace and style of that period. 1 mean, the women used to put on evening dresses when they gave dinners in their own houses. Everybody looked good; they knew how to dress. Today they go practically wearing jeans to dinners. It was Just another era -details counted. The children grew up in that kind of atmosphere. BORGER: Can you tell us a little bit about the relationship between JFK, Jr., and his sister Caroline? BALDRIDGE: Well, of course, they were always together, and of course. Caroline, being an older sister in those days, knew how to boss her little brother. If he got out of line, if he went the wrong way, she pulled him back. And so it was a typical older sister-brother relationship, but they were very close and they obviously remained very close through their lives. Do you know, it does me such a good thing to see Arthur Schlesinger sitting there, we adored him in the White House. Our historian, the man who put the great books in the library. Oh, Arthur, it's so good to see you. SCHLESfNGER: Wonderful to see you, Tish. SCHIEFFER: Professor, let me ask you. You were at the memorial service. Give us some sense of what that was like? SCHLESINGER: It was a beautiful service, deeply moving service. Senator Kennedy gave a eulogy which was widely reprinted and it was superbly done. SCHLESINGER: Hamilton South (ph), who spoke for Carolyn Bassette Kennedy, did a fine job. A number of people read excerpts from the -Caroline read that marvelous closing speech from "The Tempest," one of John Kennedy's favorites. And I want to say that John and Caroline Kennedy, his sister, were extremely close. It was a great tribute to Jacqueline Kennedy, the fact that she brought these kids up, a single mother, and brought them up with such distinction of manner. 1 mean they are perfect models for the constructions and hopes that Tish Baldrige has expressed about the future of American manners. John Kennedy had a great sense of equality. He was equally, uniformly kind to everyone, decent, friendly, unaffected, unspoiled; Caroline the same. They are a perfect product of distinguished American manners. BORGER: Mr. Schlesinger, you have seen Senator Kennedy give eulogies before. He's become the family's official eulogizer, if you will. How does he get through it? SCHLESfNGER: Well he does — at times he almost doesn't get through it. There are two or three times in this last eulogy in which his voice broke and for a moment he had to stop and pull himself together. He's a patriarch - he's the head of the family. He's developed a kind of patriarchal style. He's taken on himself — he's become the surrogate father for so many nieces and nephews as well as father of his own children. He's a remarkable man and each time he rises to the occasion. BALDRIGE: There's a great sadness in his face, but he has risen to the occasion. He has become such a marvelous spokesperson for the family, for the history of the family and for dealing with the emotions. You know, the Catholic mass itself is so beautiful at the funeral. The liturgy of the mass was so beautiful. I wasn't there, but 1 know the liturgy. That's my church and it was all so well done. It was so appropriately done, everything. Caroline and the senator did the right planning and orchestration. SCHIEFFER: You know. Professor Schlesinger touched on this just a while ago, and I think this did have something to do with this tremendous outpouring that we saw. And that is, you also touched on it, and that is the good manners of this young man. So many time our heroes in this modem communication age turn out to be such creeps and so selfish. And yet this young man, it seemed to me, had this dignity and this ability to be so comfortable with his celebrity that 1 think that transcended and people understood that. BALDRIGE: He wrote thank you notes as a little boy, his mother guided his hand. His mother signed his name with him on his first thank you notes that she wrote. But then he learned to write his own thank you notes and people cherished the ones they have gotten from his as an adult, because he used to write them all the time. He treated the press with kindness. He didn't push them out of the way and yell obscenities at them. He was just a man of grace. SCHIEFFER: And Professor finally, what should we expect from the Kennedys? Or where do you see this family and its legacy now as we move on to other things? SCHLESfNGER: Well, John, Jr., lived a secret life of good works. He did generous things by stealth, lest people think he was doing it for publicity. I think that instinct for public service, that instinct for helping others is alive among his cousins and their children. And 1 think the tradition of public service will continue to illuminate and strengthen American life. SCHIEFFER: Quick. Final thought, Ms. Baldrige? BALDRIGE: Well said. We need more families to pass that down through the generations, and talk about it and encourage their to volunteer and help their communities. We need that. SCHIEFFER: Thanks so much to both of you. When we come back, we're going to talk about the upcoming battle over tax cuts. In a minute. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) SCHIEFFER: We're back now with someone we'll be hearing a lot from in the coming days, the Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici and Democratic Senator John Breaux. Senator Domenici, the House, as everyone knows, passed this enormous tax cut last week and as everyone knows, it has absolutely no chance of being signed into law. The president has already said he would veto anything even close to that. You're about to propose a cut structured in a somewhat different way but almost of the same size. Why go through the exercise when you know you're not going to get this done unless you come to an agreement with the White House on some sort of compromise? DOMENICI: Well, I think it's very simple. The question is, who spends the surplus? And the president has taken on an almost reckless approach to the facts, talking about the proposal of the Republicans when, as a matter of fact, it is very realistic. I would like to do it this way. Here's the surplus. And we take two-quarters of it and we put that on Social Security and debt service. Here's one-quarter of it. We put that on expenditures of a high-priority item, and one-quarter for tax cuts. Now, if that's irresponsible and risky, then I really don't understand the word. SCHIEFFER: Well, if you do - but you have to assume that the surplus is going to be as large as these projections say it's going to be, and some people would come back to you and say, look, for this surplus to be this large, you have to have a 20 percent reduction in programs, you have to have - that it's Just totally unrealistic that it could be that size. DOMENICI: See, that isn't true. That isn't true. The truth of the matter — let me Just show you one little simple one here. SCHIEFFER: Boy, you come with a lot of props today. DOMENICI: Look at this one, look at this one. This is the Republican plan. This amount. Social Security, debt service. More debt service than the president. You'll hear the secretary say it's not so, but that's what the Congressional Budget Office says. This green is tax cuts, and guess what's left over? $432 billion for those programs you're talking about, including Medicare and high-priority items like education. The whole issue is, who spends the surplus? SCHIEFFER: Senator, just let me interrupt with one thing. In order for this surplus to be as large as it is, do you concede that the economy would have to keep booming at the rate it is booming right now for 10 years? You're saying that's a realistic outlook? DOMENICI: Let me make sure everybody understands what I think the issue is on a booming economy. SCHIEFFER: But that's right, is it not? DOMENICI: The economists... SCHIEFFER: To accept that figure, you have to continue to assume it will boom at the current rate for 10 years. Right? DOMENICI: The 0MB and CBO economists have put these projections together, and for the most part they agree. They are very modest growth assessments in it, very modest, and they even plan two recessions in that period of time and the surpluses are this size. SCHIEFFER: OK. DOMENICI: Frankly, if we don't do something like this, I think the American people can justifiably say, "who is going to spend the surplus?" SCHIEFFER: Let's go to Senator Breaux. BORGER: Let's go to Senator Breaux. Senator Domenici said that the White House is reckless in its accusations. Yesterday, the president said the Republicans were reckless, using that same word. You voted for this Republican tax cut in committee, but you are going to propose one that is substantially smaller, from $800 billion to $500 billion. Why are you doing that? BREAUX: Gloria, if we don't get together, we're headed for a major train wreck, which I think would be terrible for the American people. Here we have a trillion dollar surplus and the two political parties in Washington can't figure out what to do with it. Only in Washington could you have that type of problem. We've got to quit talking just to ourselves and start talking to each other. It's clear that their proposal is going to be vetoed, and we'll end up with nothing. The American people don't want us to do nothing, but they would like us to do something that's reasonable. And I suggest about a $500 billion tax cut over 10 years. That would give us enough money to address Medicare and prescription drugs and also give us enough money for discretionary spending. SCHIEFFER: So you're talking about some kind of grand compromise. BREAUX: Gloria, I think what ought to do — we have an opportunity that's probably once in a political lifetime to do something worthwhile, and I would suggest that after this Republican bill passes the Senate, and it will next week, that we do not go to conference with the House; we hold back. We take the recess to cool off... SCHIEFFER: So you don't have a veto -- no presidential veto. BREAUX: We don't have a veto, we don't have an agreement. You just take the time off in August and take a breath of fresh air and listen to the people back home. Come back in September and let us do a real Medicare reform bill with prescription drugs and then I think you're going to force both sides, you'll have people saying, look, we want Medicare, we want a tax cut. We better get together." BORGER; One more quick question. Do you think the president would sign on to that? Have you spoken to the White House about it? BREAUX: i have talked to them a number of times. You should never say never about what you're going to do in politics. I think there are openings that we can get a good agreement. SCHIEFFER: Well, Senator Domenici, that sounds like a fairly reasonable approach. Would you go for something like that, putting off coming together on this bill right now? DOMENICI: Look, what I would say right here is I would have no trouble working with this senator, no problem. If his suggestion is as he has it, which is probably very constructive. But let me suggest it's not what Senator Breaux thinks, it's what the White House thinks. And as a matter of fact, they will cite today that Alan Greenspan is against this tax cut, all to poison the well against tax cuts. BORGER: But he is. Alan Greenspan said this week that Congress should be more concerned about the federal debt than about a tax cut. DOMENICI: Let me read an actual quote from him. "Only if Congress believes that the surplus will be spent rather than saved is a tax cut wise." It is going to be spent. That's why we must cut taxes. I already showed you. The president is going to spend every nickel of it. So, Alan Greenspan would agree with us, if as a matter of fact the president were to prevail in what he wants to do with it. SCHIEFFER: But Senator Breaux, Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve have just raised interest rates slightly, obviously because they fear we're about to trigger inflation. If you put in this massive tax cut, won't that Just cause inflation to kick in and won't the Federal Reserve then have to raise interest rates again, and the net result is it... BREAUX: Yes. I think that $792 billion is irresponsible. It's like a family that owes $100,000 and all of a sudden Uncle Bob dies and leaves them $25,000. And instead of paying down their debt they spend it all on a Hawaiian vacation. They ought to take care of paying off their debt and also take care of their medical expenses first. DOMENICI: Let me say, the first five years there's hardly a tax cut. So this gigantic tax cut, that even you are using the word "big, outrageous," it doesn't start in real until the sixth year. So it's a very little bit each year. As a matter I believe, if thoroughly understood, it is excellent economics to go very slow and have the tax cut increase. And that's what this plan does. BREAUX: I'm sure how slow they went — in March the surplus was projected to be $796 billion, they're using $792 billion of it for a tax cut without looking at the other items. I think that's not right. SCHIEFFER: Gentlemen, thanks to both of you. I'm sorry we have to end here, but we just do. When we come back we're going to get the White House view from the Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. In a second. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) SCHIEFFER: And we're joined now by Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. Thank you, sir, for coming. You heard what John Breaux said. He said the plan that the Republicans has has no chance of getting past the president's veto. On the other hand, he says he doesn't think that the Republicans will approve anything like what the president wants, so why not put all this off until September? The Senate's going to pass the Republican plan apparently. Let everybody kind of think about it during the month of August. Come back in September and combine it with some sort of compromise on Medicare. I'm sure he's talking about things like prescription drugs, and then deal with this. What would the White House response to that be? SUMMERS: Look, I think what's important is not the timing. What's important is that we find an approach that puts first things first: strengthens Medicare, provides for prescription drugs, strengthens the Social Security system, assures base government can keep functioning, everything from national parks to the Secret Service, and gives the right kind of tax cut for Americans. SCHIEFFER: Well, if 1 can interrupt -- if 1 could interrupt, that sounds like to me you're saying the president would rather have a veto that he could take into the election year than to try to actually work out something with the Republicans. SUMMERS: The president will veto that $800 billion bill. The president will veto a $500 billion tax cut because it doesn't leave room for what's necessary for paying down debt, doing what's gotten us here. Why do we have such a strong economy? SCHIEFFER: But that doesn't answer the question. What I said was it sounds like the president would rather veto the bill than have some sort of legislation. SUMMERS: The president's issue is where we end up, not how we get there. And where the president wants to end up is with an approach that puts first things first. Keeps us paying down debt, because that's how we've made this economy so strong. Keeps us strengthening Medicare and Social Security. If we can do those thing, if we can do those things, we have a chance to keep this expansion going. But this is not the time to take what Chairman Greenspan, what six Nobel prize-winning economists have said would be a very risky course course with a massive tax cut. We're not going to let it happen. BORGER: So, you just said, if I heard you correctly, that the president would also veto a $500 billion tax cut, which is what Senator Breaux, a Democrat, is talking about as some kind of compromise that might include prescription drug benefits, et cetera. So you're saying that's a no-go from the White House point of view? SUMMERS: That is a no-go, and I'll tell you why, Gloria. You have to make choices. With that trillion dollar surplus, after you have taken out interest, you have about $800 billion left. If you have a $500 billion tax cut and you fund defense, you don't have enough to extend the solvency of Medicare; you don't have enough to keep core government going. It's a choice. There are some who would rather see us take steps like raising the retirement age for Medicare or raising premiums on Medicare beneficiaries. There are others like the president who believe we should put aside the money, make reforms in Medicare, and that that should be our first priority before we get into all this discussion of tax cutting. We can have a tax cut but let's put first things first. BORGER: Why did the president propose a tax cut at all then? If you're listening to Alan Greenspan, who says maybe we shouldn't have a tax cut, why did the president feel the need to propose his own $250 billion tax cut? SUMMERS: Because the president has looked hard at the numbers, and we can extend Medicare out all the way to 2027. We can keep base government going. We can add prescription drugs. We can fund education and the environment. And then we've got room... BORGER: But he didn't feel some political need here? SUMMERS: And then we have room, room for the right kind of tax cut that helps people save. That's what the president proposed, not some other kind of tax cut. And I think if we take that approach —the president's approach has been very clear for two years now. The challenge of our time with these surpluses is to pay down debt and to get Social Security and Medicare where they need to be in the next generation. And then have a tax cut. It's putting the cart before the horse to start negotiating what size of tax cut we have until we have established our right priorities. Only the president's proposal in this debate provides for eliminating the national debt by 2013. SCHIEFFER: So is what you're saying here, my way or no way? And that's what has marked so much debate in Washington this year. It sounds like the White House says, we're going to have this position and we won't talk to anybody about anything else. SUMMERS: There's a lot to talk about. There's a lot to talk about how we to cut taxes. There's a lot to talk about in Medicare and Social Security. But what the president feels is an absolute principle is Medicare, Social Security, protecting base government first and then let's have the right size tax cut for working families. SCHIEFFER: All right. At that point we'll leave it. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I'll be back in just a moment to tell you what 1 think about all this in just a minute. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) SCHIEFFER: Finally today, if you want a souvenir of this Congress, I suggest saving the front pages of Friday's New York Times and Washington Post. Both headline the good news for taxpayers, the huge tax cut passed by the House of Representatives. The bad news is down in the smaller type. Paragraph three of the Post story explains the bill has no chance of being enacted. Paragraph nine in the Times story reports the same thing. To me those sentences sum up this Congress and Washington. Whether it was passing legislation to post the ten commandments in schools or holding its animal debate on banning desecration of the flag, this Congress has specialized on issues that have made headlines but have had no chance of being written into law. Two weeks ago it was Senate Democrats forcing a vote on an unrealistic HMO reform bill that had no chance of passage because they wanted to get Republicans on record against HMO reform. Then last week it was House Republicans ramming through a tax bill so laden with goodies and given so little chance of passage that it embarrassed even a lot of Republicans. In both cases neither side showed even the mildest interest in compromise because they have come to believe voters give them no credit and, more importantly, no campaign contributions, for bipartisan achievement. John Kennedy once wrote a book about political leadership called "Profiles in Courage." Nothing in it should be confused with this Congress, which is compiling a long list of profiles in politics. That's our broadcast. Thanks for watching. We'll see you next week here on FACE THE NATION.
END RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Mark A. Kitchens ( CN-Mark A. Kitchens/0U=WH0/0=E0P [ WHO ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME:25-JUL-I999 20:40:03.00
SUBJECT: NBC Meet The Press, July 25, 1999
TO: Anne W. Bovaird ( CN=Anne W. Bovaird/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael K. Gehrke ( CN=Michael K. Gehrke/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michele Ballantyne ( CN=MieheIe BaIIantyne/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ] ) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ruby Shamir ( CN=Ruby Shamir/OU=OPD/0=EOP@EOP [ OPD ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Aprill N. Springfield ( CN=ApriII N. Springfield/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ann C. Hertelendy ( CN=Ann C. HerteIendy/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Erica S. Lepping ( CN=Erica S. Lepping/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Saladbar 23
TO: Rajiv Y. Mody ( CN=Rajiv Y. Mody/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ] ) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. O'Shea ( CN=Sean P. 0’Shea/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura J. Lewis ( CN=Laura J. Lewis/OU-WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: James E. Kennedy ( CN=James E. Kennedy/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Katharine Button ( CN=Katharine Button/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alejandro G. Cabrera ( CN=AIejandro G. Cabrera/0=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joshua S. Gottheimer ( CN^Joshua S. Gottheimer/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ] ) READ:UNKNOWN TO: Clara J. Shin ( CN=Clara J. Shin/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Edward F. Hughes ( CN=Edward F. Hughes/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sarah E. Gegenheimer ( CN=Sarah E. Gegenheimer/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rachael E. Sullivan ( CN=Rachael E. Sullivan/0=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey A. Shesol ( CN=Jeffrey A. Shesol/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ] ) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark A. Kitchens ( CN=Mark A. Kitchens/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gordon Li ( CN=Gordon Li/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ-.UNKNOWN
TO: Steven J. Naplan ( CN=Steven J. Naplan/0U=NSC/0=E0P@E0P [ NSC ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura D. Schwartz ( CN=Laura D. Schwartz/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gene B. Sperling ( CN=Gene B. Sperling/0U=0PD/0=E0P@E0P [ OPD ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne M. Edwards ( CN=Anne M. Edwards/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ-.UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa M. Murray ( CN=Melissa M. Murray/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Eli G. Attie ( CN=Eli G. Attie/0=0VP@0VP [ UNKNOWN ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Peter A. Weissman ( CN=Peter A. Weissman/0U=0PD/0=E0P@E0P [ OPD ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark D. Neschis ( CN=Mark D. Neschis/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thurgood Marshall Jr ( CN=Thurgood Marshall Jr/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lowell A. Weiss ( CN=Lowell A. Weiss/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julia M. Payne ( CN=Julia M. Payne/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN TO: Beverly J. Barnes ( CN=Beverly J. Bames/0U-WH0/0=E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jordan Tamagni ( CN=Jordan Tamagni/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Megan C. Moloney ( CN=Megan C. Moloney/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Brenda M. Anders ( CN=Brenda M. Anders/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dominique L. Cano ( CN=Dominique L. Cano/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ] ) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Leslie Bernstein ( CN=Leslie Bemstein/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anthony R. Bernal ( CN=Anthony R. Bemal/0=0VP@0VP [ UNKNOWN ]) READ-.UNKNOWN
TO: Joseph P. Lockhart ( CN=Joseph P. Lockhart/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jenni R. Engebretsen ( CN=Jenni R. Engebretsen/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Natalie S. Wozniak ( CN=Natalie S. Wozniak/OU=NSC/0=EOP@EOP [ NSC ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dawn M. Chirwa ( CN=Dawn M. Chirwa/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David Vandivier ( CN=David Vandivier/0U=0MB/0=E0P@E0P [ 0MB ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lindsey E. Huff ( CN=Lindsey E. Huff/0U=NSC/0=E0P@E0P [ NSC ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven Reich ( CN=Steven Reich/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kimberly S. Anderson ( CN=Kimberly S. Anderson/OU=OA/0=EOP@EOP [ OA ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robin J. Bachman ( CN=Robin J. Bachman/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas D. Janenda ( CN=Thomas D. Janenda/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Toby C. Graff ( CN=Toby C. Graff/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN TO: Michael A. Hammer ( CN=MichaeI A. Hammer/0U=NSC/0=E0P@E0P [ NSC ]) READrUNKNOWN
TO: Victoria L. Valentine ( CN=Victoria L. Valentine/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rebecca L. Walldorff ( CN=Rebecca L. WaIldorff/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Heather M. Riley ( CN=Heather M. Riley/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan M. Prince ( CN=Jonathan M. Prince/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa J. Prober ( CN=Melissa J. Prober/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ-.UNKNOWN
TO: Steve Ricchetti ( CN=Steve Ricchetti/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julie B. Goldberg ( CN=Julie B. Goldberg/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rochester M. Johnson ( CN=Rochester M. Johnson/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: June Shih ( CN^June Shih/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ-.UNKNOWN
TO: Jason H. Schechter ( CN=Jason H. Schechter/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alison Muscatine ( CN=Alison Muscatine/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julie E. Mason ( CN=Julie E. Mason/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Paul K. Engskov ( CN=PauI K. Engskov/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael Waldman ( CN=Michael Waldman/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Barry J. Toiv ( CN=Barry J. Toiv/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sara M. Latham ( CN=Sara M. Latham/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: William A. Halter ( CN=William A. Halter/0U=0MB/0=E0P@E0P [ 0MB ]) READ:UNKNOWN TO: Nanda Chitre ( CN=Nanda Chitre/0U-WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer Ferguson ( CN=Jennifer Ferguson/OU=OMB/0=EOP@EOP [ 0MB ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan A. Kaplan ( CN=Jonathan A. Kaplan/0U=0PD/0=E0P@E0P [ OPD ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey M. Smith ( CN=Jeffrey M. Smith/0U=0STP/0=E0P@E0P [ OSTP ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth R. Newman ( CN=Elizabeth R. Newman/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Richard L. Siewert ( CN=Richard L. Siewert/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dag Vega ( CN=Dag Vega/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robin M. Roland ( CN=Robin M. Roland/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa G. Green ( CN=Melissa G. Green/0U-0PD/0=E0P@E0P [ OPD ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer M. Palmieri ( CN=Jennifer M. Palmieri/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Douglas B. Sosnik ( CN=Douglas B. Sosnik/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT: NBC MEET THE PRESS Aired on JULY 25, 1999
SPEAKERS: TIM RUSSERT, HOST, NBC MEET THE PRESS ALFONSE D’AMATO, FORMER SENATOR, GEORGE MAGAZINE CONTRIBUTOR DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN RICHARD GOODWIN, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT KENNEDY PETE HAMILL, THE NEW YORKER MARY MCGRORY, THE WASHINGTON POST HARRISON "LEE" RAINIE, AUTHOR, "GROWING UP KENNEDY" JESSE VENTURA, MINNESOTA GOVERNOR
RUSSERT: But first, all week long, Americans riveted to the news. First the search, hopeful for rescue, then sadly the recovery of the bodies and the burial at sea, all the while reliving the scenes of Kennedy's Camelot from more than 35 years ago. Doris Kearns Goodwin, what did our nation go through this past week? KEARNS GOODWIN: Well, in a certain sense, what we saw was this strange mingling of a private family grief with a public outpouring of emotion, and I've thought about it a lot since then. To some extent, it must be a solace to the Kennedy family to see all of the flowers, all of the attention that was paid. When anybody dies in a family, the hardest thing you know is somehow to walk around the next few days on the street and realize everyone else is happy. They don't know what happened to me as I remember feeling when my own mother died as a teenager. Well, the Kennedy family knows — everyone knows what happened to them. But it's still fundamentally different what happened to them, than what happened to the nation. The national grieving can't really be a grieving in a sense, because they didn't know John Kennedy. To the older generation, 1 think it was a remembrance of all the memories of John and Bobby, who they did live with at a certain time. To that younger generation, the irony is that in a certain sense this temporary community created by the saturation of the media during this last week, provided them with live images of Jack and of Bobby and of Camelot, and it may have created a sense for them through the footage that these people had come back; that history had come alive, meaning that the Kennedy story may go on into the 21st century in a strange way because of what we've been through through this last week. Even more than it might have otherwise. RUSSERT; Mary McGrory, you covered the Kennedy years and have written beautifully about the death of John F. Kennedy, Jr. I remember as a little boy watching you talk to Daniel Patrick Moynihan way back in 1963 when he turned to you and said, Mary, what's the use of being Irish — you don't know the world is going to break your heart eventually? All this week, the fatalism of being Irish, the optimism of being Christian, those cross currents we witnessed. What's your sense of what we went through this last week? MCGRORY: Well, 1 think mainly that John Kennedy had a double identity for the country. He was the son and the namesake of John Kennedy, our most glamorous president, a relic of Camelot, an era that lives on in our memory. So that there was this sort of public grief that - the unspoken, unstated, unrealized promise that he might take his father's place in politics one day. So that's why he was sort of doted on. But he was loved by the people who knew him because he had a sweet nature and a kind heart, and he had the Kennedy vim and vigor and he married a beautiful blonde woman, and they were living happily ever after, so there was just that feeling that the Kennedy's were the luckiest and the unluckiest people any of us ever knew and on a different — a different level of living. RUSSERT: Richard Goodwin, you were part of the new frontier. You helped write a speech for John F. Kennedy way back in January of 1961. He had been elected but not sworn in, called "City on a Hill." Let me play that speech for you and for our viewers and get your reaction. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOHN F. KENNEDY: For those to whom much is given, much is required. And when at some future date, the high court of history sits in judgment on each one of us, recording whether in our brief span of service, we fulfilled our responsibilities to the state. Our success or failure in whatever office we may hold, will be measured by the answers to four questions. First, were we truly men of courage? Secondly, were we truly men of judgment? Third, were we truly men of integrity? Finally, were we truly men of dedication? (END VIDEO CLIP) RUSSERT: Courage, judgment, integrity, dedication, politics seemed so much more uplifting, inspiring back then. Is that fair? GOODWfN: 1 think that is fair. I think that one of the things 1 hoped come out of this week, is not only the grief, but the reminder that - the kind of people who used to dominate our political life. I mean, Kennedy meant those things, and I think he probably lived up to them, although opening statement to those to much is given, much is required. A lot has been required of the Kennedy's along the way. But I do think that it's maybe useful reminder to all those people you have around here who don't remember Kennedy and the assassination, that period; that politics did have another dimension to it. Of course, it was gritty and cruel and tough as it always has been. But there was an element of - people were in this because they really wanted to do something for the country, and the constituency felt that way, too. So, I think it's fair to say that there was that standard. RUSSERT: Senator Alfonse D'Amato, you are a conservative Republican. But you became a contributing writer for George magazine, got to know John F. Kennedy, Jr. Your thoughts on this week? D'AMATO: I think Mary touched on a lot of the things. He brought a grace, a charm, a humility that was just staggering. Here is this son who carried the mantel of his daddy. There's no doubt about it, and he had his looks, and he had that - the Kennedy enthusiasm. And yet, when the cameras went off, you couldn't meet a nicer person, down to earth, caring. He had my mom enthralled after one luncheon with her, Tim, and 1 wrote a note and just told him how appreciative — but that was with everyone. With all of his staffers and you know, again, the measure of a person and his goodness is not just the celebrity status and the quick sound bite that they make for the camera, is how are they when the cameras aren't there? And JFK, Jr. was a special person. I tell you, I believe he would have carried that mantel of political leadership whether it's for the Senate or eventually the presidency, because he did have it. He was guarded, no doubt, because there were many who would have taken advantage, but this was one special person. RUSSERT: Pete Hamill, you knew Jacqueline Kennedy well, knew John Kennedy Jr. as a little boy. There's always has been a highly respected zone of privacy that Jackie cast around her children. Talk about that, talk about your memories and reflect on this week. HAMILL: Well, I think she knew from the beginning that the most difficult thing of all was to be able to be this kind of freak in a way, someone looked at for something that is not even done, which is what a lot of that kind of celebrity is about. And having a normal life and having a normal life with those kids was, I think, the driving force in her life after the presidency. I think you look at those kids, both of them, and they're no longer kids, and John is no longer here, but what they became is an amazing tribute to her, which is what everybody said this week. 1 think what's extraordinary about this week was that 1 could not hear a single person say anything at all bad about John Kennedy. There was none, nothing to be said that way. He was emblematic, in a way, of the kind of kid that 1 think every man and woman in America wished had had as a son. He was the son of the Jack Kennedy generation. And in that sense, he's emblematic of his own generation detached from politics, skeptical, ironical about politics, but engaged in the world at the same time. And that generation is now suffered its first wound. It had no war. It had no riots. It had no tumult. Now, it has suffered the first wound and the first unacceptable loss and we're going to see what it does to that generation pretty quickly. RUSSERT: There has been discussion that Caroline Kennedy, John, Jr.'s sister, would now emerge publicly to carry the torch. You think otherwise, don't you? HAMILL: 1 think she's a very private person. We saw that in the last couple days of the week. 1 think she'll be very much like her mother, which is to emerge when an issue is of interest to her the way her mother did. But she's, 1 don't think, going to hire a press agent and try to become famous. She was that the morning she was bom. RUSSERT: Lee Rainie, you wrote a book, "Growing up Kennedy," what was it like growing up John Kennedy Jr., and was he as much a Bouvier, part of Jacqueline's family, as much as a Kennedy? RAINIE: I think that's exactly right. He was a Bouvier. He was shaped as much by the forces of that side of the family, as he was by the Kennedy family. This generation, the grandchildren of Joseph and Rose Kennedy, have a special sort of civilization that they've created, partly shaped by the family, its sense of tough competition and fierce loyalty, but also very much shaped by the tragedies that have befallen the family. When John Kennedy was assassinated, inside this generation, the kids understood it as a uniquely horrible event. It was terrible that it happened to Uncle Jack, but it was at least explainable. When Robert Kennedy was assassinated, it took on a whole new dimension for them. They were scared for their surviving parents' lives. They were scared for their own safety. It was a deeply traumatizing thing that almost suggested different forces were at work in their life. And it took them long time to work through that. RAfNIE: I think Senator Kennedy's presidential campaign in 1980 when they all campaigned for him because of their deep love for him and then in 1983 when they talked him out of running for president in the 1984 cycle. It was an enormous moment of definition for this generation, because they said, we need our own space. We can't go through the same thing we went through in 1980. We need to grow up in our own special way and one of the things that they've done with the space that he gave them by not running, is broaden the definition of public service that exists in that family. They are much more interested in media culture than their parents were before them, and their volunteer work is really staggering in its scope and its dimension and its intensity. RUSSERT: On Friday, Senator Ted Kennedy gave a eulogy. Let me put some words on the screen, share them with our panel and with our viewers. "He had a legacy and he learned to treasure it. He was part of a legend and he learned to live with it. He had amazing grace. He accepted who he was, but he cared more about what he could and should become." Remnants of Camelot in that phraseology Doris Kearns Goodwin, but also a recognition of the individuality even distance that John Kennedy Jr. took from some of the other Kennedy family members. KEARNS GOODWIN: Now, it sees to me the most telling story, and it's one that Dick told me, so I always use his stories that, in fact, Jackie told him when John was a little boy and he was skiing and he fell and he started to cry and Bobby came over to him and said, Kennedy's don't cry, but he looked up at him with those eyes and he said, "this Kennedy cries." Now, think of what that means — that means that I'm a Kennedy, yes. I'm part of the tradition. I'm part of this myth, I'm part of the legacy, but I'm something different. And Jackie told the story, as I understand it, with pride that she wanted to have him feel distinctive. That meant she was going to keep him apart from those cousins sometimes, so they could have their own space to grow up in, but she also wanted him to be proud of being a Kennedy. And I think we saw both those sides were still in him, his own person and he was a Kennedy. RUSSERT: Mary McGrory The New York Times writes today, "We've been connected by these deaths. We share our public passions by electronic proxy." David Broder writes a column today that, fame and death have been exploited and the coverage has been excessive. What do you make of that? MCGRORY: Oh, as usual, I'm ambivalent. I think that the coverage at times was excessive. I think by that I mean repetitive. 1 heard the same things said over and over again. I saw the same images over and over again. And there is a tendency on the part of all of us, not just television commentators - we keep on talking even when we don't have something to say, which is unfortunate. So there was that element of it. But also there was a huge public hunger, there is no question about it. And my friend, David Burke said, seeing those shrines and the flowers and the Teddy bears and all that, he said, you realize how many lonely people there are in the country. They want to be connected to somebody, and they want a family. They don't have a family of their own, but the Kennedy's will serve. So, 1 don't know. I think it's six of one and half dozen of the other, like so many other things in life. RUSSERT: Let me show you all again some words from Senator Kennedy's eulogy. This was about politics and popular culture. "John Kennedy, Jr. though politics should be an integral part of our popular culture. And that popular culture should be an integral part of politics." Pete Hamill, that was the vision in many ways of George magazine. Some people were confused by it, didn't quite understand it, but John F. Kennedy Jr. was insistent that there was this intertwining of popular culture and politics, and believed one of the ways to bring in young people into the political arena was by appealing to their instinct and like of popular culture. HAMILL: I think he was absolutely right, by the way. As the son of a politician who looked like a movie star, and someone who was young when a movie star managed to look like a politician and become president of the United States, too, I think that nexus of popular culture and politics was absolutely the reality of the United States in the last decade of the 20th century. And I think he was very smart to have gone right into that and tried to emphasize it in that magazine. RUSSERT: Alfonse D'Amato, I have heard many people from George magazine say to me that John F. Kennedy Jr. treated the George magazine staff as his family, extremely close to people, hands-on editor. What's your impression? D'AMATO: Absolutely. He was special in that he really gave value to every person, every staffer. He was interested in their work. And, yet, he was not dictatorial. He let it flow. And, indeed, he was building something very special with George. Culture in politics is not just about whether or not we should have a 10 percent tax cut, or whether or not we're spending enough on military defense. D'AMATO: But indeed, it was those thing that embody life itself and let it flow and so - and he had great fun with his staff. I want to tell you, he enjoyed them. And they were his family, and as such, they had a dedication to him, to this young man, that was something wonderful to behold, just marvelous. A true star in every sense and as you said, someone - Pete said, you'd be proud to have a son like this. You hope - you didn't know anybody like this. It just really was amazing. I knew him only for a short period of time in the last five months, and to know John and work with him just for a short time, you had to come away with a feeling, this is one special person. And he was, indeed. RUSSERT: Lee Rainie, in your book, "Growing Up Kennedy" you talk about the difficulties, the challenges, the opportunities and the advantages of growing up as a Kennedy. The next generation, Patrick, the Congressman, now one of the ranking members in the House leadership. Kathleen Townsend, lieutenant governor of Maryland, perhaps the next governor. Joe Kennedy, looking at governor of Massachusetts. The Shrivers, a force in Maryland politics. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. looking seriously at New York politics. What do you see for the next generation of Kennedys? RAfNlE: I think there will be several avenues that they will choose to exercise what they all think is the family mission of public service. Clearly elective politics is part of it. All of the people that you have mentioned that are thinking about office or thinking about stepping up to the next office. They've interestingly reflected the realities of our age. Many of them are more new Democrats than classic Democrats, but I also think that many of them now define public service as working in the media culture. Maria Shriver, of course, on this network is a major news personality, but a lot of them have written books, as Caroline has. A lot of them contributed articles. John himself was working out his own politics in the publication of that magazine, which was very much a reflection of his personality and interests. And then third, fourth 1 think that you have to mention in this is that they will stay involved in these charitable works. Eunice Shriver and the influence that she had on them is enormous. They will be involved with disabilities issues and other issues related to helping the poor and others, I think, throughout their lives and they're teaching their kids that, too. RUSSERT: After John F.Kennedy, there was Robert F. Kennedy, Dick Goodwin. You helped write a speech for him in Cape Town, South Africa just two years before he died. Let's play a piece of that for you and for our viewers. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KENNEDY: There is a Chinese curse which says "may he live in interesting times." Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty, but they are also the most creative of any time in the history of mankind. And everyone here will ultimately be judged - will ultimately judge himself, on the effort he has contributed to building a new world society, and the extent to which his ideals and goals have shaped that effort. (END VIDEO CLIP) RUSSERT: Dick Goodwin, when you were involved with the Kennedys way back then, did you have any idea that they would be such a dominant force in American politics for nearly a half century? RAINIE: No, I don't think you could have foreseen that. Although when we worked for John Kennedy, we did feel that he and those of us who were lucky enough to be associated with him were going to be a dominant force in world history for at least the next eight years. But of course that wasn't to be, although I did go on to work with Lyndon Johnson, who also had quite an impact on the country. But, no, 1 don't think that. 1 think, you know, I was once talking to Bobby, and 1 was trying to console him. He was worried that his brothers would be forgotten forever. Jackie used to be worry about that, too, he'd be forgotten. First of all, Johnson was so dominating and they would forget about Jack Kennedy. And 1 tried to reassure him. I said, you know, I said, William ~ Julius Caesar was emperor of Rome for only three years. He just looked at me. He wasn't going to take any of that guff. He says, yes, he says, it helps to have Shakespeare to write about you. (LAUGHTER) Which is also true. Imagine if we had films of Julius Caesar's assassination to watch on television, now, I mean, he'd be a major figure in our lives. So I think instead of Shakespeare, which we can't seem to produce in this country, we have got those films and videos and visuals that are going to last forever, I suppose. And they keep bringing back the memory. You've used the word Camelot. Now, 10 years ago, the word - it would have been kind of a joke. People regarded the word Camelot as a effort of self-promotion by the Kennedy family. Now it's entered into the vocabulary so you can use it without smiling or trying to explain it away. RUSSERT: Doris Kearns Goodwin, all this week, as Mary McGrory mentioned, Americans watched this, and yearned for it in many ways. But a whole new generation has now been exposed to - has seen something they were unaware of. The idea of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy and assassinations and idealism and the good and bad of the Kennedy family. What does that mean for our democracy, and will it motivate and inspire a whole new generation of people into public service, public life? KEARNS GOODWIN: Yes, I think that whole new generation, including my own children, who weren't alive when John and Bobby were still alive, have seen what the Kennedys have meant to history. So, I think it brings back that sense of continuity over history's lifetime that the family has provided. 1 think it's also shown the enduring role that faith plays. When you watch the way the Kennedys withstood all of this and everybody kept talking about the only reason they could do that was faith, it reminded me of that saying that Rose once said. She said, "if God were to take away all my other gifts, health, education, intelligence, wealth and just leave me one gift, the gift of faith, I could then endure because 1 could withstand the loss of all the others." Now, 1 remember, when she was 90 years old she once said to me, she was certain if her kids could come back, her dead children, Joe, Jr., Kathleen, Jack and Bobby, they would still choose to be who they had been because they had led lives of such adventure and excitement and great fortune. And that gave her great solace. It meant that the space they occupied was so big, it wholly didn't matter if the length of years were short. 1 think kids have seen that, too and that's a very remarkably positive thing. RUSSERT: Senator Kennedy touched upon that very theme in that eulogy, and let me put that up on the screen as well. Talking about John Kennedy, Jr. he said, "We dared to think," in that other Irish phrase, that "this John Kennedy would live to comb gray hair with his beloved Carolyn by his side. But like his father, he had every gift but the length of years." Mary McGrory. MCGRORY: Yes. Maybe it's time now to quote Shelley. "He is a portion of the loveliness which once he made more lovely." RUSSERT: Pete Hamill? HAMILL: Well, I think we should remember him alive, not look for him as a figure of death, but of a vitality and youth and sense that the world is a great and glorious place to be living in. That's what we should remember. RUSSERT: Lee Rainie, final thought? RAINIE: I think the martyrdom of their fathers and their uncles defined who this family is for many Americans. It was interesting to see how John Kennedy was refining that and moving forward from that, and I think Pete Hamill is exactly right. The family will want him remembered as a life force. RUSSERT: Doris Kearns Goodwin, final thought? KEARNS GOODWIN: Well, I think that what we've seen this last week is the chance for history to become part of the present and part of the future. And for those of us who are historians that are always trying to make history to come life again, it's almost as if you promise to continue to tell and to retell the stories of people long gone by, they will be embedded in the next generation. And I think that's a good thought to leave with. RUSSERT: Doris Kearns Goodwin, Dick Goodwin, Lee Rainie, Mary McGrory, Pete Hamill, Alfonse D'Amato, thank you all. Coming next, Minnesota's Governor, Jesse Ventura, his views on Ross Perot and the National Reform Party. Then, this week, for the first time, the three Apollo 11 astronauts talk about the potential of disaster on their mission to the Moon 30 years ago. All coming up right here, on MEET THE PRESS. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) RUSSERT: Yesterday I asked Governor Jesse Ventura of Minnesota for his thoughts about this intense and tragic week. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) VENTURA: Well, I think in some ways there was some overexploitation, Tim, of the media. I know that they - you know, it was an important event, but I think, you know, if 1 put myself in the position of the Kennedy family, 1 think that it was a bit of overexploitation in a private moment like this. Because I'm sure they're, you know, they're feeling grief and suffering beyond belief because John Kennedy, Jr. was just stepping into the prime of his life and to have it snuffed out and tragically taken away this way is a very, very sad, sad case for a family that certainly has been stricken with a lot of sadness through the years. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the Reform Party convention this weekend. You have said the Reform Party is at a crossroads. What do you mean by that? VENTURA: Well, certainly we're at a crossroads, because it's a crossroads of growing. And I feel very strongly that — I respect Ross Perot. 1 think what he has accomplished has been remarkable in many ways and in establishing and creating the Reform Party and the third party movement. But as all leaders, just as we see presidents go and we see leadership always change hands, it is time now for Mr. Perot, 1 think, to take a supportive role on the sidelines. Certainly, we still need him, but it's time for him to step aside and let the party expand and grow and let it become truly a third alternative for people in the United States of America at all election levels. RUSSERT: Have you had a chance to speak to Mr. Perot directly about this? VENTURA: No, 1 have not. I'm busy running the state of Minnesota on a day-to-day basis and personally don't want to get that involved right now in national politics. I guess I'm kind of forced into the situation because I am the highest elected official in the Reform Party, so it kind of pushes you to the forefront, whether you like it or not. But 1 have a full-time Job, Tim, running the state of Minnesota. Believe me, it's a full plate on a daily basis for me. That's why you elect party leadership, both at the state level as well as the national level. That's their job to build the party. We've just elected a new party leader here in Minnesota, Rick McLuin (ph) and I think he's going to do an outstanding job. He's aggressive. He's got great new ideas. And that's Rick's job to do it at the state level. And they'll elect a new party leader at the national level on Sunday. RUSSERT: You're supporting a man named Jack Gargan for national chairman of the Reform Party. If Jack Gargan does not win, will you leave the Reform party? VENTURA: No, not at all. It's good to have choices. That's why the Reform party is here, Tim. We want a third choice other than Democrats and Republicans. No, I just want to ensure that it's an open process, that everyone is given a fair chance to assume that leadership. And if the vote goes against me and goes for someone else, so be it. That's democracy. No, I will not leave the Reform party if Jack Gargan is not chosen, but 1 think Jack will make an outstanding leader. That's why 1 stepped forward and supported him in the process. RUSSERT: If Ross Perot is not the candidate of the Reform Party for president in 2000, who would be? Let me go through some names: Donald Trump? VENTURA: Well, 1 haven't seen him at any conventions. 1 think it would be nice if Donald would show up. You know, we would enjoy that for someone to show a little, you know, enthusiasm to want to be with the party. 1 don't think you just pick someone out. I think you have to have someone who wants to be part of the Reform Party. RUSSERT: Pat Buchanan? VENTURA: 1 believe Mr. Buchanan puts social issues on the front burner, and we in the Reform Party do not put social issues on the front burner. We look more at straight government issues, finance reform, taxation, things of that nature, so I'm not sure if Pat would make a good fit for the Reform Party. RUSSERT: Former Connecticut Governor Lowell Weicker? VENTURA: 1 think Lowell's a name. I've met with Lowell, and Lowell has shown some interest. Certainly he's a possibility out there to step forward for the Reform Party and I think he still wants to get his feet wet in politics, which is still very, very important. RUSSERT: And there is no way whatsoever Jesse Ventura, would run for president in 2000? VENTURA; No way. Absolutely no way whatsoever. The only way 1 could become president, Tim, is if they vote me in, and then 1 ask the question, do you have to take the job if you win because I'm certainly not going to campaign for it. 1 made a promise to the State of Minnesota that 1 would serve as governor. 1 will fulfill my promises. RUSSERT: You know, in 1992, about two-thirds of the American voters said they were not satisfied with the Democratic and Republican nominees and wanted a third party candidate. As we approach 2000, less than a third of the people say they're not satisfied. Do you think that the energy and interest in the third party has diminished? VENTURA; No, I don't think it has. 1 think - in fact, 1 think it's increased. 1 think my election shows that, because 1 went against two very powerful Democrat and Republican candidates here in Minnesota. Two extremely popular big name candidates. You can't get any more big name than the name Humphrey in Minnesota, and yet, 1 won the election. And I think that it's more of a case of people are getting very disenchanted with the partisan party politics, bickering that goes on with these two parties. They're not doing the work of the people. They're doing what they do now, and that is battling for power and battling for supremacy between their two parties, and 1 frankly think the average American citizen is fed up and tired of it. RUSSERT: If we know who the Democratic and Republican nominees are by March of the year 2000, and the election isn't until November, do you think a third party candidate could mount a campaign say, late in the year, September, October and rush or even steal the election? VENTURA: Yes, 1 do. 1 think it's a good possibility because they're now starting their candidacies. 1 mean, we're going to be getting TV ads here in the next couple of weeks it looks like. They're starting to run two years ahead of time for the office, and 1 really believe by the time next July or August comes around, people are going to be tired of those two candidates. They’re going to be sick of watching the whole Republican and Democratic rhetoric on television. And 1 think a powerful third party candidate could step in absolutely and win that election down the stretch, much the same as 1 did. 1 mean, at the primary 1 was only polling 10 percent, and, yet, the general election took place six to seven weeks later. 1 went from 10 percent all the way to 37 percent. RUSSERT: Here in Washington, governor, the House Republicans have decided the best way to deal with the surplus is by giving an $800 billion tax cut over the next 10 years. Are you supportive of that size tax cut? VENTURA: Well, 1 would have to really delve into their budget before 1 could speak on it because I'm not privy to the national budget as people elected to national positions are. But 1 certainly think that if they're developing that type of surplus, that maybe, yeah, you would go for a tax cut. You know, over ten years, that's not really that much when you stop and think about it. I mean 10 years takes us almost to the year 2010.1 think maybe they ought to carve a little more out of it, if they can. RUSSERT: On July 14th, you created quite a stir there in Minnesota when you announced that you were returning to the World Wrestling Federation as a referee in the Summer Slam coming in August. Let me show a little tape of that press conference and then ask you a question. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) VENTURA: I am more powerful than the World Wrestling Federation. (APPLAUSE) As long as you're in this state, you hold no power here. I -it's very simple. It's the Body rules. It's my rules or the highway.
(APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) RUSSERT: Governor, you've worked hard to make the transition from Jesse "the Body" to Jesse "the Mind" to Jesse "the Governor." Are you concerned when the American people see you with those sunglasses and feather boas around your neck and running around the wrestling ring, that they're not going to take you seriously as a governor or national political figure? VENTURA: Not at all. I mean, I'm doing this on my own time. It's a Sunday night event. It's an event that was scheduled months ahead of time. It was sold out before 1 even got involved in it, Tim. But I'm not going to cease to have fun, and the opportunity arose and I'm going to have a great time. I'm going to step back in the ring. It's a bit nostalgic for me. I think 1 established myself as a governor, that's why the timing doesn't matter to me now. I mean we got through a legislative session here in Minnesota. It was extremely successful. We showed tri-partisan politics can work and be successful, and you know what's interesting, the latest poll — the polling was done right during this announcement with the World Wrestling Federation and my poll numbers are the highest of any governor in the history of the state. VENTURA: They're at 73 percent. So I don't think the people of Minnesota are worried about their governor going out and having some fun, going back to a profession that he used to work in for many, many years. RUSSERT: The Minneapolis Star Tribune, your local paper, had some things to say about this. Let me put it on the screen and read it for you and our viewers. "The first commandment of public service is thou shalt not exploit elected office for personal gain. And when a washed up wrestler stands to profit because he has gained fame as a gadfly governor, he is exploiting his job. That's more than just unseemly. It's unethical. Ventura can make a spectacle of himself any day he chooses but he ought to give away every extra penny he makes in the process." Your response? VENTURA: Well, my response is why don't they say the same thing to St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman who has just taken a radio job for money? The amount of money, if, indeed - and they don't even know what I'm being paid because Tim, my appearance fee. I'm donating it all to charity. My appearance fee is $100,000 and I'm starting the Jesse Ventura Scholarship Fund at my old Roosevelt High School where I'll give out a $5,000 scholarship every year to a student that maybe can't go to college. And then we're starting the Jade Foundation named in honor of my daughter Jade to help kids who have been the victims of violence and things of that nature. I think - and the term washed up - now, I take offense to that when you consider that Hulk Hogan is the world champion right now in one of the leagues and he's only two years younger than I am. Rick Flair is still wrestling. He's three or four years older than I am and Vem Gonyon (ph), who is a legend of Minnesota wrestling, wrestled until he was 60 years of age. Would they call Walter Cronkite washed up because he's no longer doing the news on the television? Or would they call their local columnist, Jim Klobitcher (ph), who's retired - would the term washed up go in front of his name? That's what 1 took exception to, the term "washed up." That's personal, and, you know, that bothers me. But the point is, the people don't care. The people are enjoying it. I'm enjoy it, and, you know if The Star Tribune has a problem with it, that's their problem. They need to look at the picture, not the amount of money, but the precedents. You notice they don't say anything about the St. Paul Mayor taking a radio job for pay. 1 believe the only reason this radio station hired him is because he's the St. Paul mayor. RUSSERT: They say you may make a million dollars or more in royalties down the road. Would you give those to charity? VENTURA: That's confidential. Whether 1 make a nickel down the road is my business. I may not be making anything down the road. All I'm telling you is my appearance fee is for $100,000. Then there is in my contract, they are buying the rights to my trademark name and then my federal court case, which was deemed in court, if there's a video tape of it, I will get the royalties that the court saw fit to give me in the court case in federal court, and that's the extent of my contract. RUSSERT: Governor, Ricky Martin, the new star singer said the other day that you have changed politics forever, that presidents will sing and singers may run for president. Do you think that there is now I mixing of pop culture and politics and it will be changed forever? VENTURA: I don't know about that. I met Ricky at the Tonight Show. He's a very talented young man. And why he would want to get into politics, 1 don't know. He's doing well being just a singer. If he has aspirations to do so. I'm certain he may carry the strong female vote very powerfully, but... (LAUGHTER) .... but I'm flattered that he would say that, that I've changed politics forever. And if I have, well, so be it. We live in a changing world, Tim that changes all the time. So if I'm a part of that, well, and he wants to give me credit for it, I'm flattered over that fact. RUSSERT: Governor Jesse Ventura, we'll see you August 22nd in the ring as the referee and we'll see you baek here on MEET THE PRESS, I'm sure. VENTURA: You know, Tim, if I'm successful, maybe I'll challenge you Tim "The Body"... (LAUGHTER) .... to come in the ring with me. RUSSERT: That's all I need. All right. See you. VENTURA: Thanks, Tim. RUSSERT: That's an American original. Coming next -- our MEET THE PRESS Minute with Apollo 8 Commander Frank Borman. And the Apollo 11 astronauts share their memories of the mission to the moon 30 years ago and their belief in life beyond earth. Then, a final remembrance of John F. Kennedy, Jr., his wife and sister-in-law. Coming up right here on MEET THE PRESS. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) RUSSERT: We're back. Thirty years ago the world watched in awe. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ARMSTRONG: It's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. (END AUDIO CLIP) RUSSERT: Astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first humans to walk on the moon. (AUDIO CLIP) ARMSTRONG (?): You can see the stars and stripes on the... (END AUDIO CLIP) RUSSERT: Days before the launch of Apollo 11, the commander of the Apollo 8 mission, Frank Borman, appeared on MEET THE PRESS to provide some insight to the mission at hand. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNKNOWN: Despite the extraordinary success of Apollo 8, 9 and 10, which prepared the way for a moon landing, many Americans are deeply worried that Apollo 11 might fail. Why are you so sure that it won't? BORMAN: Well, everything that is humanly possible has been done for Apollo 11. The technicians, the engineers, the crew are at a razor-sharp edge. The important thing is, I think, that people should realize, the crew, all of us who fly these things, really believe that what we're doing is a value not only to the country but for all mankind. And as pioneers in the past, we're willing to accept a certain amount of risk. We firmly believe the risks are minimized but there are some. (END VIDEO CLIP) RUSSERT: Frank Borman thought enough about those risks to place a phone call to Nixon aide William Safire and suggest the White House be prepared in case the mission ended tragically. The result - Jim Mann (ph) of the LA Times recently discovered this memo from William Safire that outlined a speech and plan of action for President Nixon. Quote, "in the event of moon disaster." The draft speech said in part, "fate has ordained that the men who went to the moon to explore in peace will stay on the moon to rest in peace. These brave men, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, know that there is no hope for their recovery, but they also know there is hope for mankind in their sacrifice." And the final footnote on this chapter of history: on Tuesday, at a historic gathering of the Apollo 11 astronauts at the Newseum, I asked Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins about the moon disaster speech never given. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RUSSERT: Does it give you pause? ARMSTRONG (?): Well, certainly. We spent all our time preparing for the flight, trying to prepare ourselves to be able to handle any kind of emergency that might arise. But we were success-oriented. ALDRIN (?): The success of landing successfully and the failure of having a disaster, one as a leader counts on his staff to be able to prepare him to cope with those situations. COLLINS (?): So that's not at all surprising that someone would pick somebody as talented as William Safire to put those words together. RUSSERT: Michael Collins, you would have to be prepared in that situation to leave alone. COLLINS: Yeah, sure, I didn't write any memos... (LAUGHTER) .... but I'd be very surprised if the White House had not written them, let me put it that way. Yes, of course, that was on all our minds I think to some extent. Clearly, I did not want to come home by myself. But if I had to, 1 would have. RUSSERT: One other historical footnote. The pilot of the Apollo 11 command module, Michael Collins, firmly believes there is life beyond earth. COLLINS: You know, we're relatively sure there is no such thing as intelligent life on Mars. You have to go further out for that. RUSSERT: You think there is life out there? COLLINS: Oh, absolutely. RUSSERT: You do? How far out? COLLfNS: I don't know, but I think what you do is you start with a blackboard and a piece of chalk and write down the number of stars that are out there, which is one followed by more zeros than I can write in a hurry or even describe. And making the most pessimistic assumptions that you could possibly make, you still end up with gazillions and quadrillions of stars that are just as capable of sustaining life as our own sun is. So, it seems to me the height of arrogance to say that our little stupid sun off in one obscure comer of an odd galaxy called the Milky Way should be the only one in the whole universe capable of developing what we sometimes refer to as intelligent life. RUSSERT: Where do earthlings fit into this whole spectrum? COLLINS: Not too high, not too high... (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) RUSSERT: Take that, you fellow earthlings. And we'll be right back for the final remembrance of John F. Kennedy, Jr., his wife and sister-in-law. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) RUSSERT: We conclude our program the way we began, remembering the lives of John F. Kennedy, Jr. and Carolyn and Lauren Bessette. And on this Sunday morning, may their families find comfort in the enormous outpouring of thoughts and prayers from people the world over. We begin with the words of President John Kennedy from 1962. May these three young Americans find eternal peace at sea. (BEGfN VIDEO CLIP) KENNEDY: I really don't know why it is that all of us are so committed to the sea, except I am — I think it's because, in addition to the fact that the sea changes and the light changes, and ships change. It's because we all came from the sea. And it is an interesting biological fact that all of us have, in our veins, the exact same percentage of salt in our blood that exists in the ocean. And, therefore, we have salt in our blood, in our sweat, in our tears. We are tied to the ocean. And when we go back to the sea - whether it is to sail or to watch it - we are going back from whence we came. (END VIDEO CLIP) RUSSERT: Start your day tomorrow on Today with Katie Couric and Matt Lauer and then the NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw. We'll be back next week. If it's Sunday, it's MEET THE PRESS.
END RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Mark A. Kitchens ( CN=Mark A. Kitchens/0U=WH0/0=E0P [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME:25-JUL-1999 20:37:40.00
SUBJECT: FOX News Sunday, July 25, 1999
TO: Anne W. Bovaird ( CN=Anne W. Bovaird/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael K. Gehrke (CN=Michael K. Gehrke/0U-WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michele Ballantyne ( CN=Michele Ballantyne/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ruby Shamir ( CN=Ruby Shamir/0U=0PD/0=E0P@E0P [ OPD ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Aprill N. Springfield ( CN=Aprill N. Springfield/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ann C. Hertelendy ( CN=Ann C. Hertelendy/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Erica S. Lepping ( CN=Erica S. Lepping/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Saladbar 23
TO: Rajiv Y. Mody ( CN=Rajiv Y. Mody/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. O’Shea ( CN=Sean P. 0'Shea/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura J. Lewis ( CN=Laura J. Lewis/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: James E. Kennedy ( CN=James E. Kennedy/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Katharine Button ( CN^Katharine Button/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alejandro G. Cabrera ( CN-Alejandro G. Cabrera/0=0VP@0VP [ UNKNOWN ] ) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joshua S. Gottheimer ( CN=Joshua S. Gottheimer/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN TO: Clara J. Shin ( CN=Clara J. Shin/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Edward F. Hughes ( CN=Edward F. Hughes/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sarah E. Gegenheimer ( CN=Sarah E. Gegenheimer/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ] ) READ-.UNKNOWN
TO: Rachael E. Sullivan (CN=Rachael E. Sullivan/0=0VP@0VP [ UNKNOWN ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey A. Shesol ( CN=Jeffrey A. Shesol/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark A. Kitchens ( CN^Mark A. Kitchens/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gordon Li ( CN=Gordon Li/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven J. Naplan ( CN=Steven J. Naplan/0U=NSC/0=E0P@E0P [ NSC ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura D. Schwartz ( CN=Laura D. Schwartz/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ] ) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gene B. Sperling ( CN=Gene B. Sperling/0U=0PD/0=E0P@E0P [ OPD ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne M. Edwards ( CN=Anne M. Edwards/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa M. Murray ( CN=Melissa M. Murray/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Eli G. Attie ( CN=Eli G. Attie/0=0VP@0VP [ UNKNOWN ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Peter A. Weissman ( CN=Peter A. Weissman/0U=0PD/0=E0P@E0P [ OPD ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark D. Neschis ( CN=Mark D. Neschis/0U=WH0/0-E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thurgood Marshall Jr ( CN=Thurgood Marshall Jr/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lowell A. Weiss ( CN=Lowell A. Weiss/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julia M. Payne ( CN=Julia M. Payne/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN TO: Beverly J. Barnes ( CN=Beverly J. Bames/0U=WH0/0=E0P [ WHO ]) READiUNKNOWN
TO: Jordan Tamagni ( CN=Jordan Tamagni/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UMKNOWN
TO: Megan C. Moloney (CN=Megan C. Moloney/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Brenda M. Anders ( CN=Brenda M. Anders/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dominique L. Cano ( CN=Dominique L. Cano/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Leslie Bernstein ( CN=Leslie Bemstein/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anthony R. Bernal ( CN=Anthony R. Bemal/0=0VP@0VP [ UNKNOWN ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joseph P. Lockhart ( CN=Joseph P. Lockhart/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ] ) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jenni R. Engebretsen (CN=Jenni R. Engebretsen/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Natalie S. Wozniak ( CN=Natalie S. Wozniak/OU=NSC/0=EOP@EOP [ NSC ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dawn M. Chirwa ( CN=Dawn M. Chirwa/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David Vandivier ( CN=David Vandivier/0U=0MB/0=E0P@E0P [ 0MB ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lindsey E. Huff ( CN=Lindsey E. Huff/0U=NSC/0=E0P@E0P [ NSC ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven Reich ( CN=Steven Reich/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kimberly S. Anderson ( CN=Kimberly S. Anderson/OU=OA/0=EOP@EOP [ OA ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robin J. Bachman ( CN=Robin J. Bachman/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas D. Janenda ( CN=Thomas D. Janenda/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Toby C. Graff ( CN=Toby C. Graff/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN TO; Michael A. Hammer ( CN=Michael A. Hammer/0U=NSC/0=E0P@E0P [ NSC ]) READiUNKNOWN
TO: Victoria L. Valentine ( CN=Victoria L. Valentine/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READiUNKNOWN
TO: Rebecca L. Walldorff ( CN^Rebecca L. WaIldorff/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Heather M. Riley ( CN=Heather M. Riley/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO; Jonathan M. Prince ( CN=Jonathan M. Prince/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa J. Prober ( CN=Melissa J. Prober/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steve Ricchetti ( CN=Steve Ricchetti/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julie B. Goldberg ( CN=Julie B. Goldberg/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Roehester M. Johnson ( CN=Rochester M. Johnson/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: June Shih ( CN=June Shih/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jason H. Schechter ( CN=Jason H. Schechter/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alison Muscatine ( CN=Alison Muscatine/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julie E. Mason ( CN=Julie E. Mason/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Paul K. Engskov ( CN=Paul K. Engskov/OU=WHO/0-EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael Waldman ( CN=Michael Waldman/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Barry J. Toiv ( CN=Barry J. Toiv/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sara M. Latham ( CN=Sara M. Latham/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: William A. Halter ( CN=William A. Halter/0U=0MB/0=E0P@E0P [ 0MB ]) READ;UNKNOWN TO: Nanda Chitre ( CN=Nanda Chitre/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READiUNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer Ferguson ( CN=Jennifer Ferguson/OU=OMB/0=EOP@EOP [ 0MB ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan A. Kaplan ( CN=Jonathan A. Kaplan/0U=0PD/0=E0P@E0P [ OPD ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey M. Smith ( CN=Jeffrey M. Smith/0U=0STP/0=E0P@E0P [ OSTP ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth R. Newman ( CN=Elizabeth R. Newman/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Richard L. Siewert ( CN=Richard L. Siewert/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dag Vega ( CN=Dag Vega/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robin M. Roland ( CN=Robin M. Roland/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa G. Green ( CN=Melissa G. Green/0U=0PD/0=E0P@E0P [ OPD ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer M. Palmieri ( CN=Jennifer M. Palmieri/0U=WH0/0=E0P@E0P [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Douglas B. Sosnik ( CN=Douglas B. Sosnik/OU=WHO/0=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]) READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT: FOX NEWS SUNDAY Aired on July 25, 1999
SNOW: Families say good-bye to John F. Kennedy J., Carolyn Bessette Kennedy and Lauren Bessette. We'll remember them with Kennedy friend, Harris Wofford. A Reform Party power struggle. Will Jesse Ventura body slam Ross Perot? We’ll ask him. Task cuts, how much is enough? We'll toss that raw meat to Republican Senator Phil Gramm and National Economic Adviser, Gene Sperling. Is a .com the surest road to riches? We'll talk about the Internet gold rush with business journalist and cyber-entrepreneur Lou Dobbs. Plus verbal volleys from Fred Barnes, Mara Liasson and Juan Williams on the July 25 edition of FOX NEWS SUNDAY. Good morning, welcome to FOX NEWS SUNDAY. Last night in Greenwich, Connecticut, friends and family remembered Lauren Bessette in a private memorial service. Millions mourned her, her sister Carolyn and her brother-in-law, John F. Kennedy, Jr., but what kind of people were they? Here to give some personal insight is Harris Wofford, former U.S. senator and long-time friend of the Kennedy family. My FOX NEWS colleague, Juan Williams of The Washington Post, joins the questioning. Senator Wofford, you and I were talking the other day and you said you were intensely kind of intrigued by John Kennedy, Jr. Why? WOFFORD: Well, 1 think he pointed the way to the kind of political leader this country is yearning for. Somebody whose not obsessed with politics of office seeking, and yet is interested in politics of the broad dimension, including civic action and corporate invention, founding a magazine devoted to getting popular culture and politics back together again, with a sense of humor about the human condition and about himself. And interested in other dimensions of life — like sports and arts and the — the other dimensions that Jacqueline, his mother, fought to protect, but which seemed to come naturally to John Kennedy, Jr. SNOW: Some people I've talked to said he was also keenly interested in figuring out what his father was like. He reminded folks that he was two — turned three on the day of his father's funeral. Was that your experience too? Did he sort of interrogate you when it came to talking about his father? WOFFORD: A little bit. He had read a book 1 had written in the 60s about the 60s and was complimentary about it and full of questions out of it and - but 1 don't want to put too much weight on that. I'd like to — I mean, I don't mind weight on the book you're carrying, but he was making his own life and I think part of what appealed to people about him was he represented the future. He represented young America. And though his mother helped a lot, he was shaping his own life in, actually, just the kinds of way that I would like young America to be. I think he stirred the hope of America being young again. WILLIAMS: You know, in your book. Senator Wofford, you mentioned the notion that the character of the Kennedy family intrigued you as much as their political legacy. In fact, was John, Jr. of the character of his father? WOFFORD: Of his father and his mother. 1 think he had the best traits of both. He had the humor and the sense of adventure, interest in politics in the full sense of his father and he had the other dimensions that his mother so wanted and I think it's a very interesting combination, but I think he was stirred by the character of the family in terms of its dedication to public service. You know, when that flag was lowered to half mast, once again the country's spirits were lowered. I just hope that the coverage of the flag going up is going to be something like the coverage of it going down because that's an extraordinary thing about the family, which he certainly reflected, and that is that you pick yourself up and you go forward. And Ted Kennedy will be going back into battle in the Senate for Patients' Bill of Rights. Eunice and Sarge Shriver will be back in Special Olympics, now headed by their extraordinary son, Tim Shriver. Caroline is going to be picking up the "Profiles in Courage" awards once again in her many public works, and her own profile in courage is going to be important. And you can go down the line of Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, lieutenant governor of Maryland. She was pioneer for service learning, a requirement for all students in Maryland. WILLIAMS: Senator Wofford, though, does... WOFFORD: And I can give you another dozen Kennedy's. WILLIAMS:... does the character element, however, also engage this notion of taking high risks, high risks that may lead to tragedy such as this? WOFFORD: Well, you can put it that way. But, you know, when there's a death in the family, in the American family, you tend to try to distill that which is best and those who have gone. And I would say that John Kennedy, the president, and John Kennedy, the son, were not dare devils, but they dared. And America's best part is daring. And the sea with little ships brought immigrants like the Kennedy's and before that the pilgrims to this country, daring to go on the ocean and people dared to go west and that's the part of this country that I'd like to get stirred again. 1 think part of the response to John Kennedy, Jr. is that he stirred that sense of American daring. It was his father who said we're going to the Moon. And John Kennedy's own speech about what an important decision it was to enter the adventure of space, along with a lot of his other words. WOFFORD: 1 want to pay tribute to the media for the discovery of John Kennedy, Jr. A picture is worth a thousand words they say, but you have not only those pictures, but you had his words. And though I had heard a few of them and all of us who had some of John Kennedy, Jr., wanted more. I got more in these last few days from you, I mean, from the media. SNOW: Well let me ask you, because you also have been around the family a lot, and quite often when people gather to mourn, they swap stories, they talk about things. What is the most surprising thing you have learned about John Kennedy, Jr.? WOFFORD: The extent of his thoughtfulness, about how politics can be an art that goes beyond partisanship and office seeking. That he was exploring both in founding a magazine, focused on the subject; how drama - the drama of politics can catch the imagination of people and deal with great issues and lead people into common causes. He founded quietly — I didn't know it -- this "Reaching Up" program for fellowships to design ways for people to serve people with mental disabilities better, quietly he did that. WILLIAMS: Senator Ted Kennedy in his wonderful eulogy said that, in fact, he thought John Kennedy, Jr., had every gift of his father, and similarly, like his father, did not have the gift of long life. Why didn't John Kennedy, Jr. use his short life to become a political leader? WOFFORD: Well, he was asked that by some of your friends in the media. And he gave the same answer each time I notice, he essentially said, I may. I think you have to be ready for the long haul and wholly dedicate yourself when you go that route. I'm going this other route of social invention and working at the local level, patriotism of the home front. But he said 1 may, but I have, fortunately, some years before 1 decide whether I do that. SNOW: Were you disappointed? WOFFORD: That we didn't have those years? SNOW: No, that he didn't, in fact, take to the fight. WOFFORD: No, part of what appealed to me he was that he was taking his time to find his own way, that he was not in a rush to get office. And because he saw the power that the — the creative patriotism of the home front can render if you -- he loved New York. You could sense it in all the pictures, the things he did in New York. People are just beginning to discover. SNOW; Do you think, in closing, that he had one thing that maybe too many people lack these days in politics, which is patience. WOFFORD: And he fought cynicism at every step. If you listen to the words that you've been presenting, he, like every member of the family that 1 know, never succumbs to the adult disease of cynicism. SNOW: All right. Harris Wofford, thank you so much for joining us and giving us those insights. We're going to take a break. When we return, Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) SNOW: Last November Jesse Ventura stormed to an upset victory in the Minnesota Govemoror's race. Now he has his sights set on leading the Reform Party to national prominence. 1 talked Saturday with Governor Ventura and began with an issue that played a key role in his own election campaign, tax cuts. I asked him if Capitol Hill Republicans were trying to cut too much, too little or just enough. VENTURA; Well, you know it's hard for me to say because I'm not privy to the national budget. You know, certainly, if it was a Minnesota budget, 1 could give you a definitive answer on it. But I don't see the national budget. I'm too busy governing Minnesota. But you know, all of that over 10 years, I'd almost think they could do that in about five if they wanted to. SNOW; Do you think Republicans then are not being tough enough on the president on this one? VENTURA; Well, you know, remember government is going to spend the money if you let them have it, so you got to make a decision on whether you're going to allow them. Because we actually had a $4 billion surplus in Minnesota before I got here. And they certainly spent all of that money and that was - or the majority of it, and that was one of the big reasons that I ran for governor of Minnesota, that I got angry over that fact. Because if they're taxing you too much - it's no different than the electric company when they send you one of those estimated bills. Well they always estimate - have they ever had one Tony, where they estimated it low? SNOW: No. VENTURA: Never. They always estimate it high. Well, if they estimate it high and they charge too much, well, they should then give it back to you. SNOW: Governor, do you think it takes a third party to make that kind of a tax cut? VENTURA: It takes a third party many times to bring it to the attention of the public and make it a front burner issue. Because the minute a third party starts getting any type of press on that type of an issue, well that causes the other two parties to then take notice and put that issue to the front burner. Because always remember this, the other two parties are enemies until a third party comes along. Then they'll actually join forces to stop the third party. SNOW; Let's talk about that third party for a moment. You have said that it is time for Ross Perot to step back a little bit from the reform party. Why? VENTURA: Well, not really to step back. 1 believe it's time -- and I commend Mr. Perot, he created the Reform Party. He is the founder of the Reform Party and he deserves total credit for that. But like anything, you start growing beyond, you have to expand beyond where you have been before. And, you know, Mr. Perot, has run for president in 1992 and again in 1996. He got almost 20 percent, 19 or 20 percent of the vote in 1992. Well, that was cut in half by 1996. Well, that's like a business indicator, you know. And Mr. Perot is a businessman, he can see those indicators out there. When you've lost half your vote the second-time around, I think it is time to reverse that trend. You have to get the trend going upward. I think Mr. Perot needs to be there in a supportive role. We certainly need him. We want him to be a part of the party and always to continue to be part of the party. But 1 think we need another candidate in the year 2000. SNOW; Who? VENTURA: Certainly we would like to get one with some name recognition because you don't want to go out being a young party like we are, and we're still a baby. We haven't even been around 10 years yet. So you want a candidate with some name recognition so you don't have to go out and buy it with money. SNOW: Governor, 1 covered the first three Reform Party conventions. 1 know you're the only name out there other than Ross Perot. Are you saying somebody has to come in from the outside? VENTURA: Well, sure, 1 think that that could happen, someone - but they need to join the Reform Party first. I don't think we, as a party, should go out there and say, hey, we want you as our candidate. I think it's going to be a candidate who maybe gets disenchanted, which most of us in the Reform Party, that's who we are. We're disenchanted Democrats and Republicans. And I love to say, Tony, that we are the result of a 12 step recovery program. (LAUGHTER) You know, the first thing you have to do is identify you have a problem. You're a Republican or a Democrat. Once you identify that, then the door is open to become a Reform Party person. SNOW: Do you see any people who, at the end of this 12-step process, might — you might think would be the logical candidate for the Reform Party? VENTURA: Well, I've met with former senator and governor, Lowell Wiecker (ph). I think he carries name recognition that could do the party some good. And I think if Lowell wants to get his feet back into politics as a Reform Party candidate, 1 think we would be the perfect forum for him. I think Senator McCain of Arizona is interesting because his main focus seems to be campaign finance reform, which of course the Democrats and Republicans poo-poo any idea like that because with their soft money and taking money from foreign countries and everything that they do, they're not out to reform campaign finance because that's their life blood. And yet Senator McCain looks at that as a major issue. Well, that's always been a major issue in the Reform Party. So maybe there's a fit there that we could look at. Who knows? SNOW: Is this something that you'd feel comfortable picking up the phone, say after the Republieans have picked a nominee, and it's now John McCain, if it's now John McCain. Would you feel comfortable picking up a phone and saying, you know, you ought to join us? VENTURA: Well, I won't rule that out. 1 think that, you know again, as I said before, most of us in the Reform Party are disgruntled Democrats and Republicans, and he would just join a long list of many. I mean, he wouldn't be breaking any new ground, Tony, if that's what he did. And, you know, like I said, in light of the fact that he has a strong personal feeling on campaign finance reform, it would seem to be a natural fit for the senator to come to our party. SNOW: How about people like Pat Buchanan? VENTURA: Well, Pat, 1 respect Pat, but Pat's problem in the Reform Party - 1 don't think that's as good a fit. Because Pat Buchanan puts social issues on the front burner, they're major issues for him. And if you look at the Reform Party platform, we don't put that much focus on social issues. We put more governing issues to the front burner. So, I'm not sure if the fit would be that good for Pat and the Reform Party. SNOW: Governor, can you think of anybody other than you, who has a track record of pulling off the kind of upset you're talking about? VENTURA: Oh, 1 think that there's a person out there, but he refuses to run for president. Just as 1 do. SNOW: Who is that? VENTURA: That's General Colin Powell. 1 think General Powell, if he so wanted to, could be the next president of the United States, and 1 think if he chose the Reform Party, that upset could take place again. But I fully understand that the General has no interest in doing that, he's happy in what he's doing, I fully respect that position, but 1 do respect and admire him greatly and 1 realize that he's given to his country what most of us couldn't give in five life times already. SNOW: Governor, you've mentioned two other people who are not in the Reform Party, both, like you, have military backgrounds. How important is that? VENTURA: Oh, 1 don't think military background is extremely important. But, again, in some aspects it is, because it's a chance to show you put your money where your mouth is. It's a chance to show that early in your life, generally, you saw fit as an American citizen to stand up and say, I'm going to serve my country for whatever amount of years that you so do it. Because you certainly don't serve your country, and in my aspect as an enlisted man, you're not serving your country to make money. Because when 1 first enlisted in the Navy, I got $126 a month. 1 think my clearing pay was $60 a paycheck, something like that being typical Jesse Ventura, 1 blew that in one weekend and had to sit on the base then for two weeks till 1 got another check. SNOW: Governor, talking about money, you've taken some heat in the Minnesota press. There were reports that you've made $2 or $3 million while you've been in office. Can you live on $120,000 a year as governor? VENTURA: First of all, they don't know that. They're speculating. They're speculating like the press always does. The press simply loves to write stories not on fact, but on speculation. As far as my entrance into wrestling later this month, it's nostalgic a little bit for me. It was fun, it's a career that I've had for many, many years, and I chose to go back. My appearance fee that I'm signed for is $100,000, of which I am giving all $100,000 to charity. I am getting some other money for the trademark use of my name, that I've owned that trademark, Jesse "the Body" Ventura, for 15 or 20 years now and 1 will also get videotape royalties, which was actually determined by a federal court case a number of years ago. The federal court awarded me that videotape royalty percentage and that will also apply. But 1 think it's just a matter of I'm going out and having some fun and there's a lot of people jealous of the fact that I'm able to do it. And it was unique, Tony, because while the WWF announcement came, they were in the middle - right in the middle of doing this latest poll, so the people knew I was doing it, and yet I got the highest polling results - 73 percent of any governor in Minnesota history. So the people don't care. It's just the media that wants to make a big deal out of it. SNOW: What do you think would happen to your poll ratings if you got in the ring with a few reporters? VENTURA: Oh, I think I'd be up about 95 percent then. I could even maybe get perfect, if there is perfect in a poll. No, probably not, because they probably poll a reporter, so it might be 99 percent. (LAUGHTER) SNOW: Governor, there is some talk that Jerry Springer might run for the United States Senate in Ohio. What do you think of that? VENTURA: Well, I don't think of it, to be blunt. I haven't put any thought into it at all. But let's remember this is America, the United States, and that's what makes us the great country we are is that essentially anyone can run for public office. Now, whether anyone can win is another story entirely. SNOW: Now, Governor, do you think - let's suppose it's next year, do you think you could beat A1 Gore and George Bush in a general election? VENTURA: I think if 1 so chose to run and if things fell into place — let me put it to you this way, Tony --1 think that the temperament and the atmosphere nationally is no different than it was here in Minnesota in 1998. SNOW: Do you think -- you have said that you will serve the full term through 2002 as governor of Minnesota. VENTURA: Yes. SNOW: Does that mean you're ready - you would not rule out running for president in the year 2004? VENTURA: Well, I'll put that into perspective too. I could run for president the year 2004 or I could be a beach bum on the beaches of Cona (ph) in the year 2004, throwing away my watch and know that when the sun comes up, you get up, when it's straight overhead and you eat lunch, when it goes down, you go to bed. So I'm not even going to speculate that far into the future. Because 1 don't know what Jesse Ventura is going to think like in the year 2004.1 could be doing almost anything by then. SNOW: Final question. Governor. You're going to campaign for Reform Party candidates next time out? VENTURA: Am I going to campaign for them? SNOW: Yes, around the country. VENTURA: Absolutely. Absolutely I will, because I'm a firm believer that we need a third party. I'm a firm believer that we have the Democrats represent the far left. Republicans represent the far right, Tony. But there's a huge group of us centrists in the middle that take a little from the right and a little from the left and we're always made to pick one of these two extremes. And I think that if you get a good solid centrist candidate, as we did in Minnesota when I ran, you can win. SNOW: Governor Jesse Ventura, thanks for joining us today. VENTURA: Thank you, Tony, anytime. (END VIDEOTAPE) SNOW: Once again, that was Governor Ventura. We talked to him yesterday. When we return, how big a tax cut will you get? (COMMERCIAL BREAK) SNOW: Republicans of both houses favor 10-year tax cuts of nearly $800 billion. But President Clinton says he will veto anything larger than $300 billion. Who's on the side of the angels in this dispute? We're joined by Senator Phil Gramm, who holds a Ph.D in economics and a black belt in politics, and the equally formidable Gene Sperling - I'm sorry. I've got to get that Jesse Ventura stuff in my blood - the president's national economic adviser. Mara Liasson also joins in the questioning. Senator Gramm, the White House, including Mr. Sperling, say that the economic plan the Republicans put forward - $800 billion in tax cuts over ten years, would gobble up - if you pay the national interest for the next 10 years, would gobble up every available penny and leave no money for Medicare reform and other social expenditures and even defense spending. Your response? GRAMM: Well, it's not true. The bottom line is that we're looking at about a trillion dollar surplus and we're talking about an $800 billion tax cut. And the amazing thing — to show you the willingness of the White House to say and do anything — when CBO scored their budget they spend — net new spending — $1 trillion, $33 billion over the next 10 years. They're claiming that by letting the American people keep $800 billion that they earned, that somehow we're jeopardizing the government and the economy, when in reality they would spend more in Washington than we would give back to working people in America. And the important point is, if you create all those new programs, you'll never get that money back. If you give it back to the American people, if you ever really needed it, you could get it back by raising taxes, as President Clinton proved in 1993. So if you're looking for a responsibility, our plan is a lot more responsible. SNOW: Mr. Sperling, I think, disagrees. SPERLfNG: Well certainly I disagree. This isn't about keeping money in Washington, it is about paying down Washington's national debt. It's about making sure that we've put aside enough funds to secure Medicare and Social Security. It is about first things first. You know, Tony, a family doesn't decide how large of a vacation they're going to have. SPERLING: They don't decide how much they're going to spend on vacation and then hope they have enough for food clothing and shelter. Likewise, a fiscally disciplined government first figures out how much they need to pay down their debt, secure Medicare, Social Security, defense and education, and then see what we can have left for a tax cut. That's what we mean by first things first. SNOW: Is Senator Gramm right though, you have $1.3 trillion in additional spending? SPERLfNG: No. We pay down — what he said there was a trillion dollars in the surplus over the next 10 years, that's right. What he didn't say is that when you take their tax cut, and the interest savings it loses by having a tax cut instead of paying down the debt, there is no money available. And then the tax cut, particularly when the House explodes over $3 trillion in the second 10 years, so there is no funds available for Medicare and it leads to very serious cuts in everything from education to public safety, (fNAUDlBLE). And actually, in discretionary spending is below inflation over the next 10 years. GRAMM: Wait a minute. You guys are shameless, shameless. The Congressional Budget Office last week analyzed the Clinton budget and concluded that it has $1 trillion, $33 billion of new spending, it reduces the debt of the government to the public by $200 billion less than we do. And yet they're saying, when they went to go on the largest spending spree in American history, that letting working people to keep $800 million that they earned after all ~ we're over taxed. SNOW: I think they'd take an $800 million tax cut --1 think you said billions -- it's billions. GRAMM: Oh, it's billions, yes, billions. And we want it to be billions. That somehow them spending a trillion is great. Letting us give $800 billion back is somehow bad. LIASSON: But, you know, but the president said it is not whether we have tax cuts, it is what kinds of tax cuts. And for Americans who read these charts that are printed in the newspaper that compare your plans to the president's plan, I mean, the president has $300 billion, you have $800 billion, why can't you get together and split the difference and come up with a compromise? GRAMM: Well, let me first say that we believe tax cuts are for taxpayers. Now, I know that you're going to hear Gene say, but $35 million American families and don't pay taxes and they don't get a tax cut in the Republican plan. Right. They don't pay taxes, they don't get a tax cut. Most Americans don't get food stamps, they don't get Medicaid, they don't get a lot of government programs. Those programs are for people who qualify. Tax cuts are for taxpayers. We have an across-the-board tax cut. That means that Tony probably gets 10 times as big a tax cut as 1 do. But he pays 10 times as much taxes that doesn't break my heart. Gene goes crazy about it. SNOW: I want you (INAUDIBLE), Senator. SPERLfNG: Well, I'll tell you what we find disturbing. Not only is the tax cut so large that it will not allow savings for Medicare, up to the the point that Medicare goes insolvent in 2015, but the top one percent - the top one percent ~ get four times more than the bottom 60 percent. So the top one percent... GRAMM: because they pay 4 times as much taxes. SPERLING:... people who make over $340,000 get four times more than the bottom 60 percent, that does not seem fair. And, Mara, this is not about just splitting the difference. This is about fiscal discipline and first things first. Let me be clear. A tax cut that is $800 billion or $500 billion is an irresponsible tax cut that would threaten our ability to pay down the debt, secure Medicare, Social Security and education. And the president will veto a tax cut of $800 billion or $500 billion because it threatens our ability to secure Medicare and Social Security and pay down our national debt. LIASSON: Let me ask you a question about the Senate Democrats who have a different plan than the House Democrats or the president. First of all, one of the things that is conspicuously absent from that plan is the president's tax cut, these USA accounts. Why is that getting so little support support among Democrats in Congress? SPERLfNG: Well, 1 think that many of them are assuming that the president will, if there is some kind of deal at the end, look out for the tax cut he cares the most about, which is a progressive savings tax cut. There are over 70-80 million Americans who don't have an IRA or 401 (k). Most of the tax benefits for savings go to upper income people. We want something that helps all Americans be part of the wealth creation, save for their future. We think it is a good, smart tax cut and we think we can do it in combination with the long-term child tax credit - child care tax credit. But, first things first. SPERLING: These are projected surpluses, let's first make sure we have enough to secure Medicare and Social Security and pay down the debt. And then we make sure we do a tax cut that is responsible. LIASSON: Well, Senator Gramm, let me ask you those two questions. Number one, what happens if the surplus doesn't materialize? What are you going to do? And also, why haven't the Republicans come forward with a plan to extend the solvency of Medicare? GRAMM: Well, first of all, they haven't come forward with a plan to extend the solvency of Medicare. LIASSON: Well, they're going to devote a lot of the surplus to it. GRAMM: We supported — wait a minute. But they do it to add more spending. They're loading more passengers on the Titanic. They're letting non-elderly people get on Medicare. They don't have a plan for Medicare. They killed the only plan for Medicare, which was the bipartisan commission headed by Senator Breaux. The president says well, there's no money to fix Social Security. He killed Social Security reform. For two years he had all these political cliches: save Social Security first, save Social Security now. Then he came out with a totally fraudulent, dishonest, phony plan that was denounced by Democrats and Republicans alike. Now, he's got a plan to spend $1 trillion, $33 Billion on new government programs. We're trying to give $800 billion back to taxpayers and he uses all of these phony concerns about Medicare when he killed the real reform; Social Security when he killed the real reform; to try to prevent us from letting people keep the money. LIASSON: But is there a Republican plan for Medicare? GRAMM: Yes, it's a bipartisan Social Security plan that the commission came up with, that is supported by Senator Breaux and Senator Kerrey on the Democrat side; that is supported by the vast majority of Republicans. We would like to bring that back to life. But it is not alive today because President Clinton killed it. SNOW: Gene Sperling... GRAMM: Let me say one other thing about this rich people tax cut. When you're cutting taxes across the board, you're saying that you get back 10 percent of the excess that you sent to Washington. How they can call that a rich person's tax cut with a straight face is very hard for me to imagine. Now, they're very skilled at saying things that don't make any sense, and aren't true with a straight face. But I think they've gone beyond the limit on this one. SPERLING: Well, let's start with something you said that is not true. You said the president doesn't have a Medicare plan. The president just put out a detailed Medicare plan that offers prescription drugs, that offers modernization and competition and sets aside enough of the surplus to pay down the debt so that Medicare is solvent for 12 more years to 2027. I have not seen any Republican plan and I challenge you or any Republican to come forward with a plan that extends the solvency of Medicare till 2027. The president objected to the Breaux-Thomas Medicare plan for very specific reasons. He thought it didn't provide enough prescription drug coverage. He did not agree that we should increase the eligibility age from 65 to 67 and he was concerned that the independent actuary said that premiums for people on the traditional Medicare program would go up 10 to 30 percent. But he didn't just criticize. He put out a specific plan that extends Medicare until 2027. SNOW: Gentlemen... SPERLING: Where is your plan. Senator? GRAMM: Let me accept your challenge. Your proposal is totally fraudulent. Because all you do is give Medicare lOUs that have to be paid by raising income taxes in the future. That is not extending the life of Medicare. SNOW: Senator -- Senator, that... GRAMM: It's like everything else you all do. It is totally dishonest. SNOW: Senator, let Mr. Sperling respond. GRAMM: Totally dishonest. SPERLING: Senator, let's Just say... GRAMM: I'm sorry, but that's what it is. SPERLING: Let's present this to the American people. One of our plans... GRAMM: We're going to. SPERLING:... sets aside $700 billion for Medicare, pays down the debt for Medicare. GRAMM: And those are lOUs, Gene. SPERLING: No, Senator. It is paying down the debt so you are saving money so that you can have money to pay later. It is no different than a family who knows they have a health care debt coming due, paying down their debt or paying down their mortgage, so they have more money available. That's what we're doing. We're paying down the debt by $700 billion so that we, unlike you, can fix Medicare without having to do serious cuts or tax increases in the future. GRAMM: Congressional Budget Office says we pay down the debt $200 billion more than you do. SNOW: OK, gentlemen. We'll have the battle of those studies at some other time. Sooner or later folks, you go to come up with a deal. And I hope you'll both come back and talk with us once you have finally settled this at the end of the legislative year. Gene Sperling, Senator Phil Gramm, thank you for Joining us today. When we return, is there gold in that there Internet? (COMMERCIAL BREAK) SNOW: We've all seen the stories, somebody creates a .com, offers some stock to the public and becomes an instant billionaire. Is this gusher of wealth the real thing or Just cyber speculation? For incite, we're Joined by business Journalist, turned Internet entrepreneur Lou Dobbs in his first Sunday show interview since launching his new website, spaee.com. Also here, my colleague, Fred the investor Barnes. Mr. Dobbs, let's start out by talking about the Internet. A lot of people think that this wealth is Just sort of made up. Why aren't any of these Internet-started companies making money? DOBBS: Well, many of them, in point of fact, are making money in the sense that they're generating revenue. A few are actually making profits, but we're at the very earliest stages, Tony, as you know, of the development of the web marketplace, the web distribution network, and investors are making sizable bets, as are the companies they're investing in, in the future, and the future is decidedly and definitely the web. BARNES: Lou, Tony was Joking when he called me the investor, but I do a little investing, but I've stayed from Internet stocks. But don't you think that it is irrational just because the word "Internet" is attached to some new stock, that investors rush to it? DOBBS: I think you're right. If that were the sole criterion by which they made a determination they were going to invest in stock simply because it because it is an Internet stock, it would be irrational. But as an accomplished investor, Fred, despite not investing in the most attractive and best performing stocks of the past five years, there are tremendous technologies at work here, both in the market place and in terms of building the infrastructure of the web and the content of the web. And investors making intelligent, rational decisions about which will be the winners and losers, are going to do and have done to this point, very, very well. Remember, Fred, at this point, only a third of the households in the United States are using the web. That leaves a sizable upside for growth and for even richer content and distribution in the years ahead. SNOW: Now, you say the future is the Internet. What do you mean by that? DOBBS: What I mean by that is that there is absolutely no precedent for what we are witnessing today. There has never been a distribution system that is so efficient, so ubiquitous and so affordable. And what that means is that dollars, talent, content, whether journalistic or entertainment, educational or news and information will be drawn and powered by the web. That is simultaneously a marketplace and a distribution system. SNOW: A lot of - on the web, most web sites make the same - money the same way we in the press do, and that's through advertising, and advertising rates quite often are geared to the kind of people who tune in. There's a lot of concern on the Internet that in order to gauge the market, to figure out who's tuning in to your website, you have to violate people's privacy. DOBBS: Oh, well, those who do violate privacy on the web, I think should be severely punished not only by their users, but by the market, the equities market and the private capital markets. There is, to me, not much more of an important consideration on the web right now than privacy. At space.com, we're going to have the absolute highest and have the highest standards on privacy. That means not sharing our e-mail registration or registrants with anyone. And the privacy issue is going to become increasingly important, precisely for the reason that you're mentioning, the commercial aspects of it. BARNES: Well, that - I understand what you all are going to do, but is federal legislation needed to keep other Internet outfits from releasing that information or selling it to others? DOBBS: Fred, I'm very much opposed to federal legislation regulation or taxation on the web. We are, as I pointed out, at the embryonic stages of the World Wide Web and point of fact, government intrusion into market places, at least in my judgment, always creates great inefficiencies and distortions. The web is the ultimate paradigm for efficiency of market and for distribution. I would hate to see any intrusion by government at any level in what is a tremendously promising market and technology. SNOW: Let's talk a little bit about space.com. All of us here have clicked on it. We've taken a look at it. You're not really creating any new product for people, so much as finding stuff that's elsewhere. You're packaging information that's otherwise available. How do you make money doing that? DOBBS: Well, Tony, first of all, we are the only news organization, media company on the Web or otherwise, that has bureaus both in Cape Canaveral and the Johnson Space Center in Houston. So we are creating a great deal of new content and creating great new opportunities for news and information about the space program, and also covering the science of space and the business of space. SNOW: I've got to ask you about one of the features on your website, though. Area 51. You've got an Area 51 click on. DOBBS: Well, Tony, one of the things about space, and we — we said at the outset that we're going to serve through news and information, education, and entertainment, a huge unrecognized community on the Web. We believe it is literally millions and millions of people. There is a great intersection of interest in the unexplained phenomenon as well as the science of space and of course the news of the space program and all of the business aspects of space. That intersection of community is, we think, tremendous, and that is one aspect of what we will cover. It is part of the human imagination that after all drives us toward greater exploration and what we call the ultimate adventure, which is space. BARNES: We have just celebrated the 30th anniversary of the landing on the Moon. And yet there's been great criticism - including in my magazine. The Weekly Standard, of what the space program has done in these past 30 years since the Moon landing. Many people have been very disappointed and think we really haven't done much worthwhile since that landing. DOBBS: Well, a great deal has been done. Would 1 be ranked among those who wished we had gone back to the Moon after the Gene Siman (ph), the last man to step on the Moon had departed? Absolutely. Would 1 like to see us moving toward manned missions to or human exploration of Mars? Absolutely. But we should not lose sight of what is, after all, the tremendous accomplishments from everything from Apollo-Soyuz through the shuttle and now the construction of the International Space Station. One of the things you just said, the idea that we haven't done much over the past 30 years, a great deal has been done. But the — and 1 blame in part the national media. What NASA has accomplished, the European Space Agency, working in conjunction with NASA, for that matter the Russian Space Agency, the Mir station, these are tremendous technological achievements, yet the national mainstream media has failed to, 1 think, adequately and fully report the excitement of what is, just an astounding technological achievement. When these astronauts -- and Colonel Eileen Collins now, with her Chandra mission - the first American woman commander of a shuttle, that is tremendously exciting. The largest payload ever launched into space. Yet the national media tends to look at space as if it's humdrum, it's routine, because there are not always great visual opportunities associated with it. The men and women who are making this adventure possible day in and day out, they deserve great attention and so that -- the mainstream media sometimes fails to go to the effort to tell what is really an exciting story. And that's why at space.com we are going to be, absolutely covering all of those missions and all of the planetary probes and telling the very human stories and the great risks that are taken by these wonderful astronauts. SNOW: All right. Lou Dobbs, on that note, we're going to part. Thanks for joining us today. DOBBS: Thank you, Tony, great to be with you. SNOW: When we return, our panel on a new phenomenon, global wedding. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) SNOW: It's panel time for Fred Barnes, Mara Liasson and Juan Williams. Brit Hume has the day off. You saw on the bumper just a second ago, a picture of Vice President A1 Gore paddling down a river in New Hampshire. It turns out, Fred Barnes, the local authorities had poured $4 billion - four billion gallons of water in there to raise the level probably at the cost of $7 million or so. Your reaction? BARNES: It turned out to be an embarrassment for Gore. If he were an athlete, we would call him injury prone. No matter what he does, it seems to cause him harm. LIASSON: Yes, in fact, the Gore campaign claims they didn't ask for this and it is the last thing that they would have done. 1 mean, if they asked for this they would have gotten in even more trouble. But 1 do think he's a little hapless these days. And the problem is you get into this cycle and that everything you do gets interpreted as a mistake. If you're the front runner, you don't have to worry about it. SNOW: There's also an interesting story in The Washington Post, Juan, that indicates that the park service was looking for environment friendly events and sent out to its employees, saying, you know, if you've got a suggestion for an environmental friendly event, let us know and we'll do it for the vice president. WILLIAMS: Well, 1 mean, obviously that's Gore's schtick. 1 mean, that's what he's known for is to support the environment. SNOW: But federal agencies don't normally get enlisted in such projects. WILLIAMS: But I don't -- look - how long have you been around this town? Of course they're going to do that for the vice president and the vice president got in trouble making those phone calls from the Old Executive Office Building. So, 1 mean, those things go on. But, 1 mean, if your point is it's across the line, yes, you're right. SNOW: OK. issue number two, an interesting thing, Mara, we were talking to Jesse, the governor, Ventura. He mentions John McCain. None of us have thought about John McCain as a possibility. LIASSON: Well, I have no idea if John McCain would be interested in bolting the Republican Party to become a Reform Party candidate. But, yes, John McCain is a good fit. I mean, John McCain is a reformer. Certainly on campaign finance reform, he is a maverick. He has the kind of profile that Reform Party voters would like, but I can't imagine him bolting the Republican Party. BARNES: Well, no, 1 can't either, but you know what, reform small "r" is what he is running on. He has even tried to turn campaign finance reform into a conservative issue. He gave a speech on it. I didn't think it worked, but I can understand why a guy like Jesse Ventura likes him so much. WILLIAMS: Not to mention his military credentials. LIASSON: Sure. WILLIAMS: This is --1 think he is the perfect Reform Party candidate actually. BARNES: But why should he give up a great standing in the Republican Party to jump into this thing? WILLIAMS: Well, 1 don't know that he has all that great standing in the Republican Party. The people like him at times. But, you know what? 1 think lots of people see him as a maverick, as someone who has been quick to criticize Mitch McConnell and others on this fundraising business. And pressured — pressured -- Trent Lott to finally bring some action this fall on campaign finance reform. I don't think that makes him all that popular in the GOP. SNOW: That's interesting speculation anyway. Another thing that happened last week. President Clinton was giving a press conference the other day and he shared a recollection of John F. Kennedy, Jr. visiting the White House. Let's show you the clip. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: John Kennedy had actually not been back to the White House since his father was killed until 1 had - became president. (END VIDEO CLIP) SNOW: And there you see a 1981 visit by John F. Kennedy, Jr. and his sister Caroline to the White House, they were actually there. And Richard Nixon, you see. Richard Nixon invited the Kennedy family in 1971. There is John Kennedy's thank you note, no doubt urged upon him by his mother. We even have, thanks to Wendy Dawson (ph), our floor director, the menu for that. This appears in a book called a treasury of White House cooking, so those of you who want to know it, even the menu is available. Now Juan, what do you make of this recollection business? WILLIAM: Well, I think that the president probably was focused on his time in office and very much wants to tap into the legacy of the Kennedys and was a little shameless in doing so. LIASSON: Well, the White House said that that's what John F. Kennedy said. It's - maybe he was referring just to the residential portion of the White House. SNOW: But he was in the residence for - with the Nixon White House. BARNES: Can't this man. President Clinton, admit he made a mistake? I mean, does he have to shift the blame for this mistake onto John F. Kennedy, Jr., now deceased? You know that's incredible. He could have said, well gee, 1 thought it was the first time. It wasn't, but it was certainly wonderful having them here. This guy can't admit any mistake, even a trivial one. SNOW: You know, you have got to figure that Bill Clinton would be a charming host with the Kennedys. So I'm sure they had a good time. And they actually swapped pictures, I guess. He sent photo albums to the Kennedy and Bessette families. To wrap up, Fred, we got a little bit of news here, and we probably need to explain it to some of the viewers. When Gene Sperling was talking about the fact that the president is going to veto a $500 billion tax cut, why is that news? BARNES: Well, that's the first time he's said that. It's one thing to say you're going to veto the Republican bill of $800 billion. But if you're going to veto a $500 billion tax cut, that would be sort of what Congress might compromise on and then send up to him. SNOW: And there is a Democratic plan authored by John Breaux. LIASSON: Well, I think that what... BARNES: There's a Democratic plan saying that, this makes any agreement between Congress and the White House more difficult. LIASSON: For the moment -- for the moment. I think what they're trying to do in sending a signal to Senate Democrats like John Breaux, is saying wait a second, you know, let's not make the deal right now. John Breaux is an inveterate deal maker, this is what he wants to do. And I think that in the fall when people — the two sides get focused on this, who knows what the final number will be. SNOW: But the real interpretation there is, is that the president is going to have a political showdown and it's going to keep us in business. It will be very interesting. Fred Barnes, Mara Liasson, Juan Williams, thank you. Now time for a few parting thoughts. We've got a new found ritual in this country. It is the around the clock celebrity funeral and it has evolved into an art form after the deaths of John Kennedy, Jr., Carolyn Bessette Kennedy and Lauren Bessette. This high-tech rite of mourning has the virtue of helping us express a sense of shared loss, but it also invites scoundrels to mock things we hold scared. In the last week, cameramen have starred through bedroom windows at Hyannisport. Howard Stem callers have fooled Dan Rathers and Peter Jennings. A few folks of turned the tragedy into their own springboards to stardom, and opportunists are getting rich selling kitch to anyone who will buy. If there has been one edifying aspect to this ordeal, it's been the behavior of the Kennedy and Bessette-Freeman families. In their grief, they gathered close across generations and branches. They offered each other strong arms and shared prayers and they kept their perspective. Let's face it, celebrity wealth and power are nice, but they pale in comparison to the blessings that really matter - the essential, unbreakable bonds of blood and faith. The ones that must sustain the Bessettes, the Kennedys and all of us through good times and bad. That's it for today. Be sure to catch FOX FILES Tuesday night at 9:00 p.m. Eastern and join us next Sunday right here on FOX NEWS SUNDAY. END