In the early 70's, when I was 13, I used to go to Asbury Park. I got into clubs because of an older musician friend and I got to meet, and see Bruce play very early in his career.

Even then it was apparent that this was a man with an immense talent and stage presence.

I don't know if Bruce would remember me, but I remember talking to him and he just seemed like a very cool guy.  He talked to me like I was an adult when I was just a snotty nosed kid.

Bruce then went on to record his famous early albums.  I became a huge Bruce Springsteen fan early on.
When he released "Born to Run" I knew he would become the superstar he is today.

Over the years I've enjoyed all the incarnations of his music and still love the music he writes today.
I've seen him countless times all over the East Coast.  I went to 4 shows on his most recent tour.

I always admired not only his music but his commitment to helping people.  Bruce has donated many, many thousands of dollars to food banks all over the country.  He donates money from almost every show he plays. I always loved the way he kept the little guy in mind.

But Bruce Springsteen has recently broken my heart.  I can't tell you how dismayed I was to recently go to his web page brucespringsteen.net and find this announcement from him;

"A few weeks ago at N.Y.U. Al Gore gave one of the most important speeches I've heard in a long time . . . It's my PLEASURE to reprint it here for my fans."

He then goes on to reprint Al Gore's speech.  In this speech Al Gore states: 
 

On May 26, 2004 Al Gore stated: "He (George Bush Jr.) promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon." Dishonest? YOUR President Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice for lying to a Federal grand jury. Talk about dishonor! In fact you, Al Gore, lashed out at Congress when they asked for a vote of Impeachment.  You said "I don't believe it's in the interest of the United States or the American people to go through this impeachment process with a trial in the Senate".  Hiding the TRUTH would not be in the best interest of the American people?  Talk about dishonest!  What a blazing hypocrite!

Mr. Gore you are a FLAMING hypocrite!  What about what you said about George Bush's father?
We have video of you saying it, so you cannot deny it. 

Today you bash Bush Jr. but before you said this about his father:

"Bush (Sr.) deserves heavy blame for intentionally concealing from the American people the clear nature of Saddam Hussein and his regime and for convincing himself that friendly relations with such a monster would be possible and for persisting in this effort far, far beyond the point of folly."

But today you say about George Bush Jr. "To begin with, from its earliest days in power, this administration sought to radically destroy the foreign policy consensus that had guided America since the end of World War II. The long successful strategy of containment was abandoned in favor of the new strategy of "preemption." 

Back then you said: "And most significant of all, in the same month, September of 1989, the CIA reported to secretary of state Baker and other top Bush administration officials that Iraq was clandestinely procuring nuclear weapons technology through a global network". . . "Did all of this make any impression at all on President Bush(Sr.)?  Did his judgment on foreign policy come into play when he was told that this nation (Iraq), with a record of terrorism continuing was making a sustained, concerted effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, and biological?  Well, evidently not."

Today you say: He (Bush Jr.) has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to a greater danger of attack by terrorists because of his arrogance, willfulness, and bungling at stirring up hornet's nests THAT POSE NO THREAT WHATSOEVER TO US."

Before you said "He (Saddam) had already conducted extensive terrorism activities, and Bush (Sr.) had looked the other way. He (Saddam) was already deeply involved in the effort to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and Bush(Sr.)  knew it, but he looked the other way."

Today you say about George Bush Jr.: "He betrayed this country!  He played on our fears!
He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."

Isn't that what you were calling for back then?  After all it was YOUR administration that gave the Saddam terrorist tie threat to George Bush Jr.

YOU, Al Gore, said on Larry King's TV show after Bill Clinton bombed Iraq in December of 1998 
"The bombing Iraq was the right thing to do" to rid Saddam Hussien of his weapons of mass destruction".

For PROOF of these comments by Al Gore you can see the actual video clip of him making them.

Al Gore criticizes George Bush's father for IGNORING Iraq's ties to terrorism!!!   Gore To Bush: You Ignored Saddam's Terrorist Ties! Al Gore: Memory Challenged

Yeah, apparently it didn't make any difference to you when you and Bill Clinton got in the White House because you didn't do anything about it, either (other than bombing a baby asprin factory in the middle of the night!). 

This is utter dishonesty, it is utter hypocrisy and I'm just going to suggest to you that when you've got somebody as deranged as this, Albert Arnold Algore, you've got to take into account now what he's saying about Global Warming.  How can you believe anything somebody like this happens to say? 

Al Gore want's us to believe in his nonsense of Global Warming, which thousands of scientists dispute?  He refuses to even debate the topic!  Who's "playing on our fears"NOWMr.Gore?!!!
Meanwhile he's making millions giving speeches and won't even debate the issue because it would affect his bank account!
He's lied before and been caught, including these examples, and about inventing the internet(!), and he's LYING about Global Warming now so he can get rich.
 

Al Gore now wants us to believe in his nonsense of Global Warming, which thousands of scientists dispute. He refuses to even debate the topic! Why should he, he'll only be proven wrong! Who's "playing on our fears"NOW Mr.Gore?!!! Meanwhile he's making millions giving speeches and won't even debate the issue because it would affect his bank account! Al Gore has lied before and has been caught, including these examples, and about inventing the internet(!), and he's LYING about Global Warming now so he can get rich. CLICK HERE to view the "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and learn the TRUTH about the many misrepresentations in Gore's "Inconvenient  Truth" movie.  While Al Gore flies gas guzzling private jets to all his paid speeches, and uses more than 20 times the electricity than most Americans, he sells himself useless "Carbon Offsets", through a company he owns!  Al Gore is the ultimate hypocrite! Instead of investigating with scientific fact, Al Gore has turned Global Warming into a RELIGION that he allows NO ONE to question.  That's NOT science, it's political-religious dogma.

Yes, he did restore the honor of the previous administration, YOUR administration who thought that committing the crime of perjury in court depositions, and lying about it to the American public was good policy. So when you talk about the honor of the White House remember YOUR president was IMPEACHED Mr.Gore!

Bill Clinton did NOTHING in response to all the terrorists acts of the 90's including the first WTC bombing, or the attack of the USS Cole.

He goes on to say:

"He (George Bush Jr.) decided not to honor the Geneva Convention. Just as he would not honor the United Nations, international treaties, the opinions of our allies, the role of Congress and the courts, or what Jefferson described as "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind." 

Hold on a second!  What part of the Geneva Convention did he violate? 
The United Nations had over a 17 sanctions against Iraq which it failed to enforce for well over a decade!
Congress voted FOR the war.  Everyone of these charges is FLAT OUT FALSE!!

It was Saddam Hussien who signed treaties was supposed to be cooperating with UN weapons inspectors.
Saddam Hussien was siphoning off the Oil for Food money, meant only to feed Iraqi's, to the tune of 50 BILLION DOLLARS dollars, yes folks, that's 50 BILLION dollars, which makes that the LARGEST financial scandal in history!

Meanwhile Saddam ran torture, and rape camps, and gassed to death his neighbors in Iran, 
and HIS OWN CITIZENS, with chemical weapons of mass destruction!!!

Why didn't the either the UN or the CLINTON-GORE administration force Saddam to abide by the sanctions he agreed to? The UN is who were NOT enforcing the treaties they signed with Saddam for over 12 years.

Gore goes on to say:
"To begin with, from its earliest days in power, this administration sought to radically destroy the foreign policy consensus that had guided America since the end of World War II. The long successful strategy of containment was abandoned in favor of the new strategy of "preemption." And what they meant by preemption was not the inherent right of any nation to act preemptively against an imminent threat to its national security, but rather an exotic new approach that asserted a unique and unilateral U.S. right to ignore international law wherever it wished to do so and take military action against any nation, even in circumstances where there was no imminent threat. All that is required, in the view of Bush's team is the mere assertion of a possible, future threat - and the assertion need be made by only one person, the President. "

Wait a second!
International law was NOT ignored, it was FULFILLED when the US attacked Iraq with the cooperation of many countries.  No one man attacked Iraq, a coalition of many countries did. 

In fact the only major countries not willing to attack were those DIRECTLY INVOLVED in the Oil for Food scandal, those being France, Germany, China, and Russia!

There WAS a direct threat, and the war was preemptively carried out to protect not only us, but many other countries as well.

Gore continues:
"Those pictures of torture and sexual abuse came to us embedded in a wave of news about escalating casualties and growing chaos enveloping our entire policy in Iraq. But in order understand the failure of our overall policy, it is important to focus specifically on what happened in the Abu Ghraib prison, and ask whether or not those actions were representative of who we are as Americans? Obviously the quick answer is no, but unfortunately it's more complicated than that. "

Hold on! Are you actually going to say that we should not have invaded Iraq because a dozen or so soldiers, some already convicted of crimes and serving time in federal prison, violated the rules and abused some prisoners.

In fact this crime was reported by the Army itself, there was NO cover up.

Just to show you how biased and left wing the press is, it is interesting to note that in 2004 alone there have been over 50 front page stories in the New York Times about the prison scandal, but only 3 about the 50 BILLION DOLLAR Oil for Food United Nations scandal!!!

Which story do you think is more important?!!!

The Oil for Food program was run by the United Nations. Up to 50 Billion dollars were funneled through Saddam. That's more money than the Enron, Worldcom, and all the other financial scandals here added together.  In fact it's the largest white collar crime in history.

More and more will be coming out about this, you'll hear much more of it in the future.

It's now coming to light the officials in the UN who ran this program, who now have millions in their bank accounts, although their highest paid salary was only $186,000 per year, and who have NO explanation where all this money came from, were actually bribed by Saddam.

It's now been proven Saddam sold his oil to France, Russia, Germany, and China at below market prices.
Gee, do those countries names sound familiar? 
Might they be the countries who opposed this war?

Saddam signed a treaty at the end of the first Gulf War which he NEVER abided by. 
He was in FULL & COMPLETE violation for the last 12 years. After dozens of sanctions by the UN , and NOTHING actually being done to enforce them we went to war.

The entire time the sanctions were in effect, as was the Oil for Food program, people starved in Iraq and went without medicine while Saddam got rich and built palaces.

Yet Saddam, with no other LEGAL source of income, built dozens of opulent palaces.

We now have the records of him buying hundreds of Mercedes, thousands of cases of Johnny Walker Red, and many other things he was not supposed to be able to buy, nor to even have the funds to, since he was cut off by the UN, Iraq signed embargo.

One of the companies supplying Saddam with these goods is owned by UN president Kofi Annon's son. How convenient.

Now it turns out that the UN was so corrupt because they were in bed with Saddam behind closed doors. 
Even though there is a full scale investigation going on, Paul Volker, the former Fed chairman who is heading this investigation has NO subpoena power. 
So he really can't force anyone at the UN to testify and  answer questions.  How convenient.
Do you think he's going to get the full story behind who got what out of this?

So Saddam cheated the Oil for food program for up to 50 BILLION dollars for over 12 years. People starved in Iraq, millions died. He refused to disclose his weapons or let the UN inspect for them.

Where else was all this money going?

Now it has come to light that Saddam Hussien tried to bribe UN weapons inspectors to say that no weapons existed.

While Osama bin Laden did have a fortune to spend on Al Queda, he certainly did not have the money that is in that organization now, or that has been found in bank accounts by held by it's members.

We are just now on the fringes of finding out that Saddam was funneling money to Osama and Al Queda. When this is proven, and it will be it will become more and more apparent that Saddam was supporting terrorism against America, and getting richer everyday, and having a greater capacity to wage war against us.

More from the Al Gore speech on Bruce Springsteens web page:

"What happened at the prison (Abu Ghraib) , it is now clear, was not the result of random acts by "a few bad apples," it was the natural consequence of the Bush Administration policy that has dismantled those wise constraints and has made war on America's checks and balances."

"Tourture has become a routine procedure for the U.S. Army"

Hold On Again!!!  What EVIDENCE has been presented to support that allegation?
Absolutely None!!!  While some soldiers have stated these abuse policies came from superior officers, none have even gone past their immediate officers much less up the chain of command all the way up to the president.

Not only is that allegation false, it is a totally reckless charge on Al Gore's part.

The TRUTH is that before the war Abu Ghraib was a REAL torture/murder prison run by Saddam Hussien.

The fact that Al Gore has become unhinged is evident when he screams  "Bush betrayed this country, he played on our fears, he LIED to us!"     Lied???!!!

About what?  Oh, are you saying he lied about, the weapons of mass destruction?

You do know that President Bush acted on the intelligence he was given. 
The intelligence from the CIA, FBI, England, &  Russia?
. 
The intelligence, WHICH WAS THE SAME INTELLIGENCE THAT CAME OUT OF THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION WHO FAILED TO ACT UPON IT!!!

The president did NOT lie, he acted to preempt an attack by Saddam Hussien.

Leon Panetta, Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff says Bush's statements are 100% true and that he was operating on the same intelligence that Bill Clinton had concerning Iraq.

First off let's get one thing straight. The WERE weapons of mass destruction.

The liberal media had this crazy idea that were were going to find them all in one huge pile with Elmer Fudd sitting on top of it!

Nothing could be more ridiculous!

The weapons are hidden all over the place. Some have been found, mobile labs were found, many missile delivery systems have been found.

Shells have been found in other countries with residues of chemical weapons, and these shells came out of Iraq and were made by the FRENCH! 

What's happening is these shells are still being smuggled out and melted down to avoid detection.

Parts that could have only been attributed to future nuclear weapons systems have been found buried in the sand/

You can also be assured that many of Saddam's weapons went straight to Syria.
 

Here's a nice picture of some of the dead Iraqi's murdered by Saddam Hussien.  These are the Kurds killed by Saddam's chemical weapons.  These people did not die from imaginary weapons.  Neither did the Iranians he gassed in the Iraq-Iran war. Do you think they believe the weapons really existed? I guess we'll never be able to ask them.

BAGHDAD, Aug. 13 2005 -- U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.

If Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction why did he throw out the UN weapons inspectors countless times? 

Why didn't he simply let the inspectors have unfettered access to search for the weapons?
Why would he give up his entire presidency, give up his sons lives, loose EVERYTHING if he didn't have something to hide?
It makes absolutely NO SENSE as to why if he was innocent, he wouldn't let the inspectors in.

He knew Bill Clinton and AL GORE would not fulfill the terms of the UN resolution that he signed after the first Gulf War.   He knew these men were cowards from whom he had nothing to fear.

In fact years later it would be Bill Clinton embracing one of the worlds greatest terrorists Yasur Affafat, on the White House lawn, in attempt to appease him. PATHETIC!

Just because we didn't find a single pile of weapons as high as Mt. Everest doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Who really thought a man as cunning as Saddam would have all his weapons in one or two places when he knew for over 10 years that eventually a Republican with a BACKBONE would coming knocking on his door asking for them?

1.8 tons of enriched uranium were flown out of Iraq in 2004, an additional 500 tons of yellow cake nuclear material were also secured. This is a conservative estimate as initially reported by Coalition personnel from the US Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA).  Ironically, this initial figure is backed up by, of all organizations, Greenpeace. "Spent" yellowcake was also found suggesting that a nuclear weapon had already been made. 

Money-laundering operations were discovered between Iraq and Al-Qaida in the months following Sept. 11, 2001, when authorities raided the homes and offices of two Arab bankers, Youssef M. Nada and Ali Himat, principals at Nada Management (formerly al-Taqwa Management).  al-Taqwa was formed by Nada, Himat, Ahmed Huber.  Ahmed Huber is a 74-year-old neo-Nazi who converted to Islam in the 1960s. The Chronicle of Foreign Service, published in Bern, Switzerland, says Huber has praised Adolf Hitler and the Ayatollah Khomeini and has been quoted as saying: "We will bring down the Israel lobby and change foreign policy. We'll do it in America. When it happens you'll understand." Huber also has been quoted as saying, "Muslims and Nazis were involved in the same fight." 

Who said : "Saddam Hussein was attempting to develop nuclear weapons."?

Who stated unequivocally that;  “Iraq has chemical and biological weapons.” and that most elements of Iraqis chemical and biological weapons programs “are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War.” ?

Who said : "These weapons represent an unacceptable threat.”?

Who Stated : “Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland.” ?
 

For the record, these are ALL pre war JOHN KERRY quotes! I guess John Kerry is a liar as well.  Why isn't Al Gore going after him?  Why isn't Bruce Springsteen criticizing him as well? Actually John Kerry IS a liar on many things, but that's a whole different subject. In the months prior to the U.S. invasion, rather than challenging the lies of the Bush Administration, Senator Kerry rushed to its defense, claiming that “The President laid out a strong, comprehensive, and compelling argument why Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs are a threat to the United States and the international community.”

John Kerry was simply going on the intelligence that had been given to him by the Bush administration, much of which came from the CLINTON-GORE ADMINISTRATION!

Who's the liar now, AL GORE?!!!!!!

John Kerry has even stated if there were no weapons of mass destruction he STILL would have voted to take us to war anyway.  Of course, this position changes from week to week so it's hard to know what he really believes.

John Kerry now ads the that statement saying he only gave the President the authority to go to war, not the go ahead.

The build up to the war lasted almost one year. 
Does anyone really believe Kerry didn't really know we were headed in that direction?!!!

Apparently he is the ONLY person who didn't think we were actually going to war with the BRUTAL dictator Saddam Hussein.

"I knew after we invaded Iraq that I was going to be involved in the election, "Mr. Springsteen told Rolling Stone last week.  "It made me angry. . . I felt we had been misled.  I felt they had been fundamentally dishonest and had frightened and manipulated the American people into war." 

Fundamentally dishonest?  How was the administration dishonest when it was acting, as has been proven, on the SAME EXACT INTELLIGENCE as the Clinton - Gore administration dishonest?

Where is the dishonesty?  Bruce have you lost your mind?  Explain it to me, I just don't get it.

And if George Bush was dishonest wasn't also John Kerry dishonest when he said he STILL would have gone to war EVEN if he knew there were no weapons?

Bruce you've turned into a hypocrite. 
You criticize George Bush for the EXACT SAME THING John Kerry said.

In October of 2005 Al Gore said "We would not have invaded a country that didn't attack us."
What?!! Bill Clinton and you ALREADY attacked Iraq in December of 1998!

Bill Clinton said "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

Bill Clinton said "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. "

Bill Clinton said "The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again"

Al Gore even went on Larry King's TV show after Bill Clinton's speech and said "bombing Iraq was the right thing to do" to rid Saddam Hussien of weapons of mass destruction.

But now Bruce Springsteen supports Al Gore's statement that President Bush lied to us when it is clear that Al Gore, the Vice President of Bill Clinton says he bombed Iraq FOR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!

Amnesty International, of whom Bruce Springsteen is a member of, strongly supported the toppling of Saddam for years because he was an EVIL man who had hundreds of thousands of human right violations.

Just because the people being oppressed weren't living here in the US, and they have had a darker skin color than many of us, you're telling me freeing them from an evil dictator wasn't a nobel cause?

Because although it was billed by the left as a war for oil, a war for money, we have not taken one drop of oil from Iraq, and it has cost the US billions to free that country from Saddam. 

We lost a lot, in money and lives. But we made the world a safer place free of Saddam and we freed millions of people. 

We also honored our dead soldiers from the first Gulf war, who up until Saddam was toppled, were disgraced because they had fought for nothing since the sanctions were never met.
They said THAT war was about money but we didn't profit there either.
So these wars were NOT about money. 
They were about making the world a safer place, and freeing oppressed people.

Almost EVERYONE says we are better off having Saddam out of power. 

So what's the problem now?

Let's do the math.  3500 US troops are dead, and 50 MILLION Iraqi's are now free!!!
The Prime Minister of Iraq states that 90% of Iraq is now violence free.
Percentage wise that make this the most successful war in history by hundreds of times.

The fact is that there were 325 MURDERS in Washington DC in 2003.

To read about that CLICK HERE.

In fact there have been well over 500 MURDERS in Washington DC since the start of the Iraq war.
That's half of all the soldiers killed in Iraq and that's just in ONE American city.

Do we EVER hear that Washington D.C. is a miserable failure as a city as well?

Let's get a grip on REALITY here!

So to say that because 35000 American lives have been lost in the liberation of an ENTIRE COUNTRY one has to put into perspective what that number really means.

The Democrats are constantly saying there have been 3500 American deaths in Iraq and isn't that enough because we are being slaughtered.  But the Democrats number one issue is abortion.

In the United States 3500 reported ABORTIONS are carried out EVERY SINGLE DAY!
That's a conservative estimate.

That means since the start of the Iraq war there have been at least 3,000,000 abortions in the 
United States!  That number could even be closer to 4 million abortions!

While many people don't consider a human fetus a valid life, at minimum, 50% of Americans DO. 

That means 50% of the people in America consider that well over a million babies have been murdered in the abortion holocaust since the start of the war.

That may seem silly and inconsequential to some people, but it's not to those who believe abortion is murder. 
When compared with a million abortion deaths in the United States, the 2200 US troop deaths are only a fraction of that "death" number.

Of course pro abortion people will not understand that comparison at all.

What about the constant bombings in Iraq? How can we call the war a success while the terror continues?
How long did it take to stabilize Germany after the war? At least 4 years, that's how long.

Because the US abided the Geneva Convention, and didn't execute all the Iraqi soldiers they captured at the start of the war, many of them have now turned into insurgents who are fighting back.
Many other terrorists have entered Iraq from other countries to cause unrest.

The truth of the matter is that 90% of Iraq is at peace. The power is on, people are working and being fed, the oil is flowing thanks to the "demon" Halliburton Corporation.

In fact not one drop of oil has been stolen from Iraq as the "War for Oil" protesters shouted 2 years ago.

All we hear about here are the isolated incidents of violence in Iraq. Very little of the good has been reported. The government institutions of torture, rape and murder are all out of business.
Iraq now has it's own FREE government that had open free elections in January 2005, and is about to ratify a new constitution.

No one said that the insurgents would simply lay down and give up their arms without a fight. 
George Bush told us this would be a long fight.

John Kerry and John Edwards BOTH voted to send troops to Iraq. 
If they didn't believe in the war why did they send the troops?

And why did John Kerry vote against giving the money to our soldiers after he voted to give it to them so that they could be better protected with equipment such as body armor?

Al Gore goes on to say that Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror.
Who the heck is he trying to kid?!!!

Abu Abass, the Achille Laurel hijacker, who pushed a man in a wheelchair off the side of the ship, was found to be comfortably living in Baghdad. So was the terrorist murderer Abu Nidal.

Surely Saddam knew they were there.  In fact Abu Nidal was murdered, most likely by Saddam, so that he never spilled the beans on the terrorism he carried out in Saddam's name.

What about the meetings the 9/11 hijackers had with Iraqi officials in Iraq and The Sudan as outlined in the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report?

Was that just a coincidence?  These people all had support from Saddam. 
We all know Saddam had a big smile on his face the day the World Trade Center came crumbling to the ground.

Michael Moore asserts in his film that Saddam was NO threat to America and never threatened us. Along with the other 59 main points of his movie that have been disproved, that is simply not true.

Fahrenheit asserts that Saddam’s Iraq was a nation that "had never attacked the United States. A nation that had never threatened to attack the United States. A nation that had never murdered a single American citizen." Each of these assertions is FALSE!

Iraq permitted a terrorist named Abu Nidal who is certainly (self proclaimed) responsible for killing Americans to have Iraq as a safe haven; if Saddam Hussein funded suicide bombers in Israel who did kill Americans; if the Iraqi police—now this is not a murder, but it's a plan to murder—to assassinate President Bush which at the time merited air strikes from President Clinton once that plot was discovered; does that not belie the claim that the Iraqi government never murdered an American or never had a hand in murdering an American? 
 

Saddam's military constantly shot at, and therefore attempted to kill, American and British pilots enforcing the "no-fly zone" over portions of Iraq. The no-fly zone was created, by the United Nations, to prevent Saddam's air force from being able to mass murder his own Iraqi citizens like he did to the Kurds.

Saddam AGREED to the no-fly zone as a condition of the ceasefire in the 1991 Gulf War, but then refused to abide by the ceasefire conditions. As he likewise refused to abide by the conditions requiring him to prove that he had destroyed all his weapons of mass destruction.

Moore as you may remember claimed to have a team of lawyers ready to sue ANYONE who even discounted ANY of the "Facts" in his movie. If so why hasn't he sued a single person, or author Dave Kopel who has discounted at least 59 points Moore asserts in his film, WITH PROVEN DOCUMENTATION.

Offering real evidence, something Michael MooreNEVER does, Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 shows exactly the deceit, lies, and misrepresentations of the facts presented in his film.
Moore has presented NO evidence to date disputing any of Kopel's or any one else's provable facts against him.

He created a fictitious version of the truth, with EVERY major point having been disproved, and yet he is still taken seriously by some.

Back to the speech published on Bruce Springsteen's web site, Al Gore states: 

" As many as 37 prisoners may have been murdered while in captivity, though the numbers are difficult to rely upon because in many cases involving violent death, there were no autopsies."

Hold on!  What EVIDENCE is there that any of these prisoners were "murdered" as Al Gore claims?  Once again Gore has made a slanderous charge with absolutely NO facts to back it up.

Do you see a pattern here where Al Gore makes charges against George Bush and the administration with ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to back these charges up?

Why is my hero, Bruce Spingsteen, publishing a speech by a man who is making reckless charges with ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to back these charges up?

Bruce, what's the deal here? What about the facts? 
Why are you giving this RECKLESS MANIAC space on your web site to make these unsubstantiated charges?
I really don't get it.  If he had some PROOF of ANY of these charges, I could respect that, but not when he simply makes these off the cuff claims with no proof whatsoever.

Bruce, did you ever bother to ask Al Gore why he and Bill Clinton never urged the UN to force Saddam Hussien to abide by the resolutions he agreed to after the first Gulf war?

For that matter did you ever ask him why they never went after Osama Bin Laden after the first World Trade Center bombing, the Embassy attacks, or the attack on the USS Cole?

Did you ask Al Gore why Bill Clinton refused to take Osama Bin Laden into custody on the three separate occasions he was offered to him on a silver platter by the Saudi's?

Bruce, did you ever ask Al Gore why he and Bill ClintonWERE MISERABLE FAILURES in not protecting us from these terrorists in the first place so that we would not be forced into the situation we find ourselves in today?

It seems to me the reason we are in Iraq, and Osama is still on the run, is the COMPLETE FAILURE of the Clinton-Gore administration to do ANYTHING about them when they were in office other than bomb an aspirin factory after hours in the middle of the night when it was closed?

In fact if anyone is to blame for the current situation it is Al Gore and BIll Clinton!!!

In my eyes Al Gore is part the reason we have the terrorist problems we have today. 

Bruce, you've broken my heart, why out of all the political idiots that exist are you supporting 
Al Gore, who makes unsubstantiated claims without any evidence?!!!

On August 9, 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq "even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found."

Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a President to have but I would have used that authority effectively."

So if President Bush was wrong, John Kerry has just admitted he would have been just as wrong also.  Why did you support John Kerry when he voted for the war and says he would have gone to war even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found?

Bruce, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I really just don't get you. 
You claim the President is a liar, a misleader, yet you supprot another man who said THE EXACT SAME THING! 
You're not making any sense.
Where's your logic in this? Please explain it to me!

I KNOW you're a well meaning guy, but have you really thought this through?

In an interview with Backstreets.com, Bruce had this to say:
http://www.backstreets.com/news.html#anchor

"Basically, this is probably the most important election of my lifetime. I think that the government has drifted too far from American values. After 9/11, I was like everybody else -- I supported going into Afghanistan, and I felt tremendous unity in the country that I don't think I've ever felt exactly like that before. It was a moment of great sadness, but also tremendous possibility. And I think that was dashed when we jumped headlong into the Iraq war, which I never understood, and I talked about that on the road. I never understood how or why we really ended up there. We offered up the lives of the best of our young people under circumstances that have been discredited."

Discredited?  What are you saying here?  We've already stated there were weapons of mass destruction. We know Saddam was a murderer and a torturer. 
We know 50 million people have been freed.

We went to Iraq to FULFILL the many United Nations sanctions that you're friend Al Gore ignored for 8 years.  We had intelligence from HIS administration that there were weapons in Iraq.

The UN said Saddam MUST turn over his weapons and let the inspectors in to search.
Saddam threw the UN out. THAT'S why we had to invade Iraq.  What part of that don't you get?
Are you a child like Cindy Sheehan who can't understand the facts?

Bruce, do you have be be told the reasons over and over again simply because you can't understand or refuse to accept them?  You simply CHOOSE NOT to look at the facts.

If you REALLY want to know the reasons we went to war then you should read the resolution that Congress authorized for the use of force in Iraq. 

The measure passed the Senate and House by even WIDER margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the United States to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. The Kuwait vote in the Senate was 52-47 to go to war, but the 2002 Iraq vote was passed by an overwhelming majority of 77-23 the Senators.

But remember, the way the war did not start until almost 6 months after this resolution passed after Saddam Hussien was given many more chances to let the weapons inspectors back in. 
That's ALL he had to do, was to let the inspectors back in, but he refused to do so.  If there were no weapons what was he hiding?  Saddam Hussien violated the UN treaties he signed for over 12 years.
He was given another six months after the Congressional resolution was passed.  When was this "rush to war" as you call it?  Where were you the last twelve years?  Twelve years is not a "rush to war".

Here is the twelve year defiance of the sixteen resolutions that Saddam Hussien violated.
ANY ONE of these was enough to allow us to attack Iraq.

Why don't you read the FIRST resolution that was given to Saddam TWELVE YEARS before we attacked them on November 29, 1990:  "Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."  Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

Bruce, did you fail to pick up a newspaper for twelve years?  Maybe you should have paid a little more attention to the subject before you came out to criticize President Bush.
Waiting for twelve years and sixteen resolutions is not "jumping headlong into a war".
Bruce, why don't you get your facts straight before you start mouthing off with half truths and lies?

I can't tell you how much I'm really disturbed by what you're saying.

Bruce continues: "Along with that, the deficits, the squeezing of services like the after school services for the kids who need it the most, the big windfall tax cuts, the division of wealth that has threatened our connection to one another over the past 20 years that is increasing.... these are things that as the election time neared -- I couldn't really keep true to the ideas that I'd written about for 30 years without weighing in on this one."

Wait a minute. Let's get the facts straight here!

 George W. Bush has DOUBLED the funding of the "No Child Left Behind" program from the amount that Bill Clinton and Al Gore funded it.

Here's the facts: “Fiscal Year 2003 funding for ‘No Child Left Behind’ programs increased by more than 36 percent over 2001, and 60 percent over 2000 levels.  This year America will spend more than $8,200 per student of which the federal contribution is now 8.4 percent.”  (Department Of Education, “Record Spending And A Commitment To Success” Fact Sheet, 5/19/03).

Title 1 spending for needy and disadvantaged children increased more in the first two years of the Bush administration that it had in the previous 8 years under Bill Clinton.  In fact as of January 2004 the states are sitting on a 5.5 BILLION dollars of unspent federal education money!

The states can't spend the money fast enough that is being to them.
It's NOT George Bush's fault if the states don't spend the money they are given for education.

Bruce Springsteen along with many other media stars have claimed that President Bush doesn't care about the poor.  Let's go over the REAL facts:

At the peak of his spending on the poor in 1996 Bill Clinton funded Federal entitlement programs like Welfare, Supplemental Security Income, Food Stamps, family support assistance, and child nutrition programs, the sum of $191 Billion dollars. 

In 2005 President George Bush funded these same Federal entitlements with over $368 Billion dollars and added a prescription drug program.

President Bush has more than doubled the funding of "The No Child Left Behind" program than the Clinton administration did.

President Bush did not cut a single low income program that Bill Clinton started.

Should we then conclude that President Bush cares TWICE AS MUCH as Bill Clinton did about poor people since he is spending almost double on the poor than Bill Clinton ever did?

These entitlements are the programs that help the poor. These programs benefit the poorest Americans, not the "top 2% of the wealthiest Americans".

No other president in history has done more to fund programs for the poor than George W Bush.

America now has tightest safety net EVER in our history for the poor because of President George W. Bush.

Bill Clinton was ONLY able to balance the budget because of the pressure put on him by the Republicans led by Newt Gingrich and by gaining extra revenue by stripping our military bare.

George W. Bush is now rebuilding the military, which takes lots of money. 
We are also post 9/11 and fighting a global war on terror.

Windfall tax cuts for the rich? Not quite, how about for EVERY AMERICAN!

Let me remind you sir, that taxes are OUR money to begin with. Maybe YOU don't need a tax cut, but the more poorer of us do. EVERY American taxpayer got a tax cut under George Bush.

The middle class got one of the LARGEST TAX CUTS IN HISTORY!
People got a fair, balanced tax cut according to what they earn. The poorest Americans got a HIHGER PERCENTAGE back in tax cuts than the richest Americans.

On September 23 2004, Congress approved a $145.9 BILLION DOLLAR package of tax relief that extended President Bush's MIDDLE CLASS tax cuts.

Without this action, the three provisions affecting an estimated 94 million Americans would expire at the end of this year. The legislation keeps the per child tax credit at $1,000, retains an expanded 10% income bracket that affects virtually all taxpayers and retains provisions to provide tax relief for married couples. 

Al Gore said "We would not have taken money from the working families and given it to the most wealthy families."

Are you insane Mr. Gore? How is giving EVERY AMERICAN WHO PAYS TAXES a tax cut taking money from working families and giving it to the rich? It's NOT you moron!  You not crazy just DISHONEST!

Hey Bruce and Al, lets go over the REAL numbers.  First off who do you think pays the most taxes in America?

Yes, the "rich" as you call them got more total money back in tax relief, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE THEY PAID FAR MORE TO BEGIN WITH!

And let's define "rich". John Kerry said that anyone making over $125,000 was rich.
But that TRUE FACTS are that 80% of the jobs in America are created by small business owners, NOT mega corporations. 60% of these small business owners only make between $200,000 and $500,000 a year. That may sound like a lot of money, but not when Bill Clinton was taking close to 50% away in federal taxes. These people provide jobs and benefits FOR MOST OF AMERICA.

By giving them a tax break you help the lower end working families they employ.
if you don't give these "rich" people a tax cut you will NEVER stimulate the economy which was the whole point of the tax cut to begin with.
The fact that government tax revenue income is now at record levels PROVES that these tax cuts work to help the economy.  More taxes are being paid because more people are working, yet individual tax rates are down.

Bruce Springsteen says that President Bush only lowered the taxes for the rich and now the middle class and the poor pay most of the taxes in this country.  He says that George Bush only cuts taxes for the top 2% of Americans. NOTHING could be further from the TRUTH even though the Democrats echo this lie as truth over and over again.

The Democrats want to keep the Estate Tax alive.  Let's think about this.  When you are alive the federal government can tax your income close to 50% of your earnings. Notice the word EARNINGS. 
It's YOUR MONEY, YOU EARNED it!

The Estate Tax allows the government to tax the money YOU ALREADY PAID TAXES ON when you die and pass it on to your children at a rate of another 50%!  That means out of the original money you earned 75% of it can be taken away by the government!  Even when your children get that 25% of what you actually earned they will pay even more taxes on it like sales taxes, property taxes, gasoline taxes etc.  By the time all the taxes are paid your children will only be left with about 10-15% of the original money that YOU EARNED!

Getting rid of the Estate Tax is what the Bruce Springsteen and the Democrats call "tax cuts for the rich".

So Bruce, you're saying we should not have tax cuts?  You do understand that EVERY TIME since the second world war that there has been a tax cut, be it under John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, or George Bush that there has been substantial economic growth in our economy.

Do you understand that if I, as a small business owner, loose my George Bush tax cut that I will have to lay off one of my employees, who will then go on unemployment, be without health care and cost the government far more than if I kept them employed and productive.

Of course my work will be strained and I'll sell less product. Then I'll pay less taxes. The we won't use services like Fedex as much because we won't be selling as much. Then they will pay less taxes, maybe even lay someone off.

You do understand the low tax, high productivity concept of SIMPLE economics don't you?
This is not a maybe concept that's EXACTLY what will happen if I loose the $35,000 I was returned of MY OWN MONEY because of the Bush tax cuts.

I don't mean to berate you sir, I can understand that you may not have been in a Walmart recently, but that's EXACTLY what happens when taxes are increased.

You're not affected, you're beyond rich. And the people who in low paying jobs won't really feel much difference in their paycheck, UNTIL THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNER LIKE MYSELF WHO WILL SHOULDER MOST OF THE BURDEN OF THE KERRY TAX INCREASES HAS TO LAY THEM OFF BECAUSE WE CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO KEEP THEM EMPLOYED.

I don't have an endless supply of cash to hire workers.
I need to pay my mortgage and send my kids to school .

I have to keep products on hand, I have a payroll, I have bills.
But John Kerry states that I'm "rich" because I make over $200,000 a year.

Let me tell you brother, I'm just keeping my head above water here.
When I got my tax relief I hired a new worker, which increased my productivity and let me make more money and I paid more taxes.

Lower taxes are good for everybody.
I make more money. I pay more taxes. FedEx makes more money. They pay more taxes.
Someone has a job and health care because of me. They pay taxes, stay off unemployment. 
They buy a house and put builders to work, the builders stay off unemployment, they pay taxes etc.

Remember one thing: A POOR MAN NEVER GAVE ANOTHER MAN A JOB!

Then again John Kerry, the richest man to ever run for president, has no real experience going to Walmart either.  He flies halfway across the country to get $2000.00 haircuts. 
How can he POSSIBLY understand my economic situation?

On the other hand raising taxes has NEVER increased revenue for the federal government because it stunts economic growth. You do understand how the chain works don't you Bruce?

How about the record low mortgage rates, low unemployment, and low inflation rates? 
How about the record high home ownership rate and the record high black and minority home ownership?   Did you know that next year millions of Americans will get prescription drug benefits and many will get their drugs for free?

How about the nice tax cuts that EVERY American got.  Actually every American did not get a tax cut, the people who don't pay taxes didn't get a refund.
This whole notion that George Bushonly gave tax cuts for the rich is simply ridiculous.

Bill Clinton had the highest taxation rates in this country's history, yet the total collected tax revenue by the government was way down.  Bill Clinton left office with a recession on his hands.

Under George Bush taxes are LOWER but the tax revenue collected is HIGHER than it has ever have been!!!   That PROVES that lowering the taxes for everybody helps the economy.
In fact the national debt reduction is happening much, much faster than even George Bush predicted.

Govt. revenue is up. Productivity is up. US Economic growth is up. Unemployment is at some of the lowest levels in our countries history.

Interest rates are still below 6%, a far cry from the 18% that some people paid for homes under the Jimmy Carter administration.

Home ownership is at it's highest level in American history. 
Black home ownership is at it highest level EVER!
These aren't imaginary numbers, these are US Dept. of Labor statistics.

" the division of wealth that has threatened our connection to one another over the past 20 years that is increasing.... "

WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN?!!!    THE DIVISION OF WEALTH?!!!

Yes, there has always been a division of wealth. There will always be a division of wealth.
Even in COMMUNIST and SOCIALIST societies where the wealth should have been divided equally, there was always a division of wealth.

90% of Americans still fall into the "m