Posted on 10/14/2009 7:08:04 PM PDT by pissant
Congressmen: get aid to fight guerrillas
The Ledger, June 25, 1983
Washington - Nineteen congressmen, eight of them just back from Central America, urged President Reagan on Friday to "hang tough" in his demand for another $110 million from Congress this year to help fight communist guerrillas in El Salvador.
Elsewhere, Senate Democratic Whip Alan Cranston of California, a candidate for the 1984 presidential nomination, said he would introduce legislation designed to avert "the danger....that Ronald Reagan will want to send troops to El Salvador."
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said that the amount should be increased to $300 million and suggested it should include 20 Huey helicopters "so the Salvadoran government can react" to guerrilla attacks.
"If we increase the military aid while we still have a government in control, while the balance of power is not with the guerrillas then sending US troops to the region would not be necessary,", Hunter said.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lz8VAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pPsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7096,3877608&dq=duncan-hunter&hl=en
**********************************
Church Unlocked; Illegal Classes Resume
Spokane Chronicle, Oct 21, 1982
Louisville, Neb. - Sixteen children prayed with visiting ministers and then returned to classes in a church basement today after authorities removed a padlock from the church door.
No law officers were present, and Roy Thompson, a fundamentalist minister from Cleveland now in charge of the non-accredited Christian school at Faith Baptist Church, said the illegal school would return to its routine. (snip)
Among those at the church was Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who said he traveled to this community of 1000 because it was "incredible" that authorities would lock a church in America.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=V7MSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Y_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7093,1437508&dq=duncan-hunter&hl=en
*********************************
Viet War Widows Make System Work
Washington Post - Dec 28, 1982
This is a story of how a small group of women, with a just cause, has prevailed on Congress and the White House to right a wrong. It is also the story of a system that works and a government that keeps its commitments.
In the summer of 1981, when Congress curtailed Social Security benefits for widows and eliminated Social Security benefits for students after the age of 18, it reduced the benefits to an estimated 26,000 widows and 70,000 children of men killed in the Vietnam war. Whle the continued to receive Veterans Adminstration benefits, they lost, as of last May 1, an average of $265 a month per dependent from Social Security.
When Madeline Van Wagenen, widow of a Marine Corps helicopter pilot and mother of a son who is now 14, realized the benefits were being cut, sh wrote letters to Washington but got no response. Then she and other widows formed a group called Survivors of Sacrifice and they began writing congressmen and coming to Washington to tell their stories.
What made their situation unusual was that they were able to prove that the Social Security payments were an integral part of the deal the government made with their husbands. "Our basic argument was that you ought to keep your word to a man that gives up his life for you", says Van Wagenen.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., sponsored a bill to restore their benefits, and soon the group was using his office as their headquarters.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_80TAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QuIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6790,7226946&dq=duncan-hunter&hl=en
****************************
NOMINATION OF MORTON HALPERIN TO BE THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR DEMOCRACY AND PEACEKEEPING
GlobalSecurity.org - Oct 21, 1993 Congressional record
Statement by Congressman Duncan Hunter
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the members of the Armed Services Committee for providing me with the opportunity to outline my views concerning the nomination of Morton Halperin to serve as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Democracy and Peacekeeping.
After careful consideration, I am in complete agreement with Senator Strom Thurmond (SC), the ranking Republican on this Committee, and I urge you to reject this nomination. Morton Halperin's persistent activities show a complete disregard for the procurement, use and protection of classified intelligence. I believe he would be a clear security risk, and his past activities have been very detrimental to the national security interests of the United States. Senator Thurmond has said Morton Halperin `is dangerously out of step with the mainstream national security community * * * I am concerned that we may be letting the fox into the hen house should Mr. Halperin be confirmed.'
The Wall Street Journal has described Mr. Halperin, who headed the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union for eight years, as a `left-liberal spearthrower.' They went on to describe him as `wildly naive on most issues of the Cold War, especially in perceiving a `defensive' Soviet Union.'
Morton Halperin has consistently advocated his strange belief that the use of intelligence for purposes of national security is somehow antithetical to our Constitution. In his book, `The Lawless State: The Crimes of U.S. Intelligence Agencies,' Halperin states, `Using secret intelligence agencies to defend a constitutional republic is akin to the ancient medical practice of employing leeches to take blood from feverish patients.' He says, `Secrecy * * * does not serve national security. * * * Covert operations are incompatible with constitutional government and should be abolished.'
The nominee told a Congressional committee in 1975 that intelligence activities should cease to exist. `I believe the United States should no longer maintain a career service for the purpose of conducting covert operations or covert intelligence collection by human beings. I also believe the United States should outlaw as a matter of national policy the conduct of covert operations.' He reaffirmed this view in 1987 before the House Intelligence Committee.
Not only is Mr. Halperin against the use of intelligence in general, but he is also opposed to the classification of sensitive information. Mr. Halperin stated in 1980 that `Under the First Amendment, Americans have every right to seek to `impede or impair' the functions of any federal agency, whether it is the FTC or the CIA, by publishing information acquired from unclassified sources.'
In 1985 he supported the editors of the Progressive magazine when they published information about the design and manufacturing of nuclear weapons. When the government was prosecuting Samuel Morrison for disclosure of classified satellite photos, Mr. Halperin said the case posed `an extraordinary threat to the First Amendment.'
While dedication to the protection of Constitutional rights is certainly commendable, the nominee clearly takes this protection well beyond prudent limits when the national security interests of the United States are concerned. There is also no reason why his past statements will not reflect future action he takes as Assistant Secretary. Furthermore, at the Pentagon he will of course have full access to classified information.
The nominee has specifically stated he would like to see the following information declassified:
All activities regarding U.S. covert operations;
Detailed nuclear weapons design information;
All commitments to employ American forces;
Research on a new weapon systems;
Diplomatic negotiations; and
Many activities regarding all of our intelligence organizations.
The entire national security community was very disturbed when Morton Halperin assisted Philip Agee in his campaign to expose the identities of CIA agents. At the American Civil Liberties Union he served as Agee's legal counsel and argued that Agee's travel should not be restricted.
Agee described the CIA as `the secret police of American capitalism.' His single minded aim, so he avowed, was to destroy that agency in order to `purify the American role in the world.' Agee's treachery included naming 170 CIA colleagues and friendly agents, all previously under essential and presumably inviolable cover, whom he had worked with. Halperin defended him despite the fact that Agee revealed a number of intelligence operations which he was sworn, by the oath of his employment, never to divulge.
Morton Halperin was Agee's legal counsel and his major defender after the former intelligence operative wrote `Inside the Company: CIA Diary.' In the words of the bipartisan American Security Council, `few books by an unknown writer have caused so much damage to a national institution.'
According to ASC, `The careers of CIA officers, many of them in the prime of usefulness, were summarily interrupted and diverted by Agee's work and Halperin's defense. The anguish visited upon their families, not to mention the physical danger to them, that went with exposure, must be included in the final cost. For example, Agee's publication CounterSpy, named Richard Welch as the CIA Station Chief in Athens, Greece. Welch was assassinated after Agee's publication put him in the bull's eye by naming him as a CIA officer.'
Former Senator Barry Goldwater, who previously served as Chairman of this Committee, said that Agee should be stripped of his citizenship. Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Bentsen, while he was a U.S. Senator, said Agee should be imprisoned. Nevertheless, Morton Halperin rushed to his defense after the British House of Commons upheld Agee's expulsion order by a vote of 138 to 4.
Philip Agee orchestrated a betrayal verging on treason, and Morton Halperin was one of his principal defenders. Both Agee and Halperin were both ring leaders in a campaign to harass, intimidate and deform our national intelligence services.
Morton Halperin's activities were instrumental to the disgraceful and dangerous decline of the prestige and vigilance of our intelligence community in the 1970s. In responding to the Agee/Halperin onslaught, Admiral Stanfield Turner, who served as Jimmy Carter's CIA Director, said in 1978, `I almost hold by breath every morning until I know if today's disclosures include some of our sensitive sources of intelligence * * *. Allied intelligence services are losing confidence that we can keep a secret. We suspect that some are holding back information.' I would remind the Committee that Halperin's activities were occurring at a time the CIA was reporting 1,900 `spies' from the Soviet bloc were operating inside our borders.
Halperin's views on constitutional rights came into direct conflict with the Supreme Court which stated that `Restricting Agee's foreign travel * * * is the only avenue open to the Government to limit these activities * * * Agee's disclosures, among other things, have the declared purpose of obstructing intelligence operations and the recruiting of intelligence personnel. They are clearly not protected by the Constitution.'
Halperin also favorably reviewed Agee's book `Inside the Company: CIA Diary,' saying that in it `we learn in devastating detail what is done in the name of the United States.' He did not criticize the book for releasing over 30 pages of names of U.S. covert operatives overseas, or the fact that Agee acknowledges in the preface the help he received from the Cuban Communist Party.
Halperin concluded the review by saying, `The only way to stop all of this is to dissolve the CIA covert career service and to bar the CIA from at least developing and allied nations.'
Then there is the matter of Mr. Halperin's involvement in the unauthorized publication of the so-called `Pentagon Papers.' The nominee's role was crucial to giving Daniel Ellsberg access to this classified material. In fact, Mr. Halperin had the central responsibility for deciding who would have access to the `Pentagon Papers.' Mr. Halperin invited Ellsberg to participate in a classified study of U.S. policy in Vietnam even though Ellsberg had previously said he felt these top-secret papers should be made public.
Unfortunately, Morton Halperin's involvement did not end there. Ellsberg lived in Halperin's home while the `Pentagon Papers' were being illegally copied and stored, and while Ellsberg gave the `Pentagon Papers' to the radical Institute for Policy Studies. Henry Kissinger was so concerned about the nominee's activities in leaking sensitive information to the news media that he ordered a tap placed on Mr. Halperin's telephone. Whether the nominee directly participated or not, it is certainly clear Halperin knew Ellsberg was releasing classified information about the Papers. Halperin's involvement was brought to a conclusion when he later went on to help with Ellsberg's legal defense.
All of the members of the Armed Services Committee have received an indepth policy paper prepared by Frank Gaffney, the former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, and his Center for Security Policy. This outstanding research document, entitled `The Case Against the Halperin Nomination,' contains numerous examples of statements the nominee has made over the past two and a half decades which clearly raise serious concerns about his commitment to our national security interests. I have also reviewed an analysis of Morton Halperin's positions prepared by the bipartisan American Security Council. According to ASC, the nominee's entire record can be described as `blaming America first' for many adverse activities throughout the world.
From the early 1970s, Morton Halperin consistently forgave and defended the former Soviet Union. In the Nation magazine, he wrote, `Every action which the Soviet Union and Cuba have taken in Africa has been consistent with the principles of international law. The Cubans have come in only when invited by a government, and have remained only at their request . . . Soviet conduct reflects simply a different Soviet estimate of what should happen in the African continent and a genuine conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union.'
In his 1971 book, `Defense Strategies for the Seventies,' he states: `The Soviet Union apparently never even contemplated the overt use of military force against Western Europe. * * * The Soviet posture toward Western Europe has been, and continues to be, a defensive and deterrent one. The positioning of Soviet ground forces in Eastern Europe and the limited logistical capability of these forces suggests an orientation primarily toward defense against a Western attack.'
The nominee always diminished the military threat the Soviet Union posed to the world. He consistently focused on portraying a `defensive' Soviet Union. Such ideas run counter to what was widely believed at the time, and to what we now know to be the truth.
It is clear the nomination of Morton Halperin to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Democracy and Peacekeeping is a security risk we cannot afford to take. Mr. Halperin is completely opposed to the use of intelligence agencies, and he strongly believes that much of the top-secret information concerning national security should be declassified.
The nominee has demonstrated this not only in his extensive writings, but also in the actions he has taken to achieve these goals. It would be a mistake to allow a person with this background to be confirmed in a senior program in the Department of Defense.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/1993_cr/s931021-halperin.htm
Well, with any luck, your slick flip flopping boy will save the day for you.
Wow, nice story. It really doesn’t surprise me. He is as genuine and sincere as they come.
He’s certainly enjoying his life right now. Check your freepmail in a sec.
Name him.
I don’t need to. everyone knows who the slick flip flopper is.
If more of the people who said they liked Hunter and his stand had gotten behind him, instead of saying they couldn’t support him until more people did, things could have been different today.
A big lesson forall. If you like what a candidate is saying and his record, don’t wait for others to get behind him.
They cannot “gain traction” when those who like what they see depend on others to give it to them.
We just end up with candidates like McCain or worse, if they had succeeded in convincing more people, Ron Paul.
At least those who are mesmerizied by Paul supported him and didn’t wait on others to do it first.
And what does he have to do with me?
He’s the only one I don’t recall you bitching and moaning about.
Why bother? He’s the arch-villain around here already, as evidenced by your reflexive need to provide yourself psychological reassurance by assuming anyone who disagrees with you supports him.
I’ll thank you not to put words in my mouth, presume or insinuate things about me, or “read my mind,” however.
But allow me to state for the record: I don’t support Romney, because I think (and hope) we can do better (which is the same reason I don’t support any of the candidates people here fawn over, too). And allow me to further state AGAIN, for the benefit of those with attention spans too short or minds too narrow to pay attention when I said it before: I am not backing or “behind” ANYBODY for 2012 because it’s not relevant at this point.
Of course, I am under no illusion that this will clear me of suspicion in your eyes. Put a chair against your closet when you go to sleep tonight so the Romney supporters hiding in there can’t get out and give you nightmares.
Dude, you come on a DH thread, flapping your gums, and you act like a persecuted Christian in Rome. Get over yourself and support whichever milquetoast that pleases you.
Reality checks hurt sometimes, I know. Support your Republican answer to Mike Gravel if that pleases you, just don’t take your bat and go home in a huff when he goes nowhere in 2012. There will still be the business of actually beating Obama to take care of.
Just don’t be surprised when conservatives don’t show up at the polls again after you help nominate another RINO superstar.
Enjoy your sanctimonious, ideologically pure self-satisfaction when Obama wins four more years; the irreparable harm he does to the country will be on your head.
The same six people who argued that Hunter couldn't get media coverage like their hero "Maverick" McCain.
It wasn’t me who pulled a RINO out of my ass to sacrifice to the democrats. It was your retarded ilk.
Hey, Pissant, if you’re putting together the DH ping list again, could you please put me on it?
Duncan Hunter, the only REAL conservative in the race in 2008.
I am, and you are on it. I have a short version of the ping list in my head that I used for this thread. And you somehow got lost in the neurons this time. Sorry.
The good old maverick. Wait until he jumps to Linseed’s side and supports Obama’s globull warming crusade.
There’s something frightening and poetic about getting lost in Pissant’s neurons... ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.