[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great

[Fardad]

Dear defenders of the Persian cause,

I mean nowhere because the real support would only come from Ourselves... if we were not so divided as we are unfortunately today!

I let you read the following to understand why I wrote that.

Sincerely,
Zadig

The 28th of August 2003

My Persian dream

“My goal, like yours, is not to reiterate the errors of our fathers”

Fourty score years ago, the 28th of August 1963, a great peace maker, late Dr Martin Luther King, tried to liberate our brothers of colour from the manacles of slavery.
Fourty years later, not only our African-American brothers are not freed but also the whole human being.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Mesdames et Messieurs, Senores y Senoras, « Khanouma va Aghayoun »,

Twenty five centuries ago, a great Persian Emperor, in whose symbolic shadow I stand today, liberated the Jews from Babylonian captivity and invited them to live in his lands, showing a proof of tolerance for ethnic and religious diversity. This momentous act of tolerance came as a great beacon light of hope to a world who had been seared in the flames of withering land conquests. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity.

But twenty five centuries later, it is the turn of this Persian to be captivated. Twenty five centuries later, the life of the Persian is sadly crippled by the manacles of corruption and the chains of extremism. Twenty five centuries later, this Persian lives on a lonely island of disillusion in the midst of a vast ocean of illusion. Twenty five centuries later, this Persian is still languished in the corners of religious and capitalists extremism and finds himself in exile out of his lands...and in his own lands!

When the architects of our world wrote the magnificent words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they were signing a promissory note to which all members of the human family will benefit of the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

This note was a promise that all men, yes, Persian men as well as any human being, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that the General Assembly of the United Nations has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her Persian citizens are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, extremism has given the Persian people a bad check; a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this world. So we have come to cash this check- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom of speech and the security of justice.

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind the United Nations of the fierce urgency of now.

This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.

Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy, to separate religion and government, business and government. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of extremism to the sunlit path of equilibrium. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of women’s oppression to the solid rock of parity. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children, whatever religion they are from, whatever sex they are from.

I say to you today, my compatriots, so even though we face the diffculties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream, it is a dream deeply rooted in the Persian dream.

It would be fatal for the United Nations to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the the Persian's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating Nowrooz of freedom and equality. Two thousand and three is not an end, but a beginning.

Those who hope that the Persian needed to blow off steam and will now be content will
have a rude awakening if the United Nations return to business as usual. Believe me, there will be neither rest nor tranquility in the world until the Persian is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our world until the bright day of justice emerges.

In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence as our fathers did. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force, defending the values of Cyrus the Great.

The breathless militancy which has engulfed the Persian community must not lead us to a distrust of all religious and capitalist people, for many of our capitalist and religious brothers, as evidenced by their support, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?"

We can never be satisfied as long as the Persian is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of Extremists ignorance.

We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of exile, cannot gain lodging in their native Persia.

We cannot be satisfied as long as the Persian's basic mobility is from a land of exile to another.

We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs generalising Extremists attrocities to all Persian.

We cannot be satisfied as long as Persian people cannot have the right to express themself under a referendum and a Persian in an exiled country believes he has nothing for which to vote.

No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

Let’s go back to Hamadan, Let’s go back to Isfahan, Let’s go back to Shiraz, Let’s go back to Teheran. Let’s go back to the arms of “Teherangeles” , knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of asylum.

I say to you today, my compatriots, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream, it is a dream deeply rooted in the Persian dream.

I have a dream that one day this world will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal”, with, among freedoms, the freedom of speech"

I have a dream that one day on the white rocks of Persepolis the sons of former slaves (Persian citizens) and the sons of former slave owners (Extremists) will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Teheran, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that one day my parents will come back to their motherland.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day down in Teheran and Washington, with their vicious extremists having their lips dripping with the words of corruption, that one day right down in New York little Muslim boys and Muslim girls will be able to join hands with little Jew boys and Jew girls as sisters and brothers to symbolize peace between Ismael and Isaac.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exhalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is the hope of a young Persian exile who cried until now because of the world’s cruality. This is the faith with which I go back to my routine of exile. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nations into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.

With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

And if the world is to be one nation, let this become true. So let freedom ring from the ruins of Persepolis. Let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of Himalaya. Let freedom ring from the peak of the Eiffel Tower. Let freedom ring from the crying trees of Amazonia. Let freedom ring from the Status of Liberty.

But, please, do not let freedom blow from the volcano of Extremism.

[redemption]

Thank you Zadig...
_________________
IRANIANS UNITE
PERSIA LIVES ON!!
FREE IRAN NOW!

[President Bush]

President Bush Said The Truth

President Bush declared a failure of past U.S. policy spanning 60 years in support of governments not devoted to political freedom.

"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty," Bush said.

The only world leader who said truth, in order to fix a problem the truth is the first step.

[asher]

This is an important admission from President Bush. Not that it will matter to the anti-Bush folks, but it's further evidence of real clarity of thought coming from the Oval Office. What a refreshing change from Clinton.

[Senator John Cornyn]

Influential US Senator reiterates support of Iranian freedom lovers

SMCCDI (Information Service)
Mar 6, 2004

http://www.daneshjoo.org/smccdinews/article/publish/article_4132.shtml

The influential Senator John Cornyn (R - TX) reiterated, this evening, his support of Iranian freedom lovers during a discussion made with Aryo Pirouznia of SMCCDI. The event was held in the frame of the "Lincoln Day Diner" ceremony held at the Fairmont Hotel in Dallas-Texas where the SMCCDI Coordinator expressed the Movement's gratitude toward those who have shown that Iranians are no more left alone in their struggle against tyranny.

The well listened senator who was formerly the Texas Attorney General, partially during George Bush's governance of Texas, stated: "....We won't forget the plight of Iranians and we will do everything we can do to support them in their endeavor to reach freedom.."

Later and during his public speech, he slammed the Islamic republic regime for its actions which jeopardize the World and reaffirmed America and the Republicans firm commitments to defend peace and freedom across the world and the main objective of putting an end to suffers of tyrannized peoples.

It's to note that Mr. Cornyn was, on July 13th 2003, the guest speaker of the "July 9th Student Uprising in Iran" which was organized by SMCCDI. During this unprecedented meeting, he slammed the Islamic regime for the killing of Iranian students and the persistent rights abuses while condemning it for the dangers which it poses to World's peace and stability. In parts of this well acclaimed speech which was covered by main Texan TV channels, such as, CBS, Fox and Warner, he stated: " ...Make no mistake: these are the actions of a vicious regime that fears for its survival. I am here to tell you that I am committed to ensuring that those who died protesting the repression of the Iranian government will not have died in vain. After 24 years of theocratic rule, and nearly seven years under the so-called reform government, it is clear that the repressive government in Iran is still up to no good...."

Since then, Mr. Cornyn has joined several fellow colleagues, such as Sam Brownback, who are pushing for the freedom of Iran and its enchained people and has taken several public actions in their favor.

As an example, he endorsed on, February 19th of this year, a public letter for the attention of Mr. Powell, the US Secretary of State, in which along with his fellow colleagues Sam Brownback (R - KS), Norm Coleman (R - MN) and Jon Kyl (R - AZ ), he has criticized the Islamic regime for the continuation of rights abuses and threatening the world's peace while warning on any US policy change in reference to the mullahcracy.

In part of this letter, these principled senators, have warned Mr. Powell about any future error in US Diplomacy toward the falling theocratic regime and its negative impacts for the Iranian people. After putting several conditions for any policy change and as a closing argument, they have stated: "... Let us not compound the tragedy of the Bam earthquake with policy missteps that further condemn the people of Iran and threaten to place America on the wrong side of history".

Mr. Cornyn's full speech, made on July 13, 2003, can be seen at: http://www.daneshjoo.org/article/publish/article_3142.shtml

[asher]

Dear Secretary of State Colin Powell:

I am writing in support of the position expressed by Senators John Cornyn, Sam Brownback, Norm Coleman, and Jon Kyl, criticizing the Islamic regime in Iran. I also support Senator Cornyn’s recent statements on behalf of Iranian freedom lovers.

The US Government can and should take positive steps to facilitate regime change in Tehran. These include:
- insisting that all top-level regime officials be prosecuted in internationally recognized courts of law for genocide and crimes against humanity;
- asking the United Nations to send human rights observers to Iran;
- supporting free elections observed by international organizations;
and an end to all legitimization of the Islamic regime.

The current Administration has wisely adopted a policy of learning from the foreign policy mistakes of the past. I trust that the State Department will continue to act according to this wisdom.

sent thru State Department website, March 8, 2004
http://contact-us.state.gov/

[cyrus]

[redemption]

[redemption]

[cyrus]

March 09, 2004, 8:52 a.m.
The Folly of Dialogue Diplomacy
Simplicity, naivety, and deceitful complexity.
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bonazzi200403090852.asp
By Elio Bonazzi

In every aspect of human life, new ideas, designs, and concepts usually go through three distinct phases. A good dose of naivety characterizes the initial phase of every project, intellectual enterprise, or model; the intrinsic novelty of the subject-matter forces engineers, politicians, and intellectuals to make naïve assumptions, which are progressively refined and adjusted, and new layers of complexity are added to the model, design, or political doctrine in order to better equip it to deal with complex realities.

Adding complexity, however, is only an intermediate phase. According to Antoine de Saint-Exupery, "Perfection (in design) is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but rather when there is nothing more to take away."

The best models, designs, and political doctrines are simple. But their simplicity is the fruit of a complex process, which started with naivety, grew through complexity and achieved a level of harmony and integrity possible only after redundancy was eliminated, internal coherence realized, and unnecessary entanglement discarded, all the while striving to capture the true essence of the problem under analysis.

Experience teaches that it is very rarely, if ever, that a successful engineering design, or political or economical doctrine, deviates from common sense, or is counterintuitive. If somebody tried to convince us that in order to achieve an egalitarian society we need to stop taxing the rich and tax more heavily blue-collar workers, we would smell the proverbial rat. A sophism is a plausible but fallacious argument. Unnecessary complexity is deceitful, and often used to muddy the waters and to erect smokescreens that allow unfounded theories to appear logical and coherent.

Which is exactly what certain diplomats and State Department officials are doing when they call for a dialogue with the Iranian mullahs. Their intent is to normalize relations with Tehran in order to seek an understanding — and possibly a deal — with the theocratic regime in exchange for the Islamic republic's cessation of its nuclear program.

According to this foreign-policy school of thought, which for lack of a better term we call "realist," the recent outcome of the Iranian national elections, which marked the defeat of the reformists and the triumph of the Islamic hardliners, is good news. The sophists of the State Department would like to convince us that now that the excruciating internal debate between the Leftist mullahs and the conservative establishment is over, the "pragmatic conservatives" are ready to cut a deal with the West over Tehran's WMD programs.

If we leave for a moment the realm of sophisms, and revert to simplicity and common sense, we realize that the analysis of the Iranian situation is straightforward. One doesn't need a Ph.D in political science to realize that the Iranians feel encircled — American and allied troops are in Afghanistan and in Iraq — and only the nuclear bomb would make the mullahs feel invincible. We are discovering almost daily that the Iranians are more advanced than originally thought in their nuclear plans. On several occasions, they deceived the European Union and the international nuclear watchdog about their true intentions to buy time and continue pursuing their covert nuclear program.

A common trick is to have one theocrat announce Iran's strict adherence to the nonproliferation protocols; and then, a day later, have a different top cleric state exactly the opposite. This happened, for example, last week: Hassan Rohani, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, openly announced that an unspecified number of nuclear installations remain undeclared and that the Iranian authorities don't see the need to disclose all aspects of their nuclear program to the IAEA. But, only a few days earlier, the foreign minister of Germany, France, and Britain signed a last-minute deal in Vienna with Iranian representatives that once again stated Tehran's willingness to comply with the IAEA directives.

Why should we care what happens in Iran? Well, for starters, Iran directly sponsors Hezbollah terrorists in Israel, through Syria. Iranian killers are sent into Iraq to foment anti-American feelings. Iran represents today the single most dangerous threat to world stability. It represents an immediate threat to Israel and to the American troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The natural conclusion is that Iran cannot be "fixed." The only possible way out is a regime change. Anybody claiming that "engagement" with the theocratic fascists in Tehran could produce positive results is following the Yellow Brick Road, and is either a genuine victim of the mullah-orchestrated game of deception, or has ulterior motives.

To justify their willingness to continue a hopeless dialogue with the Islamist leaders in Tehran, foreign-policy realists use convoluted and abstract scenarios, which are inevitably counterintuitive. A typical example is their claim that the outcome of the latest Iranian elections is positive because, now that the "pragmatic conservative clerics" finally got rid of their internal opposition, it clears the way to important diplomatic breakthroughs. It is yet another example of deceitful and unnecessary complexity.

Occam's Razor is a logical principle attributed to the medieval philosopher William of Occam. Scientific knowledge is based on experience and self-evident truths, and on logical propositions resulting from those two sources. Occam stressed the Aristotelian principle that entities must not be multiplied beyond what is necessary. In science, the simplest theory that fits the facts of a problem is the one that should be selected.

The basic facts are that the mullahs are developing the nuclear bomb and nothing will stop them. Hitler should have been stopped in 1936, as soon as he remilitarized the Rhineland in blatant breach of the Versailles treaty. The European nations failed to do so, and the end-result was World War II.

If the West doesn't stop Iran today, the consequences will be dire. The only way to prevent a potentially catastrophic outcome in the Middle East is to provoke regime change in Iran. The good news is that to achieve this goal no direct military intervention is required. No more American troops will have to die in a distant land. And the American taxpayers won't have to bear the costs of another expensive military campaign.

Simply declaring that the only U.S. policy towards Iran is regime change, and enforcing it at every level in the administration, would provoke shock waves in Tehran. A resolute and determined U.S. administration could release part of Iran's frozen assets, seized during the hostage crisis of 1979, and use them to fund the Iranian opposition movement, inside and outside of the country. The Islamic regime has lost popular support, and survives only thanks to a very efficient repressive apparatus, exactly like the Communist regimes in eastern Europe before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Imposing sanctions and isolating the regime would provide the final blow needed to overthrow the mullahs.

The strategy explained above is simple but not naïve. It follows the principle of Occam's Razor, is internally coherent, and is based on common sense, historical facts, and the will of the people of Iran. If today we miss this historical opportunity to bring peace and long-term stability to the Middle East, we will have to achieve the same goal in a few years, when it will be much more difficult, expensive, and onerous. If we let the sophists of the State Department have their way, the inevitable showdown with the Islamist regime will only be postponed, but not avoided.

— Elio Bonazzi is an Italian-born political scientist.

[asher]

Pretty smart, those Italians ...

Thanks for posting that. I agree that the US should unequivocally support regime change. I also agree that an Iraq-style war of liberation is neither necessary or appropriate for Iran; meaningful support for an internal popular revolution would be much better, and would empower the Iranian people. Conditions in Iran are ripe for revolt.

[cyrus]

45 off topic posts moved to "Big 3 EU Foreign Policy (England, France, and Germany)" under General Discussion group. Please stay focus, do not dilute and distract discussion thread. This thread is related to President Bush Admin. and Senator Kerry U.S. foreign policy towards Clerical Regime in Iran.
What is the best strategy?
What is your recommendations and Suggestions?
What is your expectations from President Bush Admin.?
What is your expectations from Senator Kerry?

[blank]

My expectation from Senator Kerry is, just because he has received campaign contribution from NIC, & other rag-head lobbyists,he should not engage with a terrorist regime. And call on the European nations to put pressure on them, have the balls to call iri as what they are a terrorist regime.
My expectation from President Bush is to do for Iran, what President Reagan did for Poland. Provide financial and technological help for massive strikes and demonstrations & if the regime start their brutal masacare they should arm Iranians to defend themselves and maybe even send in troops to intervene and not allow bloodshed.

[redemption]

Our expectations for Bush better be met I don't want to take a chance with Kerry.... But good point though - Blank... BUSH should act NOW!!!!
_________________
IRANIANS UNITE
PERSIA LIVES ON!!
FREE IRAN NOW!

[Hhakimi]

Dears

Not very important, but not too bad to read it either. I personally do not expect any straight forward politician any where in the world.
I think only fools can cheat them selves & go after these kinds of politicians.
Among them, Mr. Kerry.

Laugh as much as you can afford!?
Regards,
Hashem


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: JavidIran [mailto:JavidIran@Payandehiran.org]
Sent: 6. mars 2004 14:29
To: 'Un-Disclosed'
Subject: Nuanced Ideas or Flip-Flops?



Kerry's Shifts: Nuanced Ideas or Flip-Flops?
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER

Published: March 6, 2004



OSTON, March 5 — When Senator John Kerry was speaking to Jewish leaders a few days ago, he said Israel's construction of a barrier between it and Palestinian territories was a legitimate act of self-defense. But in October, he told an Arab-American group that it was "provocative and counterproductive" and a "barrier to peace."

On Feb. 5, Mr. Kerry reacted to Massachusetts' highest court's decision legalizing same-sex marriages by saying, "I personally believe the court is dead wrong." But when asked on Feb. 24 why he believed the decision was not correct, he shot back, "I didn't say it wasn't."

Throughout his campaign, Mr. Kerry has shown a knack for espousing both sides of divisive issues. Earlier in the race he struggled to square his vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq with his loud criticism of the war and his eventual vote against $87 billion for military operations and reconstruction.

Now with the general-election campaign under way, President Bush and Republicans are already attacking Mr. Kerry for precisely this characteristic. In California this week, the president said Mr. Kerry had "been in Washington long enough to take both sides on just about every issue." And on Friday the Republican National Committee e-mailed to reporters an Internet boxing game called "Kerry vs. Kerry" designed, the committee said, to highlight the senator's "multiple positions on multiple issues."

The e-mail included a list of Mr. Kerry's stances on 30 issues, including many of the examples that were researched in preparation for this article.

In fact, this trait, perhaps a natural one for a diplomat's son, seems to have been ingrained in Mr. Kerry's personality as far back as when he volunteered for duty in Vietnam after expressing doubts about the war as a college student — and then returned home and helped lead the opposition to the war.

Some aides and close associates say Mr. Kerry's fluidity is the mark of an intellectual who grasps the subtleties of issues, inhabits their nuances and revels in the deliberative process. They call him a free-thinker who defies stereotypes. Others close to him say his often-public agonizing — over whether to opt out of the system of spending caps and matching money in this campaign, or whether to run against Al Gore in 2000 — can be exasperating.

And some Democratic strategists worry that Mr. Kerry is still an unfamiliar figure to many voters, and that these early attacks show just how vulnerable he is to being defined by the Republicans as indecisive or politically expedient.

"If Kerry fails to define himself as someone who's been consistent on values, on foreign policy, on domestic issues, then the Bush team will have succeeded in putting him in a corner," said Donna Brazile, who ran Mr. Gore's campaign in 2000. "They want to get to his integrity and his character, and they will use his voting record and previous statements to undermine that he can be trusted."

Other Democrats suggest that the areas in which Mr. Kerry has showed indecisiveness or tried to split the difference are the same ones in which most Americans are conflicted.

"Clearly he is trying to walk a very fine line on extremely divisive social issues like gay marriage and the Patriot Act," said Ron Klain, another Gore adviser in 2000. "These are issues where the political terrain is changing very rapidly, and he is trying to stay in the middle. And I think he's walking the tightrope on those issues, and doing a pretty good job of navigating it so far."

Sometimes, Mr. Kerry's stances seem to be well-thought political strategy. At no time was this more evident than the day when he spoke against opponents of gun control in an Iowa barn, then strode out to his car, unwrapped an old shotgun, and went off to shoot pheasant. The message was that hunters could be for gun control.

Other times he may tailor his stands to an audience or even run away from past positions. When Gen. Wesley K. Clark pointed to a 1992 remark by Mr. Kerry calling affirmative action "an inherently limited and divisive program," the senator denied he had ever said that.

Sometimes Mr. Kerry seems to embody contradictions. When he lost for Congress in 1972, went to law school and became a prosecutor, he stunned some of his colleagues in the antiwar movement who thought he shared their anti-authority sentiment, sharpened by Vietnam and Watergate.

A lot of liberal Democrats in Massachusetts thought, What is this about?" said Ron Rosenblith, who met Mr. Kerry in the antiwar movement and has worked for him over the years as an aide, campaign manager and consultant. "They didn't see it as consistent."

Of course, it is just some of these aspects of Mr. Kerry — hunter, prosecutor, deficit hawk, war veteran — which now give him an answer to suggestions that he is nothing more than a "Massachusetts liberal" in the mold of Michael S. Dukakis, whom he served as lieutenant governor.

"He doesn't fit into any neat pigeon holes," said Mr. Kerry's younger brother, Cameron, his closest adviser. "He's complex. So what?"

Those who have known him a long time say Mr. Kerry is a creature of the gray areas in politics and policy, asking endless questions about all the angles, playing the devil's advocate until his aides are exhausted, arguing as if with himself until the last possible minute.

"There's indoor John and outdoor John," said Jonathan Winer, a Washington lawyer and former State Department official who worked for Mr. Kerry from 1983 to 1994.

"Indoor John is thoughtful, works all this through, is nuanced, and so deeply into the process that you can get impatient," Mr. Winer said. "Outdoor John is a man of action. There'd be a point where, Boom! and go. Once it happened, the dialogue was over, and you wouldn't always know which way he was going to go."

Mr. Kerry's explanations for a number of the recent stances Republicans are branding as flip-flops have a common thread. He voted for the Iraq resolution but criticizes the war because, he says, the president "broke his promises" to exhaust the diplomatic process and use force only as a last resort. He voted for the education legislation known as the No Child Left Behind law but lambastes President Bush now because, Mr. Kerry says, he withheld promised additional money for education.

And on Friday, he said he had criticized the Israeli wall before the Arab-American group in October because its path was then expected to deviate widely from Israel's border into West Bank villages — though he conceded he had not made the distinction clear at the time.

Mr. Kerry also voted for the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act, which he has since all but repudiated, telling Democratic audiences that the best thing Congress put into that law was a sunset clause that will make it expire next year, unless Congress renews it. He has likened the law's use against Americans to the repression of Afghans by the Taliban.

But he also says the law was necessary when it was passed, as a response to the Sept. 11 attacks. And as recently as last week, he went further, telling a group of newspaper editors and reporters, "Of course I support it," before adding that his objections were mainly to the way Attorney General John Ashcroft had been "abusing" it.

People who have worked closely with him in the Senate say that Mr. Kerry tends to split differences. A longtime friend and aide put it this way: "On some major issues there are yes-but votes and no-but votes. He sees a lot of them as yes-but."

A "yes-but" can also be revisited. Mr. Kerry's critics have cited his position on the death penalty as evidence that even his core convictions can be bent to his political ambition. He was a longtime opponent of capital punishment but came out in favor of an exception for terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. Rosenblith said Mr. Kerry had been thinking about the issue for years. He recalled that Mr. Kerry had terrorists on his mind when the subject arose in his re-election campaign against Gov. William F. Weld in 1996. "Even in '96, he thought that was a close call," Mr. Rosenblith said, remembering an elaborate discussion of the issue. He said Mr. Kerry decided against a death penalty for terrorists at that time because he thought it would keep other countries from extraditing terrorism suspects to the United States.

Indeed, Mr. Kerry said in a debate that Mr. Weld's support for the death penalty "would amount to a terrorist-protection policy."

What changed Mr. Kerry's mind, Mr. Rosenblith said, was that after Sept. 11, 2001, "other countries are far less likely to say, `No, we're not going to turn over this person to you.' "

"The world looks at terrorism very differently," Mr. Rosenblith said.

Mr. Winer, the former aide, who worked with Mr. Kerry on terrorism and many other issues, described Mr. Kerry's complexity as right for the times.

"Between the moral clarity, black and white, good and evil of George Bush that distorts and gets reality wrong," he said, "and someone who quotes a French philosopher, André Gide, saying, `Don't try to understand me too much,' I'd let Americans decide which in the end is closer to what they need in a president, in a complex world where if you get it really wrong there are enormous consequences."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/06/politics/campaign/06KERR.html?pagewanted=2&th