|
Why I am a Democrat for Bush
I am a Democrat. I'm writing this article to Democrats and undecided \ independent voters. I'm
asking you to cast your vote in the upcoming election for President George W. Bush. I also ask
that you vote for those Republicans running in races for the House and Senate, to give President
Bush a chance to work with a Congress that will allow him to get legislation passed without having
to fight the partisan political battles so common today, legislation critically needed for the
protection of our country's security .
This article is a long one. We live in a world of sound-bytes, where the issues being debated
become 30 second catchphrases. "Bush lied about WMDs, no war for oil, Iraq was not an imminent
threat, there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11" are among the most often uttered.
The response to these assertions needs more than sound-bytes. I've included two speeches by
President Bush and the Congressional resolution authorizing the President to use military force in
the war on terror almost in their entirety because they refute a lot of the canards that have sprung
up in the intervening months and years. Please bear with me, much needs to be said, and much
that was said before has been forgotten and needs to be repeated.
I was a leftist in my youth, I've been a Democrat all my life. I voted D in the last nine presidential
elections.
For the last several years I've chaffed at the silliness of the political correctness movement and
recognized the need for a strong military, but still drank the liberal Kool-aid. I suffered from the
"selected not elected" angst of the 2000 election.
I was looking foreword to payback in '04. I couldn't stand Resident Bush.
Then 9/11 happened. I was shocked and saddened, but not surprised. I remembered the Cole,
Kobar Towers and the bombing of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. To me, the events of 9/11
can be summed up in three words, the same words uttered in horror by Herbert Morrison
describing the immolation of the Hindenburg, "Oh the humanity!". The sorrow of that day was
present for a long time, but almost immediately there was anger, along with a sense of
resignation, that, in those past attacks, our enemys received, at best, a slap on the wrist. I didn't
expect our response to 9/11 be much different, although I certainly wanted it to be, big-time.
Still cynical about "Shrub", I saw the President stand up in the aftermath of our present day Pearl
Harbor as the leader of our country and as the Commander in Chief. I saw him at Ground Zero,
among all the volunteer rescue workers, raising their spirits and telling our enemys through a
bullhorn that they could run but they could not hide from American justice. I started to have
second thoughts about the qualifications and character of this man. I watched the President
address a joint session of Congress nine days later. I think that was probably the point where I
said to myself "Whatever you thought about this man in the past he's the right man for our country
now and for the times ahead". You can read the full text of that speech at <http://www.whitehouse.
gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html> .
In his speech, the President said "...tonight, the United States of America makes the following
demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide
in your land... Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and
hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities.
Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no
longer operating.
These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act, and act
immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate"...
The President gave the Taliban one last chance to avoid war. His language was unambiguous.
Their subsequent noncompliance with our demands sealed their fate. The President continued...
"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every
terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.
Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our
command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law
enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption
and to the defeat of the global terror network.
This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory
and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no
ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not
expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include
dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve
terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is
no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every
nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the
terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be
regarded by the United States as a hostile regime".
Please note the last sentence, "...any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be
regarded by the United States as a hostile regime". This is the heart and soul of the Bush
doctrine, enunciated in the clearest of language that leaves no room for interpretation or
"nuance".
The president continued, "...the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop
it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows.
Many will be involved in this effort, from FBI agents to intelligence operatives to the reservists
we have called to active duty. All deserve our thanks, and all have our prayers. And tonight, a few
miles from the damaged Pentagon, I have a message for our military: Be ready. I've called the
Armed Forces to alert, and there is a reason. The hour is coming when America will act, and you
will make us proud.
This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is
the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and
pluralism, tolerance and freedom.
We ask every nation to join us. We will ask, and we will need, the help of police forces,
intelligence services, and banking systems around the world... Perhaps the NATO Charter reflects
best the attitude of the world: An attack on one is an attack on all."
I'm getting ahead of myself here, but I have to juxtapose the last two paragraphs against the
assertion by the Democrats that American foreign policy is somehow unilateral. This is clearly not
the case in the war on terrorism. Most countries on the planet share intelligence and cooperate in
various other ways with us, even France, Germany, Russia and China, countries that acted against
us politically in the months leading up to the liberation of Iraq. They do so out of self interest.
Every non-Moslem country, even Moslem countries that embrace Western customs and culture,
are potential targets of the Islamofaschist jihad, and the world's response to it is a global effort.
So much for the canard about us going it alone.
I started defending our policy of war against Afghanistan to my liberal friends who complained
about how we were just bombing rocks. My opinion of the President continued to grow as the war
was successfully prosecuted. No half measures like lobbing a few cruise missiles at an empty Al-
Qaeda training camp, the President used the full might of the Armed Forces and the result was the
liberation of an entire country from tyranny.
I continued to defend the administration's policy during the buildup to the start of the Iraq war. I
argued at the time that our military buildup in the region in the several months preceding the war
was the leverage needed to allow us to work diplomatically to finally get full compliance with all
our demands without firing a shot. We gave Saddam every possible chance to avoid the war. I
pointed out that any sane person, (Saddam), would look at the overwhelming force being
assembled against him and allow full and complete inspection of his weapons programs, given
that the alternative was armed conflict that surely would be lost. As in the case of Afghanistan, the
government of Iraq's noncompliance with our demands sealed their fate as well.
Why Iraq?. I will now turn to two documents, "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United
States Armed Forces Against Iraq", October 2, 2002, found at <http://www.whitehouse.
gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html> and "Remarks by the President in Address to the
Nation", March 17, 2003, on the eve of the Iraq war, found at <http://www.whitehouse.
gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html.>
A lot has been said to disparage the Iraq war. "It was illegal, It was unauthorized, Bush lied about
WMDs, Saddam wasn't an imminent threat, Saddam wasn't a threat at all, Iraq had no connection
with terrorists, no connection with Al-Quida, and so on, and so on, and so on..." Quoting from the
"Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq",
"...Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored
cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to
eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and
develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;...
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and
international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and
unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to
possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a
nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing
to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace
and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens
wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons
of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and
willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former
President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition
Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United
States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are
known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including
organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the
threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the
risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack
against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who
would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its
citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public
Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United
Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security
Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it
should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current
Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the
United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for
the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be
enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing
support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass
destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United
Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the
United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security
Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the
provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions
against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions
against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and
prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the
joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and
security to the Persian Gulf region;
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled,
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council
resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its
strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant
Security Council resolutions.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as
he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;
and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the
President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than
48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will
not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat
posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security
Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries
continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized,
committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers
Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution..."
While a great deal of public law is written in legalize, nearly incomprehensible to anybody except a
lawyer, the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq", with the exception of the
"Whereas" at the start of every paragraph, is written in clear, unambiguous language. It doesn't
say "Threaten Saddam with force, come back later and ask us for another resolution to use force if
he won't back down", it doesn't say "Submit to a Global Test", It very plainly says "The President is
authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing
threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions
regarding Iraq. The problem is, this document just can't be summed in a 30 second sound-byte.
Well, perhaps it can be. The war was legal, it was authorized, it was about a lot more than just
WMDs. It's not WMDs that are at the heart of the problem with Iraq, it's the fact that "...Iraq
continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations
that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens; "
Please take the time to look at the following website, <http://husseinandterror.com./> . It
extensively documents Sadam's links to international terrorist organizations. Look up "Salman
Pak" on Google. It was a 12 square mile military facility used to train terrorists, In the words of an
Iraqi defector who worked there, “Training includes hijacking and kidnapping of airplanes, trains,
public buses, and planting explosives in cities ... how to prepare for suicidal operations.” He
continued: “We saw people getting trained to hijack airplanes...They are even trained how to use
utensils for food, like forks and knives provided in the plane."
Salman Pak was just one of several government run terrorist training facilitys scattered
throughout Iraq. Among a whole alphabet soup of terrorist groups getting training was Al-Quada.
The Duelfer report says that "...Iraq has provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas of
poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." Please read "Case Closed: The U.S.
government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin
Laden" by Stephen Hayes from the Weekly Standard at <http://www.weeklystandard.
com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp> .
Let's say somebody has a grudge and wants to do something about it. He could get a book on
chemistry from the library or find a recipe on the Internet and brew up something nasty in his
basement. He may get lucky and make something that blows up, lots of mad bombers have in the
past, or, more likely, he might do society a favor and wind up killing himself, but at this point we're
talking about one person having to learn his craft through trial and error, and error is not an
option if the lone bomber wannabe wants to stay alive.
Take the same wannabe bomber and put him in a classroom setting with instructors to teach him
the right way to make explosive devices and chemical and biological agents. The scary thing is
that that classroom can turn out hundreds of bombers over time, who can, in turn, pass on that
knowledge to countless others. This to me is a very dangerous scenario and in itself goes a long
way to justify shutting down the government that runs such training sites. It's not only about
stockpiles of WMDs, it's about stopping the creation of stockpiles of human WMDs who have the
knowledge to produce weapons of mass terror, wherever they happen to be in the world,
including the United States.
In the six and a half months between October 2, 2002 and the President's speech on the eve of
the war, our efforts at diplomacy were systematically thwarted at the United Nations. It turned out
that France, Germany, Russia and China were more interested in continuing to sell banned
weapons and take their cut of Saddam's ten billion dollar Oil for Food program ripoff than
bestowing their diplomatic blessing upon our efforts to deal with Saddam's regime once and for
all. Faced with the prospect of troops having to fight in full MOPP (Mission Oriented Protective
Posture) suits in the 130 degree heat of an Iraqi summer or else having to keep our troops in
staging areas until the fall, both options which were unacceptable from a military point of view, the
President made the decision to go to war. On March 17, 2003 the President addressed the nation...
THE PRESIDENT: "My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision.
For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable
efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its
weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen
resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors
to oversee the disarmament of Iraq.
Our good faith has not been returned.
The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied
Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors
have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived.
Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not
dealing with peaceful men.
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime
continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime
has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.
The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of
America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of
al Qaeda.
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the
help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of
thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.
The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do
everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety.
Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.
The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national
security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will
keep.
Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year
to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address
this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the
United Nations. One reason the U.N. was founded after the second world war was to confront
aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the
peace.
In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687
-- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of
weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.
Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite
and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed
Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious
consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.
Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as
Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies
have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet,
some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any
resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the
danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude
to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just
demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities,
so we will rise to ours..."
Read all about that broad coalition at <http://www.defendamerica.mil/iraq/worldviews.html> . It is
made up by forty-three countries which have offered various levels of support for Operation Iraqi
Freedom. Publicly listed coalition members include: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan,
Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia,
Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan (post conflict), Kuwait, South Korea,
Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua,
Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Spain,
Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan. Does this sound like a "coalition of
the bribed and coerced"?. Does this sound like the U.S. went it alone?. That contention slanders
the service of all the brave troops from around the planet that are serving the cause of freedom
in Iraq.
The President continues...
"We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years,
the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With
these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly
conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can
appear suddenly in our skies and cities.
The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the
20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow
into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear
terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.
Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations --
and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide.
The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.
As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our
country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human
liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a
vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.
The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our
goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human
liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome
hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.
That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the
violent. And tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility..."
While the President focuses on the threat of WMDs in the hands of terrorists, this is only one of
one reasons given for the war. It is, however the central reason cited for that war by people that
want to use the excuse that, because no WMDs were found after the war, there was no reason to
go to war.
American intelligence, British intelligence, Israeli intelligence, Russian intelligence, and even the
U.N. weapons inspectors all believed that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. King
Hussein of Jordan and Hosni Mubarak, President of Egypt warned General Franks on the eve of
the war of their fears that Saddam would use WMDs on our troops. Saddam's own generals
thought they were going to be ordered to use chemical weapons sometime during the war.
There is a huge amount of information about Iraqi WMDs in official documents including the 9/11
commission report, the Kay report and the Duelfer report, as well as informed speculation by
various experts. I would recommend reading an editorial by General Ion Mihai Pacepa, a
Romanian, who is the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former
Soviet bloc. It can be found at <http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030820-081256-6822r.htm> ,
"Saddam's WMDs are in Syria", at <http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?
ARTICLE_ID=39182> , and an extensively documented article at <http://www.worldthreats.
com/middle_east/Iraq%20and%20Evidence%20of%20WMD.htm> called “WMD: Believe Iraq or
Believe the Evidence".
The President, in his speech on September 20, 2001 said that "Our response... ...may include... ...
covert operations, secret even in success." I think that this may go a long way to explain the
various incongruities found surrounding Operation Iraqi Freedom, or indeed, all aspects of the
war on terrorism. Loose lips sink ships and loose thoughts put down in print might sink our best
laid plans, so I will not even speculate on any specifics for fear I might get close to the mark and
give something away to the wrong people. I will just relate a part of a conversation with a liberal
friend who kept pressing me to admit I was wrong to support the Iraq war because we found no
WMDs. My response was that I might do so, in 20 or even 50 years, when all the facts finally come
out. One thing to consider is the intelligence bonanza we received from the files of the
Mukhabarat, the Iraqi Intelligence Service. The scope of the Mukhabarat was worldwide and there
is no doubt that it had relationships with most of the terrorist groups around the planet. To me,
this one fact alone justifies our invasion. Who knows how many 9/11s have been prevented with
this information. Perhaps we will in another 50 years, or perhaps not. President Bush must surely
chafe at having to hold his tongue in response to criticisms leveled at him by the opposition,
when his response could jeopardize national security.
How can one argue that the liberation of Iraq, or Afghanistan was the wrong thing for the 50 million
human beings forced to live under tyranny of the worst kind. One of my friends made the
argument that the surviving children of civilian families that suffered casualties at our hands
would grow up to hate America. As sad as it is to contemplate any civilian casualties, I dare say
that there are 20, 50 or even 100 families, families who lost fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters,
sons or daughters at the hands of Saddam's regime, families that have had loved ones raped,
tortured or murdered, families who will no longer live in fear, families who say to us, "thank you,
America for stopping our terror", for every family that lost somebody to the Allies.
I am reminded of a story concerning a man, trapped in his basement, buried beneath the rubble of
his bombed out house in a city on the coast of Normandy, a city that had been extensively bombed
by allied bombers on the eve of D-Day. This man survived for a long period of time, I believe he
was able to hang on for several days, but he died before he could be rescued. When this man's
body was finally dug out he had a note scrawled sometime during his long ordeal. I'm paraphrasing
here, but the gist of the note was "God bless America, thank you for liberating us from the Nazis".
In what may be one of the ultimate ironies of the war, American ingenuity even went so far as to
produce a bomb that wouldn't explode, in order to avoid causing civilian casualties. The Iraqis
would park their tanks and artillery pieces right next to hospitals and schools on the theory that
we would not use our own artillery or bombs so as not to endanger civilians. They were right, kind-
of. We took a 2,000 lb. bomb casing, and instead of filling it with high explosive we filled it with
cement!. Fitted with a precision guidance package, the cement bombs squashed the targets like
bugs without any damage to the surrounding buildings, or their occupants. America has gone out
of it's way to avoid civilian casualties, even to the extent of making the mission more difficult for
the troops.
In this war we've liberated two countries from regimes just as bad as the Nazis. In Afghanistan 10
million people voted in free and fair elections for the first time in their history. People risked
death to register to vote and then, in some cases, stood for hours in the snow in long lines to cast
their vote. Elections are coming to Iraq, democracy is already there. Before liberation, just looking
at somebody in power the wrong way, let alone speaking out against the regime would get you
killed. Today there are hundreds of independent newspapers being published and people openly
talk politics without of fear of the secret police. If you want to see the view of the man on the
street in Iraq, there is an active bloging community on the Internet, also something unheard of
under the Saddam regime.
It has been said that because of the Iraq war hordes of new converts to the terrorist cause have
been produced. Perhaps this is so, but why do people forget that the first World Trade Center
bombing occurred in 1993, and if it had gone off as the plotters had envisioned, as many as fifty to
one hundred thousand civilians would have been murdered. The Islamofaschist terrorist threat
has been with us far before we set Iraq free.
Much of the continuing unrest in Iraq is being sponsored by Iran. The prospect of freedom and
democracy right next door to them has the Mullahocracy scared to death that they will be next to
fall. Something like 75 to 80 percent of the population was born after the revolution and, among
that demographic, America is viewed in a favorable light. The domino theory is alive and well in
the Mideast and Iran is on the verge of being the next domino. The critics of the President's
policies say "Why not Iran?". We must come back to that hint from President Bush about "covert
operations, secret even in success". Just as we went out of our way to give the regimes of the
Taliban and Saddam every chance to accede to our demands without us having to go to war, so to
are we trying to avoid a shooting war with Iran, while at the same time, preparing for military
conflict should it be necessary. As a result of that preparation, we now have "Aircraft Carrier Iraq",
the modern analog of "Aircraft Carrier England", a safe place we used as the jumping off point for
the invasion of Europe in World War II. We clearly demonstrate to the Iranian government that to
engage us in combat would be folly, while at the same time we are helping the domestic
opposition to the the Mullahs to topple the regime from within.
The fog of the secret war clouds our vision but there are hints in the open press. In the last
months there have been massive explosions, leveling whole towns, involving trains, apparently
filled with munitions on Feb. 18, 2004 at Neyshabur, Iran and April 22, 2004, at Ryongchon North
Korea. The official stories don't pass the smell test, I think we are seeing evidence of " ...covert
operations, secret even in success".
I marvel at the simplistic rhetoric of the retort I frequently hear in response to our invasion of Iraq,
"why not North Korea?, it's a terrorist state, too". While the Democrats call the "Coalition of the
Willing" a unilateral effort, they suggest we should take on North Korea unilaterally, when in fact,
we are having multilateral negotiations with the North Koreans with the help of the Chinese,
Japanese, and yhe South Koreans. Our military option?. With North Korea having 47,000 artillery
pieces dug into mountain caves, ready to fire on Seoul, we would have to go nuclear, which would
no doubt not sit well with the Japanese, as they are right in the path of the fallout.
One weapon that would go a long way to help win a future war is the nuclear bunker buster. In
Iraq, repeated strikes by precision guided munitions were unable to take out one of Saddam's
hardened bunkers. We face the same problem in situations like a decapitation strike against North
Korean command and control centers. Nuclear weapons are obviously a last resort, but if a war is
to be fought, one hit on an enemy leadership bunker by a low-yeild nuclear device could well end
the hostilities before they are even started. The Democrats want to stop our research on such
devices.
They want to stop the Strategic Defense Initiative, S.D.I., when we are on the verge of putting up a
workable missile defense to protect us from sneak attacks from such rogue states as Iran and
North Korea, both of which have submarines, sophisticated missile technology, and a hatred of
the United States, countries that may soon acquire nuclear weapons. In the aftermath of the first
World Trade Center bombing, it was estimated that the economic impact from just having the WTC
buildings closed to business for the month after the attack came in at over a billion dollars.
According to a report issued by the New York City Comptroller's office on Oct. 4, 2001, the second
WYC attack was estimated to cost the city 105 billion dollars. The economic loss from losing one of
our cities to a nuclear attack would be in the trillions, the human loss would be staggering. SDI
may be expensive, but the alternative is unthinkable.
The Democratic candidate has a particularly consistent record on defense issues. He voted to kill
the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the M-1 Abrams Tank, every aircraft carrier laid down from 1988 on,
the Aegis anti aircraft system, the F-15 Strike Eagle, the Block 60 F-16, the P-3 Orion upgrade, the
B-1, the B-2, the Patriot Anti Missile System, the FA-18 and the F117, among others. In short, he
voted to kill virtually every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every
weapons systems since 1988, including battle armor for our troops fighting in Iraq. This is the
record of the man who wants to be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States
of America.
Aside from weakening our military readiness, saving money by cutting spending on military and
aerospace research has exactly the opposite effect in the long run. It has been shown that, for
every dollar spent on research and development in exotic technologies returns double the
investment in the short term and as much as a ten to twenty times return in the long term. Military
and aerospace research from the 1950's and 1960's not only gave us Teflon and Tang, but the
integrated circuit that allows everybody to put a computer on their desktop, communication
satellites, the Internet, advanced medical technology, the jet airplane and a whole laundry list of
industries that didn't even exist twenty or thirty years ago. To cut today's research and
development programs would not only harm our national security in the long term, it would
deprive our next generation of new marvels of technology.
This article has been about my reasons for supporting President Bush, even though I am a
Democrat. The security of our country takes precedence over any other domestic issues. I believe
a Democrat victory would be harmful to that security.
In one of his most recent interviews, President Bush said, (again, I'm paraphrasing here), that he
saw the spreading of freedom across the planet to be his, and our nation's highest calling.
Freedom is the silver bullet that is so deadly to terrorist states, and without the aid and
encouragement of those states, terrorism will wither away to dust like the 900 year old vampire in
the movies who finally is exposed to daylight. During the cold war, Albania was the Eastern Bloc
equivalent of North Korea. It was an economic basket case with a megalomaniacal leader who was
so paranoid that there were concrete machine gun nests on every street corner to repel the
invading hordes of the west. The Iron Curtain fell and today, those countries that make up the New
Europe are among our staunchest allies. The following is an excerpt of comments from Albanian
Prime Minister Fatos Nano, in a statement on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
"History is old. The only new thing about history is the United States. America is the only country in
the world that exports freedom. When the historical occasion has called for it, the United States of
America has been willing to pay the price in order to free the oppressed, even in states that have
sought its harm.
It brought freedom and democracy to Japan and Germany after defeating both in World War II. It
rebuilt their societies and taught them about liberty. It helped bring down the Berlin Wall
hastening the process of freedom in Central and Eastern Europe. It rarely asked anything in return.
Now the United States and its Coalition of the Willing will bring liberty to Iraq. And when the
coalition of the willing completes its work, it will be time for the coalition of builders to repair,
restore and rebuild Iraq under the name of freedom. We are proud to be in the company of the
free."
Prime Minister Fatos Nano gets it. So does President Bush. At times, the sound-bites go by so fast
that an individual line or phrase of a speech gets lost. I recently heard a clip of the Democratic
candidate at a campaign rally saying, (paraphrasing here), "I'm going to make America great again".
My rejoinder to that sound-byte is that America IS the greatest country on the planet, right here,
right now, and President Bush has pledged that he will do everything in his power to make sure
that the United States continues on in its greatness into the far future. Please cast your vote in
the upcoming election for President George W. Bush, in order that he may continue to do so.
My most sincere thanks to those of you in combat, for your service to our country. My most
sincere thanks to your brothers and sisters in arms, those in military service around the planet,
those who have served in times past and those who paid the ultimate price for our freedom. A
special thanks also to our Police, Fire-Rescue and EMS personnel here at home. You are True
Heroes, all. |
RSS Feed