$1.2 billion dollars. Nice bone.
Mr. Gaffney might have good credentials with President Reagan ...
Really good credentials:
In April 1987, Mr. Gaffney was nominated by President Reagan to become the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, the senior position in the Defense Department with responsibility for policies involving nuclear forces, arms control and U.S.-European defense relations. He acted in that capacity for seven months during which time, he was the Chairman of the prestigious High Level Group, NATO's senior politico-military committee. He also represented the Secretary of Defense in key U.S.-Soviet negotiations and ministerial meetings.From August 1983 until November 1987, Mr. Gaffney was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy under Assistant Secretary Richard Perle. From February 1981 to August 1983, Mr. Gaffney was a Professional Staff Member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by Senator John Tower (R-Texas). In the latter 1970's, Mr. Gaffney served as an aide to the late Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson (D-Washington) in the areas of defense and foreign policy.
He's a pretty staunch defender of Pres. Bush as well:
Mr. Bush Goes to Baghdad
I guess he just couldn't stand being so credible and knowledgable anymore and decided to start some "black helicopter" stories for kicks and giggles.
To claim without any sort of proof that the VP and the Navy are involved along with the eeeeevil business men and oil companies tends to really turn me off.
Alas, in addition to the wealth redistributors, one-worlders, environmentalists, international lawyers, and the other usual suspects on the Left, the U.S. Navy, the American oil industry and Vice President Cheney currently support LOST.
That is a pretty straight forward statement. If this committee weren't being kept so low-profile it would be easy enough to verify from testimony in their hearings. And if he lied about it just as easy to deny.
Such support appears to be motivated by narrow, parochial, and shortsighted reasons (e.g., the belief that having internationally agreed "rules of the road" for the world's oceans will be good for the respective businesses of the Navy and the deep-sea "oil patch.")Such myopic support is even more grievously misplaced and foolish than that given in 1997 by a powerful trade association — the Chemical Manufacturers Association — to another defective treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention.
There is the not-at-all sinister motivation that he gives for their support and an example of a previous, similar, situation where self-interest led a corporation to shoot itself in the foot by endorsing a treaty.
You are the one suggesting duplicity not Frank Gaffney.