Headlines (Scroll down for complete stories):
1. Extreme Left Behind Bush 9/11 Attacks
2. Ad Exec Sells America -- without Government
3. Jay Leno: I'm NOT a Republican
4. CIA Knew Aristide Was Mad

1. Extreme Left Behind Bush 9/11 Attacks

"Bush TV ads with Sept. 11 decried," screamed the lead headline Friday in a leading U.S. newspaper.

"Victims' families and others accuse the president of exploiting the tragedy for political gain," wailed the subheading.

Who, exactly, is behind these self-appointed full-time revelers in professional victimhood? Let's take a gander.

The loudest voice of "victims' families" is a left-wing outfit that calls itself Peaceful Tomorrows. Not even John Kerry would publicly embrace its admitted mission, which is to respond to terrorist attacks with "nonviolent solutions."

Its Web site reveals a host of Jimmy Carter-style blame-America-first thinking: sponsorship of a lecture on "How Our National Tragedy Was Used to Launch an Unjustified War," scheming with anti-defense zealots and the latest from failed White House wannabe Dennis Kucinich. Get the picture?

Clearly this group is exploiting 9/11 for its own extremist agenda.

And what about the attack on Bush from the International Association of Fire Fighters?

Guess what: That union just happens to be endorsing Kerry.

But the firefighters themselves back Bush. Hero New York City firefighter Mike Moran, whose words of defiance against Osama bin Laden helped rally the nation in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, said Friday that he finds President Bush's campaign ads invoking the attacks "inspirational."

2. Ad Exec Sells America -- Without Government

Advertising executive Keith Reinhard is selling America -- without government help or money.

The inventor of Americana slogans such as "You deserve a break today" and "Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there," the DDB Worldwide chairman is launching what may be the ultimate public relations campaign.

After numerous efforts by the State Department to repair America's image abroad, Reinhard and some other executives decided to take their own approach by forming Business for Diplomatic Action.

Reinhard blames the U.S. government for the expensive failures in repairing and marketing America's image.

"Our experience is that when we try to do something with the government, it just turns into a pile of paper."

Reinhard's studies of 17 other countries show what many already knew: American business is perceived as arrogant, exploiting, materialistic and concerned about nothing but profits.

"I love American brands, but they are losing friends around the world and it is vital to the interests of America to change this," said Reinhold to a group at Yale University last month.

3. Jay Leno: I'm NOT a Republican

"Politics is show business for ugly people. The women aren't as attractive. The men aren't as handsome. The money is not as good. Being in politics is basically like being in B movies." Besides, says Leno, "most people don't really know what you're talking about."

And Leno would rather make fun of the "actors."

Many had the late-night comedy king pegged as a Republican after Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his run for governor last summer on Leno's show.

But Leno says he had no idea Schwarzenegger was going to announce his campaign on the show.

"I'm not supposed to give my political opinion. I'm supposed to tell jokes. My job is to humiliate and degrade everybody equally," Leno told Rolling Stone, though he makes clear he's not a Republican. (Of course -- being a Republican is the kiss of death in Hollywood.)

On the candidates for president:

John Kerry: "He has my hair. He's the only president that if he gets on Mount Rushmore, the face will be actual size."

Wesley Clark: A Zen policeman

Howard Dean: The Pee-wee Herman effect. "There's something weird about this guy."

Al Sharpton: Best sense of humor. "He'll tell you what he thinks. The other candidates all have that kind of tight white-bread 'Well, Jay ...' tone."

4. CIA Knew Aristide Was Mad

Once again, the major media won't report on some recent history that sheds enormous light on the current situation with Haiti and the country's deposed president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

The blame for the Aristide mess is being placed at the doorstep of the Bush White House.

But the Haiti problem, like so many of George Bush's troubles, finds its origin in the previous administration.

When a senior CIA officer reported in 1993 that Aristide was mad, the White House asked CIA chief James Woolsey to fire the analyst who gave the briefing. Woolsey refused, but we hear that the CIA analyst was exiled to the CIA Center for the Study of Intelligence, where he remained until he retired a few years ago.

Inside sources say CIA officers stood by the agency's assessment of Aristide, but meanwhile the Clinton administration restored Aristide to power.

A report by the Center for Security Policy's Frank Gaffney noted during the Clinton years: "U.S. Intelligence believes Aristide to be a clinical psychotic, an individual who is sufficiently mentally unstable as to require medication and institutional treatment for depression and megalomania. The center has learned, moreover, that he is addicted to the drugs that stabilize his condition."

At the very least, Aristide's established record of anti-democratic behavior should have given the Clinton administration pause.

CBS news reported that during the brief period when Aristide was president of Haiti he encouraged the "necklacing" of his political opponents, the practice of lighting gasoline-laden tires placed around the victim's neck. Aristide said of necklacing: "What a beautiful tool, what a beautiful instrument, what a beautiful device, it's beautiful, yes, it's beautiful, it's cute, it's pretty, it has a good smell. Wherever you go you want to inhale it."

And the New York Times has ignored Wall Street Journal reports that Aristide's government has been heavily involved with drug traffickers.

Other evidence suggests that Aristide had bought off key Democratic Party operatives.

A Times report from 1995 states, "The agency [CIA] denies it had its own policy agenda at the time or that it was trying to subvert Administration policy. But the whole episode should lead to some searching questions as the CIA struggles to refashion itself. The CIA has no obligation to produce intelligence reports that hew to Administration views, but is obliged not to obstruct the execution of American foreign policy."

Wouldn't it be nice if such an editorial appeared in the Times today?