Read Board 3
Last Updated on December 09, 2008
| Back to Tribute to America | |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Do more than Remember - Never
Forget
Tony Parsons U.K. Daily Mirror
September 11, 2002
One year ago, the world witnessed a unique kind of broadcasting - - the mass murder of thousands, live on television. As a lesson in the pitiless cruelty of the human race, September 11 was up there with Pol Pot's Mountain of Skulls in Cambodia, or the skeletal bodies stacked like garbage in the Nazi concentration camps. An unspeakable act so cruel, so calculated and so utterly merciless that surely the world could agree on one thing - nobody deserves this fate.
Surely there could be consensus: The victims were truly innocent, the perpetrators truly evil. But to the world's eternal shame, 9/11 is increasingly seen as America's comeuppance. Incredibly, anti-Americanism has increased over the last year. There has always been a simmering resentment to the USA in this country; too loud, too rich, too full of themselves, and so much happier than Europeans - but it has become an epidemic. And it seems incredible to me. More than that, it turns my stomach.
America is this country's greatest friend and our staunchest ally. We are bonded to the US by culture, language and blood. A little over half a century ago, around half a million Americans died for our freedoms, as well as their own. Have we forgotten so soon? And exactly a year ago, thousands of ordinary men, women and children - not just Americans, but from dozens of countries, were butchered by a small group of religious fanatics. Are we so quick to betray them?
What touched the heart about those who died in the Twin Towers and on the planes, was that we recognized them. Young fathers and mothers, somebody's son and somebody's daughter, husbands, wives, and children, some unborn. And these people brought it on themselves?
Their nation is to blame for their meticulously planned slaughter?
These days you don't have to be some dust-encrusted nut job in Kabul or Karachi or Finsbury Park to see America as the Great Satan. The anti-American alliance is made up of self-loathing liberals who blame the Americans for every ill in the Third World, and conservatives suffering from power-envy, bitter that the world's only superpower can do what it likes without having to ask permission.
The truth is that America has behaved with enormous restraint since September 11. Remember, remember - Remember the gut-wrenching tapes of weeping men phoning their wives to say, "I love you," before they were burned alive.
Remember those people leaping to their deaths from the top of burning skyscrapers.
Remember the hundreds of firemen buried alive.
Remember the smiling face of that beautiful little girl who was on one of the planes with her mum.
Remember, remember - And realize that America has never retaliated for 9/11 in anything like the way it could have.
So a few al-Qaeda tourists got locked up without a trial in Camp X-ray? Pass the Kleenex. So some Afghan wedding receptions were shot up after they merrily fired their semi-automatics in a sky full of American planes? A shame, but maybe next time they should stick to confetti.
AMERICA could have turned a large chunk of the world into a parking lot.
That it didn't is a sign of strength. American voices are already being raised against attacking Iraq - that's what a democracy is for. How many in the Islamic world will have a minute's silence for the slaughtered innocents of 9/11? How many Islamic leaders will have the guts to say that the mass murder of 9/11 was an abomination?
When the news of 9/11 broke on the West Bank, those freedom-loving Palestinians were dancing in the street. America watched all of that - and didn't push the button. We should thank the stars that America is the most powerful nation in the world. I still find it incredible that 9/11 did not provoke all-out war. Not a "war on terrorism." A real war.
The fundamentalist dudes are talking about "opening the gates of hell," if America attacks Iraq. Well, America could have opened the gates of hell like you wouldn't believe.
The US is the most militarily powerful nation that ever strode the face of the earth. The campaign in Afghanistan may have been less than perfect and the planned war on Iraq may be misconceived. But don't blame America for not bringing peace and light to these wretched countries. How many democracies are there in the Middle East, or in the Muslim world? You can count them on the fingers of one hand - assuming you haven't had any chopped off for minor shoplifting.
I love America, yet America is hated. I guess that makes me Bush's poodle. But I would rather be a dog in New York City than a Prince in Riyadh.
Above all, America is hated because it is what every country wants to be - rich, free, strong, open, optimistic. Not ground down by the past, or religion, or some caste system. America is the best friend this country ever had and we should start remembering that.
Or do you really think the USA is the root of all evil? Tell it to the loved ones of the men and women who leaped to their death from the burning towers.
Tell it to the nursing mothers whose husbands died on one of the hijacked planes, or were ripped apart in a collapsing skyscraper. And tell it to the hundreds of young widows whose husbands worked for the New York Fire Department.
To our shame, George Bush gets a worse press than Saddam Hussein. Once we were told that Saddam gassed the Kurds, tortured his own people and set up rape-camps in Kuwait. Now we are told he likes Quality Street. Save me the range center, Oh Mighty One!
Remember, remember, September 11 - One of the greatest atrocities in human history was committed against America.
No, do more than remember. Never forget.
|
|
|
Who's Smarter?
3/16/03 | Cynthia Osbourne
The Hollywood group is at it again. Holding
anti-war rallies, screaming about the Bush Administration, running ads in major
newspapers, defaming the President and his Cabinet every chance they get, to
anyone and everyone who will listen. They publicly defile them and call them
names like "stupid" , "morons", and "idiots". Jessica Lange went so far as to
tell a crowd in Spain that she hates President Bush and is embarrassed to be an
American.
So, just how ignorant are these people who are running the country? Let's look
at the biographies of these "stupid", "ignorant" , "moronic" leaders, and then
at the celebrities who are castigating them:
President George W. Bush: Received a Bachelors Degree from Yale
University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. He served as an F-102 pilot
for the Texas Air National Guard. He began his career in the oil and gas
business in Midland in 1975 and worked in the energy industry until 1986. He was
elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote. In a
historic re-election victory, he became the first Texas Governor to be elected
to consecutive four-year terms on November 3, 1998 winning 68.6 percent of the
vote. In 1998 Governor Bush won49 percent of the Hispanic vote, 27 percent of
the African-American vote, 27 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of women. He
won more Texas counties, 240 of 254, than any modern Republican other than
Richard Nixon in 1972 and is the first Republican gubernatorial candidate to win
the heavily Hispanic and Democratic border counties of El Paso, Cameron and
Hidalgo. (Someone began circulating a false story about his I. Q. being lower
than any other President. If you believed it, you might want to go to
URBANLEGENDS.COM and see the truth.)
Vice President Dick Cheney: Earned a B. A. in 1965 and a M. A. in 1966,
both in political science. Two years later, he won an American Political Science
Association congressional fellowship. One of Vice President Cheney's primary
duties is to share with individuals, members of Congress and foreign leaders,
President Bush's vision to strengthen our economy, secure our homeland and win
the War on Terrorism. In his official role as President of the Senate, Vice
President Cheney regularly goes to Capital Hill to meet with Senators and
members of the House of Representatives to work on the Administration's
legislative goals. In his travels as Vice President, he has seen first hand the
great demands the war on terrorism is placing on the men and women of our
military, and he is proud of the tremendous job they are doing for the United
States of America.
Secretary of State Colin Powell: Educated in the New York City public
schools, graduating from the City College of New York (CCNY), where he earned a
Bachelor's Degree in geology. He also participated in ROTC at CCNY and received
a commission as an Army second lieutenant upon graduation in June 1958. His
further academic achievements include a Master of Business Administration Degree
from George Washington University. Secretary Powell is the recipient of numerous
U. S. and foreign military awards and decorations. Secretary Powell's civilian
awards include two Presidential Medals of Freedom, the President's
Citizens Medal, the Congressional Gold Medal, the Secretary of State
Distinguished Service Medal, and the Secretary of Energy Distinguished Service
Medal. Several schools and other institutions have been named in his honor and
he holds honorary degrees from universities and colleges across the
country.(Note: He retired as Four Star General in the United States Army)
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: Attended Princeton University on
Scholarship (AB, 1954) and served in the U. S. Navy (1954-57) as a Naval
aviator; Congressional Assistant to Rep. Robert Griffin (R-MI), 1957-59; U.S.
Representative, Illinois, 1962-69; Assistant to the President, Director of the
Office of Economic Opportunity, Director of the Cost of Living Council, 1969-74;
U. S. Ambassador to NATO, 1973-74; head of Presidential Transition Team, 1974;
Assistant to the President, Director of White House Office of Operations, White
House Chief of Staff, 1974-77; Secretary of Defense, 1975-77.
Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge: Raised in a working class
family in veterans' public housing in Erie. He earned a scholarship to Harvard,
graduating with honors in 1967. After his first year at The Dickinson School of
Law, he was drafted into the U. S. Army, where he served as an infantry staff
sergeant in Vietnam, earning the Bronze Star for Valor. After returning to
Pennsylvania, he earned his Law Degree and was in private practice before
becoming Assistant District Attorney in Erie County. He was elected to Congress
in 1982. He was the first enlisted Vietnam combat veteran elected to the U. S.
House, and was overwhelmingly re-elected six times.
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice: Earned her Bachelor's Degree
in Political Science, Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of
Denver in 1974; her Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her
Ph. D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of
Denver in 1981. (Note: Rice enrolled at the University of Denver at the age of
15, graduating at 19 with a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science (Cum Laude).
She earned a Master's Degree at the University of Notre Dame and a Doctorate
from the University of Denver's Graduate School of International Studies. Both
of her advanced degrees are also in Political Science.) She is a Fellow of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded Honorary Doctorates
from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, and the
University of Notre Dame in 1995. At Stanford, she has been a member of the
Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the
Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover
Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995)
with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and
Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She
also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and
defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U. S.
Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000
Republican National Conventions. From 1989 through March 1991, the period of
German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the
Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East
European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to
the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international
affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special
Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on
the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military.
She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the
Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the
University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J. P. Morgan and
the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member
of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in
East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the
Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. In addition, her past board service has
encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the
Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand
Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the
Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco.
Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she resides in Washington, D. C.
So who are these celebrities? What is their education? What is their experience
in affairs of State or in National Security? While I will defend to the death
their right to express their opinions, I think that if they are going to call
into question the intelligence of our leaders, we should also have all the facts
on their educations and background:
Barbra Streisand: Completed high school Career: Singing and acting
Cher: Dropped out of school in 9th grade. Career: Singing and acting
Martin Sheen: Flunked exam to enter University of Dayton. Career: Acting
Jessica Lange: Dropped out college mid-freshman year. Career: Acting
Alec Baldwin: Dropped out of George Washington U. after scandal. Career:
Acting
Julia Roberts: Completed high school. Career: Acting
Sean Penn: Completed High school. Career: Acting
Susan Sarandon: Degree in Drama from Catholic University of America in
Washington, D. C. Career: Acting
Ed Asner: Completed High school. Career: Acting
George Clooney: Dropped out of University of Kentucky. Career: Acting
Michael Moore: Dropped out first year University of Michigan. Career:
Movie Director
Sarah Jessica Parker: Completed High School. Career: Acting
Jennifer Anniston: Completed High School. Career: Acting
Mike Farrell: Completed High school. Career: Acting
Janeane Garofelo: Dropped out of College. Career: Stand up comedienne
Larry Hagman: Attended Bard College for one year. Career: Acting
While comparing the education and experience of these two groups, we should also
remember that President Bush and his cabinet are briefed daily, even hourly, on
the War on Terror and threats to our security. They are privy to information
gathered around the world concerning the Middle East, the threats to America,
the intentions of terrorists and terrorist-supporting governments. They are in
constant communication with the CIA, the FBI, Interpol, NATO, The United
Nations, our own military, and that of our allies around the world. We cannot
simply believe that we have full knowledge of the threats because we watch CNN!!
We cannot believe that we are in any way as informed as our leaders.
These celebrities have no intelligence-gathering agents, no fact-finding groups,
no insight into the minds of those who would destroy our country. They only have
a deep seated hatred for all things Republican. By nature, and no one knows
quite why, the Hollywood elitists detest Conservative views and anything that
supports or uplifts the United States of America. The silence was deafening from
the Left when Bill Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory outside of Khartoum,
or when he attacked the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and 1999. He bombed Serbia itself
to get Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo, and not a single peace rally was held.
When our Rangers were ambushed in Somalia and 18 young American lives were lost,
not a peep was heard from Hollywood. Yet now, after our nation has been attacked
on its own soil, after 3,000 Americans were killed, by freedom-hating
terrorists, while going about their routine lives, they want to hold rallies
against the war. Why the change? Because an honest, God-fearing Republican sits
in the White House.
Another irony is that in 1987, when Ronald Reagan was in office, the Hollywood
group aligned themselves with disarmament groups like SANE, FREEZE and PEACE
ACTION, urging our own government to disarm and freeze the manufacturing of any
further nuclear weapons, in order to promote world peace. It is curious that
now, even after we have heard all the evidence that Saddam Hussein has chemical,
biological and is very close to obtaining nuclear weapons, their is no cry from
this group for HIM to disarm. They believe we should leave him alone in his
quest for these weapons of mass destruction, even though it is certain that
these deadly weapons will eventually be used against us in our own cities.
So why the hype out of Hollywood? Could these celebrities believe that since
they draw such astronomical salaries, they are entitled to also determine the
course of our Nation? That they can make viable decisions concerning war and
peace? Did Michael Moore have the backing of the Nation when he recently thanked
France, on our behalf, for being a "good enough friend to tell us we were
wrong"? I know for certain he was not speaking for me. Does Sean Penn fancy
himself a Diplomat, in going to Iraq when we are just weeks away from war? Does
he believe that his High School Diploma gives him the knowledge (and the
right) to go to a country that is controlled by a maniacal dictator, and speak
on behalf of the American people? Or is it the fact that he pulls in more money
per year than the average American worker will see in a lifetime? Does his bank
account give him clout?
The ultimate irony is that many of these celebrities have made a shambles of
their own lives, with drug abuse, alcoholism, numerous marriages and divorces,
scrapes with the law, publicized temper tantrums, etc. How dare they pretend to
know what is best for an entire nation! What is even more bizarre is how many
people in this country will listen and accept their views, simply because they
liked them in a certain movie, or have fond memories of an old television
sitcom!
It is time for us, as citizens of the United States, to educate ourselves about
the world around us. If future generations are going to enjoy the freedoms that
our forefathers bequeathed us, if they are ever to know peace in their own
country and their world, to live without fear of terrorism striking in their own
cities, we must assure that this nation remains strong. We must make certain
that those who would destroy us are made aware of the severe consequences that
will befall them.
Yes, it is a wonderful dream to sit down with dictators and terrorists and join
hands, singing Cumbaya and talking of world peace. But it is not real. We did
not stop Adolf Hitler from taking over the entire continent of Europe by simply
talking to him. We sent our best and brightest, with the strength and
determination that this Country is known for, and defeated the Nazi regime.
President John F. Kennedy did not stop the Soviet ships from unloading their
nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962 with mere words. He stopped them with action,
and threat of immediate war if the ships did not turn around. We did not end the
Cold War with conferences. It ended with the strong belief of President Ronald
Reagan... PEACE through STRENGTH.
|
|
|
Trying to Help
By Dennis Miller
All the rhetoric on whether or not we should go to war against Iraq has got my
little brain spinning like a top. I enjoy reading opinions from both sides, but
I've detected a hint of confusion from some of you. Maybe this can help.
As I was reading the paper recently, I was reminded of the best advice anyone
ever gave me. He told me about the "KISS" method ("Keep It Simple, Stupid!"). So
with this as a theme, I'd like to apply this theory for those who don't quite
get it. My hope is that we can simplify things and recognize a few important
facts.
Here are ten things to consider when voicing an opinion on this important issue:
1. Between President Bush and Saddam Hussein ... Hussein is the bad guy.
2. If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right things, keep this in
mind: the UN has Libya heading the Committee on Human Rights and Iraq heading
the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own math here.
3. If you use a Google or Yahoo search and type in "French Military Victories,"
don't be surprised if your computer panics at its inability to respond to your
inquiry.
4. If your only anti-war slogan is "No War For Oil," hire a pit bull lawyer and
sue your school district for having allowed you to slip through the cracks and
robbing you of the minimum education that any non-troglodyte deserves.
5. You can take this one to the bank: Saddam and bin Laden will NOT seek UN
approval before they try to kill us.
6. Despite common belief among some, Martin Sheen is NOT the President. He only
plays one on TV.
7. If you are anti-war and even an outright "America Basher," to bin Laden you
are still an "infidel" whom he wants dead.
8. Be careful: if you believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy," but not in the
danger that Hussein poses, the only job you may be able to get is as an Ivy
League college professor.
9. Even multi-culturalists who try to browbeat us into believing that all
cultures are equally deserving of respect have trouble explaining the past 500
years of Islam.
10. Whether you are for or against military action, our young men and women
overseas are fighting to defend our right to speak out on these issues. They
deserve our unreserved support.
I hope this helps.
|
|
|
And You thought the French were Ungrateful!
1871
Bismark founds modern Germany.
1890 Bismark
sacked, warmonger Wilhelm II takes direct control.
1914 Germany
starts World War I
1914-1918 Germany kills millions upon millions of people.
1917 Germany
force peace loving Americans to enter war.
1918 Germany
loses World War I.
1920's Germans try
democracy.
1933 Germans
reject democracy, allow Hitler to take power.
1939 Germany
starts World War II.
1939-1945 Germany kills millions upon millions of people.
1941 Germany
force peace loving Americans to enter war.
1945 Germany
loses World War II.
1946 Germans
whine about lack of food, America gives billions in food aid to feed them.
1947 Germans
whine about poor economy, America gives billions in Marshall Plan aid to rebuild
German economy.
1948-1949 America puts ass on line and risk WW3 to save a few
Berliners from Soviet hordes.
1949 Federal
Republic of Germany (West Germany) established.
1950's America spends
billions to defend West Germany from Soviet hordes.
1950's German 'economic
miracle' occurs while America keeps watch on Soviet hordes.
1955 NATO
formed to protect West Germany from Soviet hordes.
1960's America spends
billions to defend West Germany from Soviet hordes.
1960's German students
protest war in Vietnam and American civil rights.
1963 American
President John Kennedy makes "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech.
1970's America spends
billions to defend West Germany from Soviet hordes.
1970's Germans form the
Marxist terrorist group Red Army Faction (RAF).
1970's Leftist German
guerrillas burn, loot, and plunder much of West Germany.
1980's America spends tens
of billions to defend West Germany from Soviet hordes.
1980's German leftists
bitch about Pershing II missiles.
1987 American
President Ronald Reagan makes "Mr.. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" speech.
1989 Gorbachev
tears down Berlin Wall.
1990 German
Reunification.
1990's America spends tens
of billions to defend Germany from Islamic hordes.
1990's Germany stands by
as ethnic cleansing occurs in Balkans.
1993 Germany
joins European Union.
1995 Americans
send troops to Bosnia as Germans watch from the sidelines.
1997 Germans
finally send troops to Bosnia.
1998
Hard-line, left-of-left socialist come to power under Gerhard Schroeder.
1999
American's lead air war to save Kosovo as Germans watch from the sidelines.
2001 Schroeder
offers solidarity to America after 9/11 attacks.
2002 Schroeder
bashes America to distract voters during election campaign.
2003 Germany
sees rise in anti-Americanism after several decades of poor treatment from
America.
AND YOU THOUGHT THE FRENCH WERE UNGRATEFUL?
|
|
|
The average age of the military man is 19
years.
He is a short haired, tight-muscled kid who, under normal circumstances is
considered by society as half man, half boy. Not yet dry behind the ears, not
old enough to buy a beer, but old enough to die for his country.
He never really cared much for work and he would rather wax his own car than
wash his father's; but he has never collected unemployment either.
He's a recent High School graduate; he was probably an average student, pursued
some form of sport activities, drives a ten year old jalopy, and has a steady
girlfriend that either broke up with him when he left, or swears to be waiting
when he returns from half a world away.
He listens to rock and roll or hip-hop or rap or jazz or swing and 155mm
Howitzers. He is 10 or 15 pounds lighter now than when he was at home because he
is working or fighting from before dawn to well after dusk.
He has trouble spelling, thus letter writing is a pain for him, but he can field
strip a rifle in 30 seconds and reassemble it in less time in the dark.
He can recite to you the nomenclature of a machine gun or grenade launcher and
use either one effectively if he must.
He digs foxholes and latrines and can apply first aid like a professional.
He can march until he is told to stop or stop until he is told to march.
He obeys orders instantly and without hesitation, but he is not without spirit
or individual dignity.
He is self-sufficient. He has two sets of fatigues: he washes one and wears the
other. He keeps his canteens full and his feet dry.
He sometimes forgets to brush his teeth, but never to clean his rifle.
He can cook his own meals, mend his own clothes, and fix his own hurts.
If you're thirsty, he'll share his water with you; if you are hungry, his food.
He'll even split his ammunition with you in the midst of battle when you run
low.
He has learned to use his hands like weapons and weapons like they were his
hands. He can save your life - or take it, because that is his job.
He will often do twice the work of a civilian, draw half the pay and still find
ironic humor in it all. He has seen more suffering and death then he should have
in his short lifetime.
He has stood atop mountains of dead bodies, and helped to create them.
He has wept in public and in private, for friends who have fallen in combat and
is unashamed.
He feels every note of the National Anthem vibrate through his body while at
rigid attention, while tempering the burning desire to 'square -away' those
around him who haven't bothered to stand, remove their hat, or even stop
talking. In an odd twist, day in and day out, far from home, he defends their
right to be disrespectful.
Just as did his Father, Grandfather, and Great-grandfather, he is paying the
price for our freedom.
Beardless or not, he is not "just" a boy.
He is the American Fighting Man that has kept this country free for over 200
years.
He has asked nothing in return, except our friendship and understanding.
Remember him, always, for he has earned our respect and admiration with his
blood.
|
|
|
Who
Armed Iraq?
Charles R. Smith
Monday, March 17, 2003
Myth vs. Fact
Name one weapon in the Iraqi arsenal that was made in the United States.
I have offered that challenge to dozens of so-called anti-war activists who claim that the U.S. armed Iraq. According to these protesters for "peace," George Bush Sr. and Ronald Reagan supplied Iraq with tons of weapons.
None have been able to name the specific weapon - missile, bomb, fighter, tank or shell - that is U.S.-made or has U.S. equipment installed in it. None have been able to name any specific weapon system.
All of them have failed the challenge, providing no more than allegations that U.S. parts are in Iraqi missiles or U.S. electronics are being used by the Iraqi military. One protester even claimed that Iraq was armed with U.S.-made trucks.
Since when is a truck a weapon? Are the Iraqis going to drive backwards, fuel tank first, into the U.S. Army?
Time to separate the myth from the reality. The propaganda spun by the far left is false. The facts show that Iraq is armed with a wide range of weapons - none of which came from the U.S.
Iraqi Air Force
The Iraqi air force does not fly Falcons or Eagles. The majority of the Iraqi air force is made in Russia. The Russian MiG and Sukhoi design bureaus supplied Iraq with hundreds of advanced strike-fighters and the Mach 3 Foxbat interceptor.
Saddam could field a force of advanced MiG-29 Fulcrum fighters if they had not chickened out of combat during the Gulf War, flying to Iran for asylum. The Iranians, who love Saddam even less than we do, never returned the MiGs.
The remainder of the Iraqi air force comes from France and China. The Chinese supplied Saddam with the Chengdu F-7, a copy of the Russian MiG-21. The F-7 can fly from unimproved runways and is known to be a vicious in-close dog fighter.
However, the French Mirage F-1 is reportedly the best jet fighter in Iraqi hands. You can view an Iraqi F-1 in action on the State Department Web site, testing a chemical spraying system.
If you still believe that the Iraqis have no chemical weapons, think again. Iraq did not modify its best multimillion-dollar fighter jet to spray for fruit flies.
Anyone with half of a brain knows that you cannot keep a modern jet fighter in the air without spare parts. Thus the Russian, Chinese and French jets should be museum pieces after 12 years of a so-called U.N. ban on weapons sales to Iraq. Yet somehow Saddam has his air force flying over 1,000 sorties a month.
Thanks to excellent reporting by Bill Gertz we now know that France has been supplying spare parts for Saddam's Mirage fighters. The French spare parts arrived in Baghdad not 20 years ago during the Cold War but last year, just in time to face our forces today.
Merci! With friends like, that who needs enemies?
Iraqi Missiles
Perhaps the Iraqi missile force has some U.S.-made weapons? Not. The primary Iraqi missile is the Russian-made Scud. Other missiles include the FROG-7 from Russia, the Exocet from France and the Silkworm from China.
The Iraqi air defense has plenty of missiles ... from Russia, China and France. The SA-2 Guideline, SA-3 Goa and SA-6 Gainful SAM missiles are all of Russian or Chinese manufacture. The French also supplied Baghdad with a number of Roland air defense missile systems.
Even the missile parts are from Chinese, German and French sources. Israeli authorities know full well what is inside Iraqi-made Scud missiles since many of them fell on Tel Aviv during the Gulf War. The Israelis found that the Scud warhead electronics were made in Germany - not the U.S.A.
In addition, William Safire recently wrote a column noting that a Chinese chemical company had supplied rocket fuel to Iraq through a French front company. Safire identified the fuel, the companies and the Iraqi missile facility where it was mixed into new Iraqi rockets. Again, the missile fuel sale was made within the last year, just in time to make new Iraqi missiles pointed at Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Saddam sends his love to Paris and Beijing. Without your help he certainly could not threaten his neighbors with nerve gas and anthrax.
Iraqi Army
Okay, if not jet fighters and missiles, then how about tanks? Certainly the biggest weapons seller in the world, the U.S.A., sold tanks to Iraq.
The Iraqi armor force is made up of Chinese and Russian models familiar to any "cold" warrior. The Iraqi T-72 and T-55 tanks are all of Russian manufacture. The Iraqis also have a large number of Type-59 Chinese tanks and Russian-made BMP armored troop carriers. No M-1 Abrams here.
How about attack helicopters? The Iraqis have a number of choppers they used against the Kurds and Shiites.
So sorry, the Iraqi attack chopper force is Russian and French. The Russians supplied Iraq with a large number of the Mil-24 Hind attack helicopters, armed to the teeth with cannon, missiles and even chemical weapon sprayers.
The French supplied Saddam with a large number of Gazelle attack helicopters. The same French also managed to keep Saddam's attack helicopter force flying today with spare parts.
Guns, then? Surely the U.S. supplied Saddam with guns?
Nope. The main Iraqi artillery is the French 155mm howitzer. The remainder of Iraq's artillery is 122mm Russian-made cannons and Russian-made short-range rocket launchers. Even the Iraqi foot soldier is armed with the venerable AK-47 of Russian and Chinese make.
Iran-Iraq War
The facts are that during the Iran-Iraq war the U.S. supplied Iraq with something much more valuable than guns: satellite information on when and where the Iranians were going to attack.
Of course, current anti-war activists seize this piece of information without putting it into historical context. The information was supplied during the height of the Cold War. The main threat to America was the Soviet Union and the biggest fear in the Gulf was the Ayatollah Khomeini.
You remember the chant "death to America"? It almost seems that the ayatollah invented it. Ironically, the Ayatollah made his way to Tehran from his home in exile - Paris.
The Reagan administration, aware that the Iranian ayatollah had threatened to turn the Gulf into a sea of fire, assisted Saddam so that he would not lose the war. The assistance stopped short of helping Saddam win the war.
In fact, when it appeared the Iraqis were on the verge of victory, the Reagan administration transferred real weapons to the Iranians. The infamous Iran-Contra scandal involved a large number of badly needed U.S. TOW anti-tank missiles that were sold to Iran.
The U.S. missiles proved to be critical to the Iranian defense against Iraq's superior Russian tank force. The result was a stalemate and the war ended.
France/Russia/China
The fact is that Saddam owes billions to France, Russia and China for weapons purchases. Clearly, Iraq is buying more weapons from Paris and Beijing despite a U.N. arms embargo. Perhaps one reason why Paris, Moscow and Beijing oppose a war in Iraq is because they would lose their best customer.
The propaganda spun by the far left that the U.S. armed Iraq is false and backed by no facts. The so-called anti-war types are more interested in slamming Bush than stopping a war. None have been able to name one American-made weapon in the Iraqi arsenal.
More importantly, none of them can give one good reason why Saddam should stay in power.
|
|
|
OUR FORGOTTEN WAR WIDOWS
By SUSAN EDELMAN
New York Post
 ADRIFT:
Jennifer Germosen, with her child and a photo of her late Marine hubby Scott, who was born in Queens, had to move to a town in Utah where she didn't know anybody after losing her base home. |
February 23, 2003 -- They died as heroes in Afghanistan at the beginning of the
war on terrorism, but a year later, their widows are struggling to make ends
meet.
Wives of U.S. Marines killed in Operation Enduring Freedom say their income has been slashed significantly, their military housing allowances yanked, and some have been forced to uproot and move to places where it costs less to live.
They say they do not begrudge the millions of dollars handed out to 9/11 victims by charities and the government. But some military widows say they feel irritated that their husbands died to prevent another terror attack, yet the families they left behind have gotten much less help.
"Matthew died because of 9/11. Is he no less a hero?" asked Mary Ellen Bancroft, a mother of three whose husband, 29, was the aircraft commander of a KC-130 refueling plane that crashed in Pakistan on Jan. 9, 2002. All seven Marines aboard were killed.
As America braces for possible war against Iraq, Bancroft and other widows have somber warnings for the tens of thousands of military families whose loved ones have been deployed to the Persian Gulf, or are on their way.
"If the worst happens, I cannot say that you will be taken care of, because that has not been my experience," Bancroft told The Post.
Jennifer Germosen's husband Scott, 37, who was born in Queens, also died in the crash that took Matthew Bancroft's life. She and her daughter, Alyssa, 2, recently moved to a tiny town in Utah, where they knew no one, because she could not afford to stay in housing near her husband's former base in San Diego - "the only home my husband and I had," she said.
The military, according to policy, cut off her nearly $1,800- a-month housing allowance exactly six months after Scott's death. Her monthly Veterans Affairs survivor benefits of about $1,285, plus Social Security, amount to half what her husband was taking home. To meet expenses, she has dipped into her nest egg - the $250,000 she received from a military life insurance policy her husband paid for.
"We have a roof over our heads and food in our bellies. We're OK," she said.
Scott, who had a cousin killed on 9/11 - a passenger on the first plane to hit the World Trade Center - was determined to fight back and insisted on going to Afghanistan.
"He was born and raised in New York City, and he felt this guy [Osama bin Laden] was messing with his home, messing with his family. He had to go," Jennifer said.
Bancroft, who has a baby girl, Matthew's daughter, and two teens from another marriage, describes herself sarcastically as a "squatter" at the San Diego base.
"It's been months of having to worry every day. Do I have a home tomorrow? Do I have an eviction notice coming my way?" she said, adding that her pleas for help to military brass have gotten nowhere.
Though Bancroft and her two older sons, ages 13 and 14, want to remain in San Diego, housing is so expensive there she plans to move to Clovis, a small town outside Fresno, over 300 miles away.
Jennifer McCollum, the widow of the other co-pilot of the doomed KC-130, is also leaving San Diego because she can't make ends meet on roughly half the $4,000-a- month her husband, Daniel, earned.
"I don't want to sound like I'm biting the hand that feeds me, but at the same time, there is a discrepancy [with the 9/11 families]," she said.
The situation isn't much better for Shannon Spann, the widow of Johnny "Mike" Spann, the CIA officer who was killed Dec. 10, 2001, shortly after trying to interview American Taliban John Lindh during a prison uprising.
Spouses or next of kin of CIA officers killed in the line of duty or on high-risk missions get one-year's pay as a one-time "special death gratuity," a CIA spokesman said. Beyond that, spouses get worker's compensation payments like any other federal employee.
Shannon, a mother of three and a CIA officer herself, declined to comment. Co-workers have started a fund for her.
|
|
|
Sen. Clinton a Threat
to U.S. Security
Charles R. Smith
Thursday, Jan. 23, 2003
The possibility of war in Iraq has brought the loonies and the losers out in force. The protesters and the pundits see little or no threat to U.S. national security from Iraq.
While the critics and armchair generals labor on whether to fight or not to fight, Saddam Hussein continues his unbridled efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. It is here that the real reason for quick action emerges.
In 1981, Israeli intelligence confirmed that Saddam was constructing a nuclear reactor at Osiraq for his atomic weapons program. Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin determined that the only solution was quick military action.
At 5:35 p.m. local time on June 7, 1981, the first F-15 and F-16 fighter jets appeared over the Iraqi reactor. In 1 minute and 20 seconds, the Israeli Air Force destroyed the Osiraq reactor, ending Saddam's nuclear weapons program for the next 20 years.
Despite the claims by ill-informed critics that North Korea poses a greater threat, the fact remains that North Korea does not have Israel as a target. The armistice along the Korean DMZ has remained static for nearly 50 years and nuclear weapons will not change the status quo.
Israel at War With Iraq
The same cannot be said of Israel and her neighbors. Iraq attacked Israel during the 1991 Gulf War with SCUD missiles in a vain attempt to split the U.S.-led coalition. It is very clear that Saddam would launch a nuclear strike against Israel if he had such weapons.
The fact remains that Israel cannot afford to take even a single hit from an atomic bomb. Israel will strike Iraq hard if its intelligence services determine that Saddam Hussein is close to fielding a nuclear weapon. Such a pre-emptive strike would split the U.S. alliance, force a cut-off of all oil exports to the West and bring a general war to the Middle East.
An Israeli pre-emptive strike would leave Europe, Japan and America with a major depression driven by the oil shut-off. A war with Israel would force many Arab states that hate Saddam to come to his aid. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and various others would have no choice but to join into general combat with Israel.
Now envision a scenario where the U.S. strikes Iraq, overthrows Saddam and ends his nuclear weapons program. The U.S. coalition would remain intact, the oil will continue to flow to the Western economies, and Israel remains safe. In fact, President Bush will likely receive some quiet "thank you" notes from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Syria and Jordan.
Kennedy Sinks
Democrats, sniffing for any issue that might benefit them, are out in force trying to critique the Bush foreign policy. True to form, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., accused President Bush of pursuing a war in Iraq while ignoring a more imminent threat from North Korea. Kennedy stated that he believes this is the "wrong war at the wrong time."
The comments floated by Sen. Kennedy certainly do not rise to the surface but sink under their own weight. The senator's remarks actually drown out the recent history of Middle Eastern conflicts as if a speeding car veered off the bridge of foreign policy and plunged into the troubled waters of the region.
However, Kennedy's comments do echo the continuing howl of anti-U.S. propaganda coming from the leadership of the Democrat Party. Ironically, the loudest and most prominent howler is also a bigger threat to U.S. national security than North Korea and Iraq combined.
The Hillary Clinton Threat
It is here that I turn my attention to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. Her Democrat colleagues recently put Clinton on the Senate Armed Services Committee. It is in this new position that the ex-first lady poses a clear and present danger to U.S. national security.
"You are more likely to be listened to if you are well prepared and grounded in the subject of which you're speaking. As I learn more about the operations of our various military services, what I have to say may be better grounded," stated Clinton.
Despite her recent comments of being ignored on national security issues, Mrs. Clinton has already joined in on the chorus of bad mouthing the security policy of President Bush. In November 2001, Mrs. Clinton blamed the terror attacks against America on the Bush tax cut program.
"If we hadn't passed the big tax cut last spring, that I believe undermined our fiscal responsibility and our ability to deal with this new threat of terrorism, we wouldn't be in the fix we're in today. But the fact is, we are," stated Mrs. Clinton during a CNN interview.
Many of her supporters credit Mrs. Clinton with a steel-trap mind and a sharp memory for detail. However, Mrs. Clinton stated 250 times that she could neither remember nor recall events when asked about various scandals while under oath.
These days, the New York senator cannot seem to recall old friends such as Moctar Riady, James Riady, John Huang, Webster Hubbell, Charlie Trie and Johnny Chung. However, during the Clinton years, Hillary had a very close working relationship with each of the above individuals despite the various criminal convictions.
Webster Hubbell
Mrs. Clinton has ignored Webster Hubbell, who served time for defrauding clients while he worked at the Rose Law Firm with Hillary. Hubbell, who became deputy attorney general under Janet Reno, with a bit of White House help, had to resign after being charged in the Whitewater scandal.
In fact, many of the documents that led to Hubbell's conviction involved projects that Hillary also worked on. Hubbell went on to take nearly a million dollars in consulting fees from Moctar Riady, head of the Indonesia-based Lippo Bank, just prior to his conviction.
John Huang
John Huang, a former banker for the Riady-owned Lippo Group, took a classified position at the Commerce Department immediately after Hubbell received over $600,000 from Riady. This interesting coincidence took place directly after James Riady and Hubbell met with Bill and Hillary in the White House.
Documents obtained from Huang's Commerce Department office shows that the former banker was deeply involved in arms exports such as Patriot missiles sales to South Korea, missile frigate sales to the United Arab Emirates and artillery sales to Kuwait.
John Huang later cited his Fifth Amendment rights not to incriminate himself over 2,000 times when he was asked if he was an agent for the Chinese military.
Photo Ops for Money
Merely stating that Mrs. Clinton is a security risk is simply not enough. It is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words. However, Mrs. Clinton knows that a picture is actually worth $50,000.
For example, in February 1995 Johnny Chung asked DNC Chairman Don Fowler to help him get a photo op of Bill Clinton with a few friends from China. Fowler declined to help Chung because the list of friends included Zheng Hongye, a top executive of the Chinese navy-owned shipping company COSCO.
In response, Chung handed a $50,000 check to Maggie Williams, Hillary Clinton's chief of staff. On March 11, 1995, Chung and Zheng attended Clinton's weekly radio address, which was later followed by a photo session.
In addition, Mrs. Clinton has a few of her own pictures to live down, including one with convicted Chinagate figure Moctar Riady, and a photo of her with convicted cocaine smuggler Jorge Cabrera in front of the White House Christmas tree.
Ng Lapseng
Then there is the 1995 photo of Ng Lapseng and the Clintons taken in front of a DNC symbol. The photo of Ng Lapseng is very telling in that Mrs. Clinton was certainly aware that Ng owns the Macao-based Fortuna Hotel.
It is nice that children under 12 can stay free at the Fortuna. However, according to the Fortuna brochure, for a fee hostesses from various countries can also entertain businessmen.
Ng has another interesting connection to recent events of national security concern. According to the 123 national security violations filed against Hughes Satellite Corporation, a Fortuna company was involved in some questionable events.
The Sino-Canada Telecommunications and Investment Management Company was incorporated in Macao, "having its principal place of business at the Hotel Fortuna."
According to the State Department charges, the Sino-Canada Telecommunications Company also had contracted with Hughes for a large part of the APMT satellite then destined for China in 1995. In fact, Sino-Canada paid Hughes $5 million up front that was not reported to the State Department.
"Sino-Canada's managing director, Suen Yan Kwong, was the founder of Chung Kiu Telecommunication, which had invested in cellular telecommunications for use under special network by China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) in military districts along the coastal provinces," noted the December 2002 State Department charge letter.
It is amazing that a company based inside a Macao hotel owned by Ng Lapseng would contract with a U.S.-based satellite company when its owner was then also in business supplying communications to the Chinese army. Even more amazing is Hillary Clinton's silence on Ng Lapseng and the money that somehow slipped out of his pockets into DNC coffers at the same time.
U.N. inspector Hans Blix may be combing Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, but he may be in the wrong country. If Hans could comb through the boxes of materials lost by Hillary Clinton, he might find a treasure trove of weapons, money, drugs and espionage.
The Democrats could not have made a worse choice for America. Mrs. Clinton history's of hanging out with Chinese intelligence operatives and her negative view of all U.S. military forces makes her an obvious security threat. Now she is inside the very committee that oversees black budgets, secret military operations, advanced weapons policy and war.
|
|
|
Hillary Applauds Rangel
for Draft Proposal
Wednesday Jan. 15, 2003; 9:57 a.m. EST
Democratic Party presidential frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton said yesterday that she applauds Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-NY, for calling for a return to the military draft, as she prepared to accept a coveted spot on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Clinton, whose husband dodged three separate draft notices during the Vietnam War, told reporters that she "applauded" Rangel for reviving the draft debate, according to Newsday, although she doesn't see the need to return to military conscription at this time.
Mrs. Clinton's elevation to the Senate Armed Services Committee will give her a larger say in Congressional battles over the military's role in Iraq, North Korea and other global hot spots, as well as a significant role in influencing the military's budget.
During the Clinton administration, military budgets were slashed to the bone, leaving weapons procurement, combat readiness and troop morale at their lowest point since the Carter administration.
A year ago Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld sharply criticized the Clinton cutbacks <http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/1/20/121351, telling NBC's "Meet the Press," "The infrastructure had decayed and it is still decayed and it will take now probably six, eight, ten years to get it back to the place that it ought to be - It takes time to run-down a great military and it takes time to build one back up."
But as the 2004 election approaches, Mrs. Clinton has taken a more hawkish stance. Last May, for instance, she delivered a commander-in-chief-like speech <http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/5/17/231215 to a Long Island high school where she proclaimed that her new top priority was national security. Her national security address came just 24-hours after she slammed President Bush for ignoring a CIA warning that she hinted could have prevented the 9/11 attacks.
And just five months ago, Mr. Clinton, who once said he "loathed the military," suggested that he now had a different view, telling a Canadian audience that he was ready to "grab a rifle, get in a trench and fight and die" <http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/7/31/101825 for Israel.
In 1994, Mrs. Clinton boasted that she had once tried to join the Marines <http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/8/2/85318 but that a recruiter told her she was too old.
Before praising Rep. Rangel's draft proposal, Mrs. Clinton said she was "very excited" about her Armed Services appointment, acknowledging that it would give her a louder voice to "criticize or praise" President Bush, the New York Post said.
"As I learn more about the operations of our various military services," she added, "what I have to say may be better grounded."
Clinton will make her debut on the Armed Services Committee today, when she grills Defense Secretary Rumsfeld behind closed doors about Iraq. It could not be learned immediately whether she will also challenge Rumsfeld's critique of Clinton era military cutbacks.
|
|
|
PBS Shame On You
By Nonie Darwish
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 26, 2002
I am a former Moslem, born and raised in the Middle East. I am very disappointed and almost scared after watching your presentation about Islam. One of the reasons I fled to the United States of America was to escape the oppressive regime of Islam in the Middle East. From a former Moslem, these people are in the US to Islamize America and have a scary agenda. They audaciously buy churches and convert them into mosques!
I think your show was insensitive to the Judeo-Christian community of the United States. Islam is cruel, anti-women, anti-religious freedom and anti-personal freedom in general. How could you sympathize with a religion that kills adulterers, homosexuals and people who convert out of Islam? How could you present Islam with such affection? I am sorry that PBS failed to represent the oppression, fear and the straight jacket I had to endure when I lived under that crazy regime.
In the show, you stressed how the West should understand Islam. Why is America responsible for understanding every little and big culture and religion around the World, failing which we are branded bigots and racists? How about asking the Moslems if they could open their minds and hearts and understand the West? Perhaps they will slow down their terrorism, burning our flags and hijacking airplanes. Unfortunately, the Middle East has no clue about the American culture and they only judge us by Hollywood! How about US media educating Moslems about US culture and the virtues of our Constitution? Did that ever occur to you?
When I married a Christian man in my home country twenty-five years ago, I could have been killed by Moslems for daring to do so. I was questioned about my husband's religion even by Moslem workers at the US embassy, who asked me point blank if he converted to Islam, implicitly threatening to report me to Moslem authorities! I personally know Moslem women who were circumcised against their will! How could you defend a religion that declares a "fatwa", or death sentence, to anyone who is critical of the religion? How could you defend a religion that inspired 9/11? Of course not all Moslems are terrorists, but unfortunately, the majority of 'moderate' Moslems respect the fundamentalists as 'true' Moslems and even feel guilty toward them. If this were not true we should be seeing massive displays of support for the US, strong denouncements of radical Islam by the moderates. This has not happened. Instead, the most vocal Islamic groups in the West are taking a confrontational stance, complaining of discriminatory treatment, taking their cue from liberal civil-rights groups.
The liberal media is only too eager to egg them on.
I now write articles critical of Islam and speak to many groups about the Middle East but have to use a pseudonym so I do not get killed by some of your Moslem friends in the US mosques you were interviewing! They have no shame to be complaining of discrimination after 9/11, thanks to Media outlets like you who gave them a voice. The US goes out of its way to protect them. What discrimination? Are you kidding? These mosques in the US are financed by Saudi money and have an agenda and they scare people like me who want to write and speak freely. Scared and oppressed former Moslems like me could be killed by these Moslem extremists in US mosques. There are many moderate Moslems and former Moslems like me who feel intimidated by some US Moslem extremists. Former Moslems have to be given a voice on why they escaped Islam. People like me and oppressed Christians and Jews in the Moslem World had no say on your show. That is very sad. I wish you had defended my right to choose or reject Islam without getting killed.
Is Islam now the "in" thing to defend to sabotage America, or did Saudi money corrupt you?!
|
|
|
Kim Jong-clinton
Christopher Ruddy
Saturday, Dec. 28, 2002
FYI: This story broke on the wires - just in time for "Saturday Night Live" tonight. Enjoy!
Kim Jong-il, the Korean madman, announced today that, in an effort at reconciliation with the United States, he has renamed himself Kim Jong-clinton.
In a decree, Kim Jong-clinton also declared that all first born males herafter shall carry the name Kim Jong-bill, in honor of the 42nd president of the United States.
Kim Jong-clinton said, "I have taken this bold step on behalf of the people of Korea in an effort to build a bridge to the American people over the warmonger George Bush and his right-hand man Dick Cheney and his evil hatchet man Donald Rumsfeld."
Expressing his faith in the American people, Kim Jong-clinton said, "President Clinton showed, in his historic 1994 agreement with the Korean people, that mutual co-existence between Korea and the American people can be real."
Kim noted that in the agreement with Clinton, the U.S. not only sent billions of dollars in aid to his regime in the form of oil, but also kept his regime alive when other Stalinist regimes collapsed. Kim noted the billions in oil Clinton sent to North Korea freed up other resources so he could build nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
"At the same time, President Clinton showed the world the meaning of peace. As the revolutionary guard of the People's Republic of Korea has prepared weapons of war to use on America and to turn the occupied Korea into a sea of fire. President Clinton greatly reduced America's armed forces in every
area: in the sea, in the air and on land. For this, the Korean people are grateful."
Kim also said that all first born girls born in Korea from this date forward shall be named Kim Jong-hillary.
Kim praised Hillary Clinton for her recent demand that the Bush administration engage in negotiations.
"It is through negotiations that Korea has become a great nuclear power. We want America to continue to negotiate, as Bill Clinton did, as Hillary knows is best. The record shows we are for peace, that Bill Clinton was for peace, and that George Bush is for war," Kim said to wild applause at the annual meeting of Korea's CCCP.
President Clinton was unavailable for comment. His office said he was attending a Kwanzaa celebration today.
Several aides to the former president did speak off the record and clearly blamed the Korean crisis on President Bush and his national security team.
"Since Bill Clinton left the Oval Office, any major problem is to be blamed on the sitting president. Too bad and tough luck!" one Clinton aide said with a chuckle.
Other top-level Clinton aides, also speaking anonymously, said that when the Bush administration first set foot in the White House, the Clinton team warned the Bush people that "Korea should be your number one priority."
The former Clinton aides said they emphasized Korea as a priority, but also told the Bush team that al-Qaeda "should also be a number one priority, and handling Saddam Hussein is also a number one priority."
The Clinton aides also confirmed that they offered a "secret plan" to the incoming Bush administration to deal with Korea. Needless to say, that plan was summarily rejected by the Bush administration and its national security team.
The senior Clinton staffers also said the same Bush administration officials also rejected the Clinton administration's "secret plan to deal with al-Qaeda," as well as its "secret plan to topple Saddam Hussein."
Asked why, during eight years in office, Bill Clinton had allowed the enemies of the U.S. to grow so strong - to the point that America became vulnerable to a catastrophic event like 9/11 - former Clinton adviser and CNN commentator James Carville offered the simplest explanation: "It's the economy, stupid!"
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was also unavailable for comment; she was attending a civil rights protest in Trent Lott's hometown in Mississippi.
Her senior spokeswoman, Jean Braburner, did tell the press: "Mrs. Clinton believes the Bush administration should negotiate. Negotiate doesn't mean you are weak or naïve. It just means that other countries will respect you. It means you can buy time. Mrs. Clinton thinks the Republicans should stop exploiting her husband, Korea, Yassir Arafat and race issues for their political benefit."
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was unavailable for comment. She did appear briefly on the Phil Donahue show earlier this week and agreed with Donahue's conclusion.
Donahue told his audience: "You're not going to like this, but the white guys don't like the yellow guys. That's what this is all about. And the macho Texas white guy in the White House wants to do to Korea what the white guys did to Africa."
In an unusual twist, the Korea story did get the attention of Monica Lewinsky, who discussed the subject while attending the premiere of the HBO special on her life story.
"Bill Clinton was obsessed with Korea, I know it for a fact," Ms. Lewinsky said.
"Bill was also obsessed with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein," Lewinsky said, adding: "I know this personally. If you don't believe me, get out of my face, and Linda Tripp can go to hell."
|
|
|
Hollywood's Subversive Seven
James Hirsen, NewsMax.com
Monday, Dec. 30, 2002
This Left Coast Reporter just couldn't let the year end without giving a rundown on the lowest political blows from the celebrity set. Here's my choice for this year's Subversive Seven.
#7
In the past, he complained that President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton wasn't liberal enough. This year, he's accused President Bush of encouraging war with Iraq for mundane political reasons.
"I'm against this whole 'Let's bomb a new country because things aren't going our way,' " the actor recently snarled.
Guess when Monica was testifying and Clinton dropped a few big ones to distract us, things were going just peachy.
He's the award-winning Director of Drivel, Tim Robbins.
#6
She can belt out a tune but she can't type or spell worth beans.
In a memo to Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, she misspelled his name along with Saddam's. She informed "Gebhardt" that industries "run by big Republican donors and insiders, clearly have much to gain if we go to war against Iraq."
Her highly publicized bloopers were handled by blaming an underling.
A "Truth Alert" from her Web site indicated that a Republican/Conservative candidate had "blatantly misquoted" the diva, "fabricating outrageous quotes and completely misrepresenting" her "deep opposition to the Iranian dictator. ..."
She also told a $500-a-seat crowd at a Democratic fund raiser, "In the words of William Shakespeare, 'Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword.' "
Only problem was Shakespeare never penned the words. The quote was part of an Internet hoax.
After feeling a little down after the midterm elections, it looks as if she's refreshed and ready to fax again. Bet this time she'll be armed with an almanac, a dictionary and a book on the complete works of Shakespeare.
She's former spelling bee champion Barbra Streisand.
#5
Ever wonder why President Bush and his administration need to hang a military threat over the head of Saddam Hussein? Well, a guy who plays political top dog on TV seems to have it all figured out.
"I think he'd like to hand his father Saddam Hussein's head and win his approval for what happened after the 1991 Gulf War," the TV prez-turned-shrink speculated.
When you stop to think about it, isn't the implication of his statement pretty hideous - that the president, along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell and others, would sacrifice human life for petty pride? Oh, yeah, I forgot. He's just an actor.
He's TV Prez Joshua Bartlett, aka Martin Sheen.
#4
While in the U.K., he said it's America's fault that Saddam Hussein spends all of his money on building more palaces and weapons of mass destruction.
He calls the president "Shrub" and says he's a "warmonger ... who stole the White House."
Guess white men CAN jump -- to conclusions, that is. He's the ex-"Cheers" barkeep, Woody Harrelson.
#3
When over in Spain she blubbered, "I hate Bush. I despise him and his entire administration. ... It makes me feel ashamed to come from the United States
-- it is humiliating."
"Tootsie's" girlfriend informed us all that an attack on Iraq would be "unconstitutional, immoral and illegal."
I agree with the actress on one point. I'm ashamed she comes from the United States, too.
She's King Kong's main squeeze, Jessica Lange.
#2
These two dunderheads theorize that there's an ongoing effort by Bush and Co. to promote the administration's war machine. They say that because Hollywood is controlled by large corporations, war movies and violent films are shaped by the "interests of the Pentagon and the White House."
Their comments were reported on Radio Havana. Both happened to be attending a film festival in the commie paradise of Cuba.
The Banana-boated one, who apparently thinks Fidel Castro is fantastico, told the press that Sept. 11 gave President Bush an excuse to implement plans "to control the world militarily, economically and culturally."
He told a radio audience in southern California: "Colin Powell is committed to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he'll be turned back out to pasture."
Looks like the pair are going for a remake of "Beavis and Butthead." They're the more than moronic Harry Belefonte and the less than lovable Danny Glover.
#1
The Institute for Public Accuracy sent him on a search for the truth. Nothing like meeting with Saddam's ministers to get to the bottom of things.
"I have the privileged opportunity to pursue a deeper understanding of this frightening conflict," he said in a written statement.
The paparazzi puncher was in Baghdad "to learn and not to teach." And he apparently learned a pretty painful lesson. The seminar was taught courtesy of the Iraqi press.
According to the Iraqi News Service, he confirmed that Iraq was "completely clear of weapons of mass destruction" and that the "United Nations must adopt a positive stance toward Iraq."
Before he could issue a denial or clarification, the New York Post published the top 10 reasons why the actor would make a great U.N. arms inspector, including the one that said "after 'Shanghai Surprise,' " he "certainly knows what a bomb looks like."
Guess everyone knows he'll always be Spicoli. He's Ridgemont High's most famous dunce, Sean Penn.
Next year promises to be another celebrity-blabbing record setter. Keep you posted.
|
|
|
Catastrophe: Clinton's Role in America's Worst Disaster
NewsMax journalists Christopher Ruddy and Carl Limbacher have a blockbuster new book published on September 11, 2002. It's called Catastrophe: Clinton's Role in America's Worst Disaster - and tells the real story of 9/11 - the one the big media are afraid to report.
Catastrophe begins on January 20, 1993, when William Jefferson Clinton took the oath of office as the 42nd president of the United States of America. Clinton swore to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" from enemies both foreign and domestic.
During the next eight years, Bill Clinton would preside over the most corrupt administration in American history. He would be only the second president in American history to be impeached. When Bill Clinton took office, American supremacy on the world stage had never been so great and unchallenged. Our military was without equal. The economy was beginning a record boom.
Soon after Bill Clinton left office, Americans began to discover his bitter legacy. Even as Clinton was leaving Washington, the American economy had begun to move into a serious recession. And America's belief in invulnerability was shattered on September 11, 2001, when 19 Arab hijackers slammed civilian jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
As Catastrophe: Clinton's Role in America's Worst Disaster demonstrates, the events of September 11 not only were predictable after eight years of Clinton, but they also could have been prevented. Catastrophe exposes what really happened during the Clinton years, and how Bill Clinton and his administration systematically undermined America's national security by emasculating the U.S. military and the nation's intelligence agencies. Bill Clinton made America vulnerable to attack.
Here are just some of the revelations from Catastrophe:
And there is much, much more in Catastrophe, including:
Catastrophe is a wake-up call to Americans. This is the book that reveals the real story - without media censorship. Gen. Jack Singlaub says, "Every American needs to get and read Catastrophe. It reveals Bill Clinton's role in 9-11 and what America must do to prevent future attacks."
|
|
|
Col. Hackworth: Stick
With Containing Saddam
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax
Wednesday, Dec. 11, 2002
Although war hero, journalist and military advocate, retired Army Col. David Hackworth colorfully tells NewsMax that a new war with Iraq would result in "slam, bam, good-bye Saddam," he is dead set against the U.S. ever launching such a campaign.
He is also warning that if war breaks out, he has little doubt Saddam will use weapons of mass destruction against U.S. targets.
"It's a question of misdirected priorities," says Hackworth. "Containment has worked with Iraq; focus attention on the main event - fighting terrorism."
Hack says he is hardly alone in his thinking, having sounded out senior military officers both present and past, noting such figures as retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni and retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, who are also firm advocates of containment over war.
Hackworth has an extensive Pentagon rolodex and he says that the top brass is almost unified in opposition to an outright invasion of Iraq.
The former colonel says that the higher the rank the more opposed to striking Iraq.
"I've got a whole platoon of colonels in the Pentagon that are very vocal about the policies coming out of the White House," he says. "They all favor containment."
So where did this lust to war against Saddam come from?
Hackworth's ready answer to NewsMax: Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who he says, "was advocating that Iraq should go long before 9-11."
According to Hack, Wolfowitz was writing war plans to dispose of Saddam early on in the administration. Currently the hawkish defense official and right-hand-man to Donald Rumsfeld wants to use the relatively successful American campaign in Afghanistan as a "template" to neutralize Iraq.
Says Hackworth, Wolfowitz apparently went too far in pressing his template model, advocating that the military go in lean and mean rather than with heavy forces as in the 1991 Gulf War.
But folks like Central Command chief Gen. Tommy Franks "put his stars on the line," holding out for a force of about 250, 000.
In the meantime, as the politics are played out and inspectors come and go, U.S. military operatives in the region are working overtime on what Hack styles as "psy-ops" or a psychological warfare campaign. A key element of that campaign, says Hack, is talking with Iraqi Army commanders via cell phone, going so far as to discuss rally points for surrender if the Coalition invasion ever steps off.
'Nothing to Lose'
Hackworth is of the opinion that if the hot war ever starts, only about 10 to 30 thousand of Saddam's elite forces will put up much of a fight. "They'll go down swinging because they have nothing to lose," he says. "They know that they will be tried as war criminals."
Although Hackworth's last war was Vietnam, he was a Newsweek war correspondent in the Gulf in 1991. There he got to see first hand the things that fuel his strong opinions.
He describes even the vaunted Republican Guard troops as "pitiful," recalling corroded ammunition and tank trends.
So if it's a "slam, bam, thank you" situation, why not just go in and take him out like the administration has been talking about for so long?
"When Saddam knows he is going down for the count, he will employ his weapons of mass destruction," Hackworth opines.
Taking Care of the Troops
And therein lies the rub for this former enlisted man who rose through the ranks in two wars. He is used to taking care of his men - just like Franks or Zinni. And like his fellows who have experienced the ravages of war, he balks from putting our troops into the toxic maelstrom of another Gulf War.
"We've got 160,000 disabled from the first Gulf War," Hack explains to NewsMax. That, considering the number who served in that brief conflict, translates into the highest casualty rate of any modern war.
Hackworth is also quick to share stories from the field he is hearing about the deficiencies of our troops' bio-chemical protective gear. "The only thing new since the Gulf War is an improved gas mask," he laments.
Would you like to return to the Gulf as a war correspondent in the next one?
"Not in a million years," says Hackworth, citing the same concerns over the toxic battlefield that spawned the mysterious "Gulf War Illness," that cut like a scythe through the ranks of the first band of warriors to invade that foreign and hostile land.
Fighting House to House Unlikely
And how about those nightmare scenarios some paint about our troops fighting house-to-house in Baghdad and other population centers in Iraq?
Never going to happen, says Hackworth, citing the example of Tora Bora the labyrinthine cave system in Afghanistan that was eventually scoured by the Afghans - not U.S. troops.
"Urban warfare is a stupid way to fight a war," says Hackworth, who relates that his sources on the ground in the Iraq region are telling him that word from on high is that there will be no urban fighting if and when the balloon goes up.
And it's a good thing that we are apparently being smart about this issue, Hackworth says. "Saddam has a library full of Stalin books. He is a student of the battle of Stalingrad, where the soviets fought the German Army to a standstill and turned the tide of World War Two." As in that infamous battle, Hackworth suggests that snipers would reign supreme in the urban environment.
Hack's suggested tactic to by-pass such a golden opportunity for Saddam: "Encircle the city, shut down the water and electricity; they will capitulate in weeks."
And to speed the process along, suggests Hackworth, "Shoot in some non-lethal stuff like Ex-lax."
Some life-saving practical advice from an old warrior -
|
|
|
Saudi Arabia: No Friend of Ours
Wednesday, December 11, 2002
By Ken Adelman
You're either with us or against us, has been President Bush's clear mantra. Well, I'm with the president in the war against terrorism on everything -- except -- his stance towards Saudi Arabia. That's because the Saudis aren't with him on terrorism. Oh, they may be with him officially -- in the narrow confines of government-to-government ties -- but they're sure not with him in the real world beyond.
Seen through the narrow lens of official dealings, U.S.-Saudi relations are close, tightened by the glitzy Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar. "Oozing charm from every pore, he oils his way across the floor," said Henry Higgins of another fawning diplomat in My Fair Lady. Prince Bandar oils his way across Washington with oil dollars to lobbyists and PR flacks. He treats our capital something like Jakarta or Kiev, where government officials can be bought outright.
Consequently, the Saudi ruler gets the big prize: A visit to the Bush ranch. Even the ambassador gets hours in Crawford, Texas, with the president in blue jeans. Other foreign ambassadors -- whether they're from Britain, Mexico or Russia -- can't get even a 10-minute meeting with the president. No wonder Secretary of State Colin Powell last week called Saudi Arabia "a great friend to the United States for many, many years and a strategic partner."
Yet looking beyond government-to-government relations makes Secretary Powell's remarks simply mind-bending. For Saudi Arabia is no "great friend" to our values. Saudi Arabia ranks rock bottom on granting civil or political freedom. Along with the "axis of evil" states, it stands among the most repressive regimes on Earth. And without doubt it is one of the most corrupt regimes in the world, probably even worse than the three "axis of evil" states.
Saudi Arabia is no "great friend" to religions most Americans practice. Christians cannot hold Mass or a church service anywhere in Saudi Arabia. Even carrying a Bible into the country, or handing out Christian literature, is grounds for deportation or arrest. Most infuriating, U.S. soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia -- risking their lives to protect that regime -- cannot walk down a Saudi street with a crucifix showing around the neck.
Saudi Arabia is no "great friend" to the real war on terrorism. Recently, Prince Bandar's wife was in hot water over allegations that she indirectly gave money to the Sept. 11 terrorists. This has been hotly debated. Saudi spin doctors claim she'd never try to help terrorists, since her own father was murdered by Islamic extremists in the 1970s. Further investigation shows that her father, the king, was indeed murdered in the 1970s -- not by an Islamic fanatic, but by his nephew, a drug addict long tripping on LSD.
Regardless, it's certain that Saudi royal family members have been paying protection money to Saudi-led terrorists for a long time now. Court documents filed last fall claim that Saudi royal family members met with Usama bin Laden and gave over $300 million to Al Qaeda terrorists for a pledge of no terrorism in Saudi Arabia itself. The Saudis adamantly deny any involvement in terrorism, or even the reality of Sept. 11. Just last week, the Saudi minister of interior, Prince Nayef, returned to the old canard that the 19 terrorists didn't hit the World Trade Center on Sept. 11.
"I think they [Zionists] are behind these events," he said. According to the Saudi press, the prince "noted that it is impossible that 19 youths including ... Saudis carried out the operation of September 11, or that bin Laden or the Al Qaeda organization did that alone." That sure doesn't sound like the words of a "great friend" of ours. The Saudis have long funded groups promoting terrorism -- to the tune of $3 billion to $4 billion yearly -- but as an export item, and not for home use. This grand deal has worked just dandy.
Once the whispers of diplomats and dealings among officials determined everything. A few men, with all the power, dealt with another few men from another country. Each small group controlled the knowledge, weapons and big decisions of its people. That world's gone. The most critical knowledge has spread beyond the corridors of government. Destructive weaponry obviously is no longer the monopoly of governments, as we've been reminded recently in Mombasa and Bali.
Big decisions in most of the world are made by rough consensus -- often molded by great leaders, for sure -- but nonetheless sticking only if widely accepted. What counts nowadays is what happens beyond government-to-government dealings. That's where the bulk of power has gone. The Saudis may be with us officially, but they're sure not with us where it counts nowadays.
Kenneth Adelman is a frequent guest commentator on Fox News, was assistant to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld from 1975 to 1977 and, under President Ronald Reagan, U.N. ambassador and arms-control director. Mr. Adelman is now co-host of TechCentralStation.com. <http://www.techcentralstation.com/
|
|
|
Is there anyone else out there who's sick and tired of all the polls being taken in foreign countries as to whether or not they "like" us? The last time I looked, the word "like" had nothing to do with foreign policy. I prefer 'respect' or 'fear'. They worked for Rome, which civilized and kept the peace in the known world a hell of a lot longer than our puny two centuries-plus.
I see a left-wing German got elected to office recently by campaigning against the foreign policy of the United States. Yeah, that's what I want, to be lectured to about war and being a "good neighbor" by a German. Their head honcho said they wouldn't take part in a war against Iraq. Kind of nice, to see them taking a pass on a war once in while. Perhaps we needed to have the word "World" in front of War. I think it's time to bring our boys home from Germany. Outside of the money we'd save, we'd make the Germans "like" us a lot more, after they started paying the bills for their own defense.
Last time I checked, France isn't too fond of us either. They sort of liked us back on June 6th, 1944, though, didn't they? If you don't think so, see how nicely they take care of the enormous American cemeteries up above the Normandy beaches. For those of you who've studied history, we also have a few cemeteries in places like Belleau Wood and Chateau Thierry. For those of you who haven't studied it, that was from World War One, the first time Europe screwed up and we bailed out the French. That's where the US Marines got the title 'Devil Dogs' or, if you still care about what the Germans think, "Teufelhunde". I hope I spelled that right; sure wouldn't want to offend anyone, least of all a German.
Come to think of it, when Europe couldn't take care of their Bosnian problem recently, guess who had to help out there also. Last time I checked, our kids are still there. I sort of remember they said they would be out in a year. Gee, how time flies when you're having fun.
Now we hear that the South Koreans aren't too happy with us either. They "liked" us a lot better, of course, in June 1950. It took more than 50,000 Americans killed in Korea to help give them the lifestyle they currently enjoy, but then who's counting? I think it's also time to bring the boys home from there. There are about 37,000 young Americans on the DMZ separating the South Koreans from their "brothers" up North. Maybe if we leave, they can begin to participate in the "good life" that North Korea currently enjoys. Uh-huh. Sure.....
I also understand that a good portion of the Arab/Moslem world now doesn't "like" us either. Did anyone ever sit down and determine what we would have to do to get them to like us? Ask them what they would like us to do. Die? Commit ritual suicide? Bend over? Maybe we should follow the advice of our dimwitted, dullest knife in the drawer, Senator Patty Murray, and build more roads, hospitals, day care centers, and orphanages like Osama bin Laden does. What with all the orphans Osama has created, the least he can do is build some places to put them. Senator Stupid says that if we would only "emulate" Osama, the Arab world would love us.
Sorry Patty; in addition to the fact that we already do all of those things around the world and have been doing them for over sixty years, I don't take public transportation, and I certainly wouldn't take it with a bomb strapped to the guy next to me.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not in favor of going to war. Been there, done that. Several times, in fact. But I think we ought to have some polls in this country about other countries, and see if we "like" them. Problem is, if you listed the countries, not only wouldn't the average American know if he liked them or not, he wouldn't be able to find them. If we're supposed to worry about them, how about them worrying about us?
We were nice to the North Koreans in 1994, as we followed the policies of Neville Clinton. And it seemed to work; they didn't re-start their nuclear weapons program for a whole year or so. In the meantime, we fed them when they were starving, and put oil in their stoves when they were freezing.
In a recent visit to Norway, I engaged in a really fun debate with my cousin's son, a student at a Norwegian University. I was lectured to by this thankless squirt about the American "Empire", and scolded about dropping the atomic bomb on the Japanese. I reminded him that empires usually keep the stuff they take; we don't, and back in 1945 most Norwegians thought dropping ANY kind of bomb on Germany or Japan was a good idea. I also reminded him that my uncle / his grandfather and others in our family spent a significant amount of time in Sachsenhausen concentration camp, courtesy of the Germans, and they didn't all survive. I further reminded him that if it wasn't for the "American Empire" he would probably be speaking German or Russian.
Sorry about the rambling, but I just took an unofficial poll here at our house, and we don't seem to like anyone anymore.
|
|
|
Question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your hand is a .357 Magnum and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
Liberal Answer:
Conservative Answer:
|
|
|
BAGRAM, Afghanistan (AP) -- Robin Williams bounds into a bombed-out airplane hangar, his arms wide, his body cocked as if about to catapult into the crowd. It ain't Carnegie Hall, but no matter. Williams is ready to entertain.
"Good morning, Afghanistan!" he bellows, and the crowd of soldiers at Bagram Air Base erupts into cheers. Some clamber on top of shipping pallets, craning for a better view of the comedian.
"I had a lovely military flight, thank you," Williams says. "I love spiraling in -- nothing like that to make your colon go, `Fire in the hole!"'
The soldiers laugh knowingly, and Williams points to the bullet holes in the walls. "And I love the lovely Afghan renovation in the wall!" An aide adjusts his microphone; Williams grabs it and drops into a stage whisper.
"I feel like we're at a golf match," he says, and mimics a sportscaster's voice: "Here we are at the third hole of the Afghan Open. We can't play the 10th hole because it's still mined."
On and on the jokes go, each manic gag getting a bigger laugh. After all, Bagram Air Base is a place short on humor -- a harsh, dusty place where soldiers work 12-hour shifts, six and seven days a week, in pursuit of an elusive enemy.
"These guys work so hard, it's good when someone like this comes over and shows support," said Sgt. Jason Gray, 26, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Williams visited Thursday as part of a tour that also included bases in Kandahar, southern Afghanistan, and Qarshi, Uzbekistan. The Army allowed reporters to attend on the condition that they not report on it until he left the country on Sunday. Williams' manager had asked for the restriction because the comedian's family was worried about his safety in a war zone, Col. Roger King said.
Williams spent a day and night at Bagram. He didn't give a full show, but shook countless hands, ate dinner in the mess hall and signed autographs amid a stream of wisecracks. "Ah! Whose hand is that?" he squealed while posing for photos with a group of airmen.
At one point, he picked up an M204B heavy machine gun and struck a "Rambo" pose for cameras as hardened GIs guffawed.
The troops in Afghanistan have not had many famous visitors. Rocker Joan Jett played a concert here last month, and there was a show by Taps & Blue, an Air Force variety troupe. Outback Steakhouse sent chefs to cook a meal at the base in Kandahar, but otherwise there have been few special events to break up the long hours of work.
Williams' visit had some hitches. During the visit to the hangar, his manager insisted that no pictures of the comedian include a gun, evoking snickers from the troops. At Bagram, every soldier is required to carry a weapon at all times.
Still, the troops were grateful, and Williams stayed in the hangar until the last autograph was signed. After he departed, the soldiers headed back to work, many of them clutching signed photos.
"This one is going to my wife," said Chief Warrant Officer Todd Champagne of Fayetteville, Va. "It's nice to have someone famous here. It's nice to know they think about you."
|
|
|
Ignoble Laureates
By Neil J. Kressel
October 13, 2002
LE Duc Tho, a chief architect of North Vietnam's vicious war of aggression, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 for an agreement that he and his government soon tore to shreds.
Yasser Arafat, that legendary humanitarian, took the honors in 1994.
And now comes Jimmy Carter - a well-intentioned bumbler whose forays into foreign affairs have been, to be nice, counterproductive.
Clearly, the Nobel folks haven't a clue about the real origins of war and peace. If they had, they might, for example, have given the 1981 award to the Israeli Defense Force for destroying Iraq's nuclear reactor and saving the world from two decades of a plutonium-enriched Saddam.
For years, the most fitting candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize has been the American G.I. No institution has done more to preserve peace and justice during the previous half-century than the U.S. military. After 9/11 and the American response - not to mention humanitarian missions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia and elsewhere - the case for such an award has grown.
But don't expect the Nobel eminences to follow that course any time soon.
Since its beginning in 1901, the prize has often gone to scoundrels and simpletons. In 1908, the committee honored Klas Pontus Arnoldson, a man whose chief contribution to peace was a worldwide petition calling for the abolition of armed forces. Now, there's a man with a plan.
In 1934, precisely when clear thinking and rearmament in the democracies might have stopped Nazi aggression dead in its tracks - with almost no casualties - the Nobel committee honored Britain's Arthur Henderson, the world's foremost advocate of disarmament.
The German winner in 1926, Gustav Stresemann, had recently come to support international cooperation. But he also made his name, in part, advocating unrestricted submarine warfare against civilian shipping in World War I.
Sure, some of the winners have been great humanitarians. Consider Lech Walesa, Andrei Sakharov, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer and Elie Wiesel. Still others have been responsible democratic statesmen, like Gen. George Marshall, Henry Kissinger and Israel's Yitzhak Rabin.
The real problem with the Nobel committee is not its politics - though, sometimes, like now, its bias is extreme and insidious.
The trouble is that any award for activities contributing to peace must hit up against a wall of paradoxes and contradictions.
No matter how much global leaders want peace, they cannot make it their all-abiding goal without allowing peace-loving nations to become hostage to ruthless dictators. That, in a nutshell, is the Saddam Hussein problem.
Often, toughness makes peace more likely, disarmament and compromise make it less so.
Nor does the quest for peace always go hand in hand with a desire for justice. In the Civil War, it was the war party in the North that showed the greatest commitment to racial justice. The Cold War nuclear-freeze activists ignored the cry of dissidents.
Reverence for peace agreements is frequently short-sighted - if one's goal is lasting peace. One of the wisest decisions of the 20th century, after all, was to carry the war against Japan and Germany to the bitter end. Only then could the reconstruction of responsible nations begin.
A negotiated solution with Saddam Hussein after he invaded Kuwait would have been disastrous, and as we now know ending that war too soon was no contribution to peace.
So, forget the Nobel committee's bizarre choices. The real guarantors of peace and freedom are singing "From the Halls of Montezuma" and humming "Anchors Aweigh."
Neil J. Kressel is the author of 'Mass Hate: The Global Rise of Genocide and Terror."
Email: kresseln@wpunj.edu
|
|
|
The Usual Suspects Line
Up Against America
Monday, Oct. 7, 2002
Barbra Streisand, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Danny Glover, Martin Sheen, Jessica Lange, Ed Asner, Joanne Woodward and, of course, Hanoi Jane Fonda are banding together to protest President Bush's policies, especially the potential attack on Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
This latest revival of the Vietnam era anti-war movement is beginning to resemble the vicious rhetoric of many of that movement's supporters. In Madrid last week, for example, "Tootsie" star Hope Lange said she "hates" Bush and described his call for an attack on Iraq as "unconstitutional, immoral and illegal."
In a turnabout from last year's joint White House-Hollywood effort to boost Tinseltown' support for the war against terrorism, hosts of Hollywood celebrities have signed the "Not In Our Name" anti-war declaration that ran as a paid advertisement in the Los Angeles Times on Friday and last month in The New York Times.
According to USA Today's Cesar G. Soriano, such left-coast luminaries as playwright Tony Kushner, filmmaker Oliver Stone, actor Ossie Davis, performer Mos Def, writer Gore Vidal and historian/author Howard Zinn have all signed the anti-Bush declaration which also blasts the government's treatment of Arab-Americans and threats on civil liberties.
On Sunday, Soriano reports, the Not In Our Name hate Bush crowd held an anti-war rally in New York City's Central Park that included long-time leftist Sheen, Robbins and Sarandon. Sheen, the actor who plays an American president on the NBC drama The West Wing, urged protesters to put pressure on their congressional representatives to oppose Bush's quest for the authority to wage war.
"I don't think that a military expansion of violence is the solution," Sarandon told reporters in Scotland recently, According to USA Today. she also narrated a documentary supported by Bruce Springsteen and Howard Zinn about the importance of protecting post-Sept. 11 civil liberties. The documentary " First Monday 2002, premieres at college campuses nationwide today.
Not In Our Name rally organizer Mary Lou Greenberg told USA Today that American celebrities fear being labeled anti-American. "In this country, when Bush says 'You're either with us or with the terrorists,' that's a deliberate effort to discourage people from speaking out," she says.
"As a publicist, I would advise my clients to stay away from the topic," R.J. Garis, a publicist and damage control expert told USA Today.
Missing from the Hollywood blast America contingent are Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg who said they could not support Saddam Hussein if Bush's reasons for attacking are accurate. Spielberg, however, later said "It was never my intention to give an endorsement."
|
|
|
Thanks to JD Stephens for forwarding this
Dear Civilians,
We know that the current state of affairs in our great nation have many civilians up in arms and excited to join the military. For those of you who can't join, you can still lend a hand. Here are a few of the areas we would like your assistance with:
1) The next time you see someone (an adult) talking during the playing of the National Anthem ... kick their ass.
2) When you witness firsthand someone burning the American Flag in protest ... kick their ass. If you see this on television, as many of us have, you are simply required to have a deep burning suddenly arise inside of you ... then go and kick their ass.
3) Regardless of the rank they held while they served, pay the highest amount of respect to all Veterans. If you see anyone doing otherwise, quietly pull them aside and explain how these Veterans fought for the very freedom they bask in every second. Enlighten them on the many sacrifices these Veterans made to make this Nation great, even if they were a cook, pencil pusher, technician and so forth. Then hold them down while the Veteran kicks their ass.
4) If you are not in the military, DO NOT pretend that you are. Wearing battle dress uniforms (BDU's), telling others that you used to be "Special Forces", and collecting GI Joe memorabilia might have been okay if you were still seven, but now it will only get your ass kicked. (Veterans are exempt from this rule)
5) If you witness someone calling an enlisted Marine "Sir," stand back ... a Marine will kick their ass.
6) Next time you come across an Air Force member, do not ask them "Do you fly a jet? Not everyone in the Air Force is a pilot. A Marine will be called to kick your ass (children are exempt).
7) Roseanne Barr's singing of the National Anthem is not a blooper....it was a disgrace and disrespectful. Laugh and sooner or later, your ass will be kicked.
8) Next time Old Glory prances by during a parade, get on your damn feet and pay homage to her and the military member or Veteran lucky enough to carry her. Your stupid funnel cake will forgive you if you stand for 5 minutes with your hand over your heart. You might as well be throwing the funnel cake at the flag if you don't stand ... of course, either will earn you a severe ass kicking.
9) What Jane Fonda did about Vietnam makes her the enemy ... hate her or else (asses will be kicked). In case you're too young you can read all about Hanoi Jane here.
10) Don't try to discuss politics to a military member. We might vote as separate parties, but that doesn't mean we don't all bleed the same. We are, simply put, Americans. Our military Chain of Command, to include our Commander in Chief...the President... (for those who didn't know) is all that we acknowledge. We have no inside track on what happens inside those big important buildings where all those "representatives" meet. The military member might direct you to Oliver North. (I can see him kicking your ass already.)
11) Bin Laden and the Taliban are not communists. So stop saying, "Let's go kill those Commie's!!!" And stop asking us where he is!!!! Crystal balls are not standard issue in the military. That reminds me...if you see anyone calling those damn psychic phone numbers, let me know. So I can kick their ass.
12) Last but not least, whether or not you become a member of the military, support our troops and their families. Every Thanksgiving and Christmas that you enjoy with family and friends, there are thousands of troops overseas.
Thank God for our military and the sacrifices they make every day. Without them, our country would get its ass kicked.
|
|
|
Article below supposedly provided by a U.S. General Officer, good reading - the last section is the best.
Ground war will be run by CINC's man on the spot, the Commander of 10th Mountain Division. (The CINC isn't trying to run the war via video from Tampa - he has a hell of a lot more to run besides Afghanistan, and that is his job and his place). As any other senior officer who has grown up in a branch culture, the 2-star 10th Mtn Division commander is most comfortable with Army and will primarily rely on them to be the lion's share of the offense on the ground. That's the way they are designed and supported. I think the performance during ANACONDA was a bit of an eye opener.
Intel very hard to pin down - it's not a perfect world. Afghans often playing both sides of the fence, thus the senior leaders have to be cautious. Don't think they thought resistance would be as bad initially as they found. Al Qaeda were well-entrenched and prepared to fight. UK SAS had a significant cave fight on a small complex last fall, and it was a brutal close quarter battle.
That should have keyed us to always be thinking they will do the same anytime we find pockets of them, especially if you intend to surround them and provide no "back door" for escape (setting up ambushes to catch them just as they think they've gotten out. ANACONDA AO almost impossible to close off (huge and rough terrain), and locals supported Al Qaeda in many ways. We nailed a lot of them, but a lot got away. We can expect more of the same in the future. Certainly not a failure, and we'll take them out 100 at a time or 2 at a time, it matters not. The end will be the same, just might take longer. SF A Teams doing dynamite mixing in with locals and doing their thing.
USAF CCT doing incredibly well calling in heavy fire and bombs from above with precision. USAF PJs have been on every hot mission supporting as combat medics. Unfortunately, there's still some mistaken concept out there that SEALs are only comfortable in water. A target is a target, and very few are on water. SEALs learned long ago to conduct raids, ambushes, recon missions, hit buildings, bridges, and encampments anywhere they exist. Multiple units of SEALs are on the ground searching caves, conducting raids, and moving by helo and organic ground combat vehicles (yes they have some), taking the fight to the enemy. (SEALs have had a mountain warfare capability for decades - they just don't advertise everything they can do.
Conventional forces and leaders may not have gotten the word) SEALs are raiding alongside other raiding brothers from the Army SF's top unit, UK SAS and SBS, Australian SAS, New Zealand SAS, German KSK, Dutch commandos, and Canadian JTF-s commandos and infantry. (When the Pentagon doesn't tell you exactly who is conducting some of these raids, there's a reason. They also don't report every action that takes place) We now also need to get the USMC out there raiding also. There's plenty to go around and rotating troops will help keep them fresher. The Marines can move fast, however, and having them offshore on the ships for now allows commanders the option to go into other countries quickly if an intelligence windfall identifies something that needs to be hit quickly, such as in Somalia or Yemen.
UK 45 Commando now coming in to help out, with more rough terrain expertise. Air war has been a beacon of technological genius. Unfortunately it can't do it alone. Combined with ground forces, it's extremely lethal. Army Apache gunship helos worked well until they got shot up badly at beginning of ANACONDA (but they delivered a hell of a fight where fast movers couldn't go), requiring re-intro of older (but also extremely lethal) USMC Cobras.
Underestimation appeared in a couple spots at beginning of ANACONDA, but US was always in the drivers seat and will remain so. All helo pilots, USA, USAF, and USMC, have shown extreme courage in their operations under incredibly difficult circumstances. You have to ride these at night into a brown out situation where they kick up dust until you can't see, on night vision goggles to understand. Throw in RPGs and machinegun fire, and most people would be shaking in their boots. These guys all eat it up.
As far as the SEAL story goes, the full truth may never actually come out. MH-47 was hit just before landing a recon team by an RPG that failed to detonate, but went through back end. Roberts (Petty Officer 1st Class Neil Roberts (SEAL)) was either assisting a USAF spec ops guy who fell on the rear ramp as a result of the hit, or was knocked down as he stood on the ramp. When 2 more RPGs hit the helo, a hydraulic line was severed and the helo went critical, jinxed, and tried to bolt out of there, hydraulic spray all over, peppered by bullets as it flew away. In the confusion in the darkened rear, Roberts fell out off the ramp. He was a SAW gunner and his light machinegun fell in side the helo. He hit the ground with a pistol and 2 hand grenades. The helo, having been shot up badly, was barely able to go 8 kilometers before being put down.
They were lucky. Roberts was noted missing enroute, but the helo was in an emergency mode, pilots fighting to keep it from crashing at any moment, and in no condition to try to double back at the moment. After landing, the recon team immediately boarded a sister helo and went back to get Roberts, inserted nearby and immediately got in a firefight. Meanwhile, Roberts crawled from where he fell about 200 feet or yards (not certain which) to hide, activated his emergency beacon. 60 + heavily armed Al Qaeda in the area. When the rescue helo came back, a machinegun opened up on it as it came in.
Realizing the gravity of the situation, Roberts totally disregarded his safety and attacked it with a handgun and his grenades. He was killed in a close quarter firefight, incredibly outnumbered and outgunned. The commandos on the ground were able to hold against heavy odds. Another rescue force was launched and flew max speed to the area, inserting a couple hours later. Rangers, CCT, PJs poured out and right into an extremely heavy firefight. That's where the other 6 got killed, many wounded. This was a brutal slugfest of a firefight. Close air support called in and the fight was on for about 9-12 hours. US commandos finally won, and more helos and forces inserted to recover wounded, KIA. Roberts body recovered as well.
Predator watched after he was shot as 3 Al Qaeda dragged his body from where he was shot - he was already dead. For my money, Roberts and the others who came to try to rescue him deserve at least the Silver Star if not more.
True heroes, taking it to the enemy, so we can all relax at home in the U.S. safer from terrorist attack. Believe it or not, this incident is only one of several unbelievable combat actions yet untold. SAS is pushing for one of their men to get the Victoria Cross as a result of the cave fight last fall (And he clearly deserves it from all accounts). UK SBS was in an extremely heavy firefight early in the action last fall. There are other US stories that have not (and may not) be told that are equally incredible, if not more.
Stay tuned ... whether we need heroes or not, the forces are clearly and eagerly going hand to hand and man on man with the Al Qaeda. We may underestimate from time to time in small battles, but the Al Qaeda have clearly underestimated what we were going to be like on the battlefield compared to their Soviet experience. The other reason we need the appropriate top awards pinned on these heroes is this - Let the message go forth to the Al Qaeda, other terrorists, and those who want to back them anywhere on the globe.
Think you're tough? You want to kill our families, blow up civilians?
Stand by! We are sending our very best to hunt you down and take you out.
These are the guys who are coming to get you. These are the guys who will climb into the mountains and into the darkened caves halfway around the world and look you in the eye, toe to toe, with any weapon at hand (ours or yours), to take you out.
These guys have trained longer, are stronger, harder, faster, tougher, and more relentless and lethal than anything you will ever produce. And we will arm them with the best money can buy, from Spectre gunships and thermobaric bombs to knives sharper than any box cutter you can sneak on a plane.
They are now on your trail. They're hunting you down. How's it feel to be a terrorist now?
Never bring a box cutter to a Jihad.
|
|
|
Since the Pledge of Allegiance and The Lord's Prayer are not allowed in most public schools anymore because the word "God" is mentioned .... a kid in Arizona wrote the new school prayer below.
Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.
If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow Becomes a Federal matter now.
Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.
We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such "judgments" do not belong.
We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.
It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!
Amen
|
|
|
Words Of A Very Wise Retired Marine
I Will NOT Forget!
I sat in a movie theater watching "Schindler's List," asked myself, "Why didn't the Jews fight back?" Now I know why.
I sat in a movie theater, watching "Pearl Harbor and asked myself, "Why weren't we prepared?" Now I know why.
Civilized people cannot fathom, much less predict, the actions of evil people. On September 11, 2001 dozens of capable airplane passengers allowed themselves to be overpowered by a handful of poorly armed terrorists because they did not comprehend the depth of hatred that motivated their captors.
On September 11, thousands of innocent people were murdered because too many Americans naively reject the reality that some nations are dedicated to the dominance of others. Many political pundits, pacifists and media personnel want us to forget the carnage. They say we must focus on the bravery of the rescuers and ignore the cowardice of the killers. They implore us to understand the motivation of the perpetrators. Major television stations have announced they will assist the healing process by not replaying devastating footage of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers.
I will not be manipulated. I will not pretend to understand. I will not forget.
I will not forget the liberal media who abused freedom of the press to kick our country when it was vulnerable and hurting.
I will not forget that CBS anchor Dan Rather preceded President Bush's address to the nation with the snide remark, "No matter how you feel about him, he is still our president."
I will not forget that ABC TV anchor Peter Jennings questioned President Bush's motives for not returning immediately to Washington, DC and commented, "We're all pretty skeptical and cynical about Washington."
And I will not forget that ABC's Mark Halperin warned if reporters weren't informed of every little detail of this war, they aren't "likely -- nor should they be expected -- to show deference."
I will not isolate myself from my fellow Americans by pretending an attack on the USS Cole in Yemen was not an attack on the United States of America.
I will not forget the Clinton administration equipped Islamic terrorists and their supporters with the world's most sophisticated telecommunications equipment and encryption technology, thereby compromising America's ability to trace terrorist radio, cell phone, land lines, faxes and modem communications.
I will not be appeased with pointless, quick retaliatory strikes like those perfected by the previous administration.
I will not be comforted by "feel-good, do nothing" regulations like the silly "Have your bags been under your control?" question at the airport.
I will not be influenced by so called, "antiwar demonstrators" who exploit the right of expression to chant anti-American obscenities.
I will not forget the moral victory handed the North Vietnamese by American war protesters who reviled and spat upon the returning soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines.
I will not be softened by the wishful thinking of pacifists who chose reassurance over reality.
I will embrace the wise words of Prime Minister Tony Blair who told Labor Party conference, "They have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent. If they could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000, does anyone doubt they would have done so and rejoiced in it?
There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must!"
I will force myself to:
- hear the weeping
- feel the helplessness
- imagine the terror
- sense the panic
- smell the burning flesh
- experience the loss
- remember the hatred.
I sat in a movie theater, watching "Private Ryan" and asked myself, "Where did they find the courage?" Now I know.
We have no choice. Living without liberty is not living.
Ed Evans, MGySgt., USMC (Ret.)
Not as lean,
Not as mean,
But still a Marine
|
|
|
Wretched Are These Peacemakers
Tuesday, May 21, 2002
By Kenneth Adelman
The hypocrisy of the key Arab leaders launching a "peace initiative" while spreading hatred and justifying war is simply ghastly.
Let’s make darn sure Americans aren’t bamboozled by this PR and hope to heaven that our leaders aren’t taken in. President Bush’s recent coziness at his Crawford ranch with the ruler of the vile Saudi regime, Crown Prince Abdullah, wasn’t terribly reassuring.
To make it easy for Foxnews.com readers, and President Bush if he’s among you, below are the facts that demonstrate such ghastly hypocrisy. Judge for yourselves.
Sunday’s New York Times article from Cairo headlines the spin: "Leaders of Three Arab Nations Affirm Support of Peace Plan." Written by Neil MacFarquhar, it leads with more Arab spin: "The leaders of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria emerged from a meeting late tonight to reaffirm their commitment to a peace initiative …"
Now let’s see what our three "peacemakers" are printing in their media and saying through their officials. Let’s start with the most important of the peacemakers, Hosni Mubarak, president of Egypt. Half of all Arabs are Egyptian, as was Sept. 11 lead terrorist Mohammad Atta.
Shortly before the peacemakers met in Cairo, an article was published in the Egyptian government newspaper Al-Akhbar regretting that Hitler did not wipe out all Jews. The article was called, "If Only You Had Done It, Brother."
Written by Fatma Abdallah Mahmoud, it tells how Jews, not just Israelis, mind you, but Jews, "are accursed in heaven and on earth. They are accursed from the day the human race was created and from the day their mothers bore them. They are accursed also because they murdered the Prophets …These accursed ones are a catastrophe for the human race. They are the virus of the generation, doomed to a life of humiliation and wretchedness until Judgment Day. They are also accursed because they repeatedly tried to murder the Prophet Muhammad … Allah cursed them."
For slow readers, it reiterates the point: "Thus, the Jews are accursed — the Jews of our time, those who preceded them and those who will come after them, if any Jews come after them."
And then it comes to the punch line:
With regard to the fraud of the Holocaust ... Many French studies have proven that this is no more than a fabrication, a lie, and a fraud!! … [Hitler] is completely innocent of the charge of frying them in the hell of his false Holocaust!!
Again, that was printed in the Egyptian government’s own newspaper.
Now let’s move to the second most important country, Saudi Arabia. The Prince’s government-controlled daily Al-Jazirah recently featured an article by Dr. Khalil Ibrahim Al-Sa'adat that celebrated the perpetuator of the Passover massacre, the barbarous act that prompted the Israeli retaliation.
"May Allah have mercy upon" this mass murderer, "the quiet hero who infiltrated so elegantly and spoke so gaily. You defended your religion, your homeland, and your people. You attached no importance to [any] Arab summit; you did not wait for international agreements."
Rather, the murderer acted "courageously, full of willingness to [wage] Jihad, and with faith filling your heart, you executed your assignment and sacrificed your pure soul for your religion and your homeland."
So while the Prince spins "peace" with Israel, his Saudi government newspaper spins distrust and hatred: "The Zionists do not honor treaties, promises, and agreements, and understand only the language of resistance and Jihad … May Allah have mercy on you, oh beloved of the Arab nation."
Again, there’s a nice religious flavor to the close: "You entered silently, with the faith and confidence with which Allah inspired you … Allah decreed for you a martyr's death. What heroism, courage, and strength — almost unmatched on the face of the earth!"
The third of our "peacemakers" hails from Syria. The tyrant Bashar Assad had his foreign minister, Farouq Al-Shar, justify the terrorist war against Israel by redefining terrorism so as to excuse the killing of innocent children, mothers, and elderly.
"When your lands are occupied by foreign forces," he writes, "you have no alternative but to liberate your homeland. Your means are, first and foremost, to launch a war against the enemy occupying your land, or fight against the colonialism in every way possible …"
The foreign minister continues, "If [you] insist that there is no difference between the legitimate right of the peoples to struggle against foreign terrorism and killing innocent civilians in distant places, and if [you] insist that there is no difference between terrorists and those defending their land and trying to liberate it – then there is no difference between the victims of terrorism and the terrorists themselves."
All these excerpts are found on the invaluable Web site www.memri.org from the original documents themselves. Those documents tell more of the truth than the esteemed New York Times' "spun" articles, like the aforementioned ones filed from Cairo. Let’s be sure we, at least, are not as bamboozled as our leaders now seem to be.
Kenneth Adelman is a frequent guest commentator on Fox News, was assistant to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld from 1975 to 1977 and, under President Ronald Reagan, U.N. ambassador and arms-control director. Mr. Adelman is now co-host of www.TechCentralStation.com.
|
|
|
What's a Military Family Worth?
by Rush Limbaugh
www.RushLimbaugh.com
March 11, 2002
TruthOrFiction.com http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/worthofafamily.htm
I think the vast differences in compensation between the victims of the September 11th casualty, and those who die serving the country in uniform, are profound. No one is really talking about it either because you just don't criticize anything having to do with September 11th. Well, I just can't let the numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement mentality of this country.
If you lost a family member in the September 11th attack, you're going to get an average of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee of $250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million. If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable. Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there's a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt.
Keep in mind that some of the people that are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough. We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11th families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation as well. You see where this is going, don't you? Folks, this is part and parcel of over fifty years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really sad.
Every time when a pay raise comes up for the military they usually receive next to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low rent housing. However our own U.S. Congress just voted themselves a raise, and many of you don't know that they only have to be in Congress one-time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month and most are now equal to be millionaires plus.
They also do not receive Social Security on retirement
because they didn't have to pay into the system. If some of the military people
stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7 you may receive a pension of $1,000
per month, and the very people who placed you in harms way receive a pension of
$15,000 per month. I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon
and join ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our
sons and daughters who are now fighting.
|
|
|
Enlarging the Problem
Wednesday, April 03, 2002
By Kenneth Adelman
My longtime mentor, Donald Rumsfeld, is fond of saying: When a particular problem is intractable, enlarge it. Granted, that sounds funny, but it may also be profound. Let's apply it now to the Israel-Palestinian war, which has clearly become intractable.
Let's imagine the Bush administration enlarging this problem by moving beyond the status of Jerusalem, the legality of Israeli settlements, the right of return by displaced Palestinians, and sundry other problems. Let's move beyond the false hope that temporary cease-fires might usher in lasting changes.
In a nutshell, the administration should enlarge today's particular problem by focusing on the longtime campaign against Israel — and against America, as a fellow prosperous and successful democracy.
To enlarge the problem, the Bush administration should:
— STOP calling these Palestinian kids "suicide bombers," and begin to call them "homicide bombers." Someone committing suicide does so alone, without any inkling to harm anyone else. Here, rather, the goal is not to kill oneself but rather to kill others. For a Palestinian kid to commit suicide, without killing Jews, is to be a failure.
— STOP maintaining that no evidence exists linking Iraq to terrorism. Gobs of evidence exist on this, and have since 1993. Recently Saddam Hussein began to praise Palestinian "homicide bombers" and to bestow $25,000 to each of their families. Is this not a clear link to terrorism?
— STOP considering Saudi Arabia as "a peacemaker" proposing a serious peace initiative. Remember that the Saudis have been funding hatred towards Jews, Christians, Israelis, and Americans. These ideas create the conditions that motivate kids to blow themselves up in order to kill as many Israelis as possible. Saudis, too, give grants to the families of the homicide bombers.
— STOP funding Egypt to the whopping tune of $2 billion per year. Our $100 billion of foreign-aid handouts since the 1970s have given us back nothing but Egyptian hostility towards Israel and America. This "friendly" regime also has been funding the spewing of hatred by its state-funded mullahs, state-controlled press and state-sanctioned academics.
Four STOPs should be balanced by at least one START. So here goes:
— START transforming the dynamics of Arabian thought and politics by changing the Iraqi regime, from the worst to among the best in the region.
A moderate, pro-Western, quasi-democratic, somewhat tolerant Iraq — after the removal of Saddam Hussein by American forces — could speed up the looming mass revolution in Iran. And once these jumbo dominos fall, then fundamental changes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt could easily follow.
The more that Islamic states in the Middle East begin to resemble Turkey and Bangladesh — and the less they continue to echo Iraq and Syria — the greater are the chances for peace and stability. Thus the safer become both Israel and America.
All this is a large order, but that's what it takes. Enlarging the problem, here at least, is the only way to solve this otherwise intractable tangle.
Kenneth Adelman is a frequent guest commentator on Fox News, was assistant to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld from 1975 to 1977 and, under President Ronald Reagan, U.N. ambassador and arms-control director. Mr. Adelman is now co-host of TechCentralStation.com.
|
|
|
Questions to Ponder
Taken from the WEB!
One of the advantages of living in relative isolation on a farm is the opportunity to ponder idle questions when there are few experts around to give the proper answers. I list in no particular order a sampling of them that arose last night while I was walking alone through the orchard - on the chance that a few other puzzled Americans have also at times been just as exasperated and confused.
I know that there are properly nuanced answers to these questions that touch on issues of pragmatism, national security, statecraft, requisite education, and other such abstract considerations. But millions of us Americans, I think, wonder about them nevertheless - and just maybe we are not so crazy after all.
|
|
|
| Back to Tribute to America | |