Posted on 11/03/2005 10:51:44 AM PST by street_lawyer
I stumbled over the website of the Committee on the Present Danger. [1] Senator Jon Kyl, Joseph Leiberman, George Schultz and James Woolsey are honorary Co-Chariman of the group. Believing the organization to be opposed to communism and other forms of terrorism I gave some thought to sending in my application for membership, but before doing so I decided to look into the group a bit further.
While I discovered that the intent and purpose of the group is sound, I am not quite certain what it has actually accomplished toward its objective.
I found that the original purpose of the group was to further the Truman Administration’s policy aimed at “containment” of Soviet expansionism, which I consider a euphemism for “surrender without firing a shot”.
If Truman wanted to contain communism, perhaps he should have fired a few of the members of his cabinet, starting with Dean Acheson. As for containment by 1950 the little hat salesman in the Whitehouse with a “buck” on his desk where the responsibility stopped, had been very successful. At least he was from Stalin’s point of view since the little guy had allowed communism to take over his office, all of Eastern Europe, and more than a billion people in China. To avoid bloodshed, Truman’s brilliant strategy was to abandon Chiang Kai-Shek.
The liberal press of his day praised Truman’s decision because it avoided a bloody and futile war and because it improved Sino-American relations. The press today blames the US policy toward Israel for the terrorist’s attacks on our soil, and the war on terror for degrading al Qaeda-American relations.
The only flaw in the democrat’s containment plan was that China is now communist. The MSM sill calls Truman one of America’s best and smartest presidents, and perhaps he was, at least for one who governed along with several members of the communist party.
Let us not forget how Truman, with the help of Dean Acheson gave us North Korea. Someone who spent some time in the national Pres Club in January of 1950 might have been present when the darling of the Harvard elite Dean Acheson, talked about how giving up North Korea to Uncle Joe was a brilliant strategy. To be sure that Uncle Joe would not be deterred in his efforts to acquire South Korea Acheson added: “It must be clear that no person can guarantee these areas (South Korea) against military attack”.[2] Today we hear the same lame excuse from liberal democrats for not fighting terrorists. What Clinton did in Somalia only emboldened the terrorists who ultimately brought down the twin towers and flew innocent people into the pentagon and into a field in Pennsylvania?
The democrat’s new policy of containment under Clinton was to make sure that the CIA and FBI did not share information. Not a good idea considering that 9/11 may have been discovered before 9/11.
Another dazzling left wing idea from the Ivy elite is to contain our oil resources in the ground. Perhaps if the socialists are successful in taking over America, they can hand over all that oil to other Communist nations. We know the plan is not to save the environment, so what other possible reason might the liberals have for their insane policy of oil containment?
According to the Commission their “mission is to educate free people everywhere about the threat posed by global radical Islamist and fascist terrorist movements” Actually 9/11 was a particularly effective way of serving notice. Only the socialists and pacifists seem to have forgotten. Many of them today are more concerned about the threat of inhumane treatment of terrorists, and less about the threat of terrorism
This is what the committee had to say about the Clinton administration: “Bin Laden was taunting that president about America's withdrawal from Somalia, saying: "When tens of your soldiers were killed in minor battles and one American pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu, you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you," That type of pacifism resulted in a “Declaration of War Against the Americans for Occupying the Land of Two Holy Places”. Bin Laden added that "Clinton appeared in front of the whole world promising revenge, but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal…the extent of your impotence and weakness became very clear." [3] The promised revenge did not take place until George W. Bush took action.
While democrats continue to oppose the war on terror because no WMD’s were found in Iraq, and while they continue to mislead the nation by asserting that there was never a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda, the Committee takes a somewhat more enlightened approach to fighting terror. Although I do not agree that the Taliban and Saddam were considered mere nuisances. “Fueled by the accelerant of state support, the threat of Islamist terror increases dramatically. That is why the Taliban and Saddam Hussein regimes – viewed previously as serious but not actionable nuisances – became irreconcilable with American national security in a post-9/11 world.”[4] Co-chairman and former director of the CIA, James Woolsey is one of the leading proponents of the connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Who would be more likely to know of the existence of that connection than the head of the CIA?
To say that the Bush administration knew that there were no WMD’s in Iraq is absurd. We would have to believe that the only man on earth who knew that there were no WMD’s in Iraq was President Bush, and if he did know that and took American into war, then he would also know that no WMD’s would be found. Who tells a lie knowing that his lie would be discovered? In Bush’s case there was no stain on the dress about which he did not know.
Dumb is what the democrats are doing by stirring up anti war sentiment. And if they are not dumb, then they are allied with al-Qaeda. Have the democrats not learned from the lessons of Truman and Clinton? Perhaps the simple answer is that the democrats have no stomach for war. Afghanistan and Iraq are only two of the countries that held hundreds of millions of people in misery and oppression. While never mentioning, except as an aside, the oppression of the Arab peoples, the liberal democrats never fail to mention the treatment of a few prisoners at Abu Gharib. The fact is that US policy is to treat even the worst of the worst as humans, but this is not what the liberal democrats want us to believe, and by misleading the country, with the aid and comfort of the MSM, they allied themselves with Al Qaeda.
The war on terror will not be over until there are no terrorists left, no jihadists in the African Sudan, Darfur, Mauritania, Northern Nigeria, and all along the coast, in Kenya and Tanzania, in the horn of Africa in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Tanzania and Kenya. There is violence in Asia’s Philippines, where Al Qaeda has operated for many years. In Pakistan, the “Movement of Holy Warriors” is centered in Kasmir. Nor is Southeast Asia safe from terror as the extremists plan their vision of an Islamic state in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia.
The war on terror is not over until there are no more terrorists, or countries that support them.
Just one example of how the liberals and the MSM cannot be trusted with the facts we need look no further than the Los Angeles Times when in May 2001 Robert Scheer published an article stating that the Bush administration authorized a $43 million dollars to be paid to the Taliban to fight the war on drugs. This bogus article appeared in numerous liberal websites. Including Montclair State University in New Jersey.[5] Numerous publications printed the story as fact ignoring that the LA Times issued this retraction:
[Robert Scheer]'s column on [Bush]'s "deal" with the Taliban omitted important facts. The $43 million in humanitarian aid comes largely in the form of food supplies. It is also not a new policy; according to the State Department, the United States sent $114 million in aid to Afghanistan last year. Accusing Bush of entering into a deal with the Taliban by providing desperately needed food ...[6]
[2] Stanlet Kober, “The Debate over No First Use,” Foreign Affairs, Summer 1982
[4] Ibid.
[5] The following are just a few of the websites found: http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm
The Nation : http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010604/20010522
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=11252
http://www.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2000/03/10/robertson/
http://www.peterussell.com/WTC/Fearless.html
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=17
Montclair State University - Montclair, New Jersey, 07043, http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/wtc/scheerbushtaliban052201.html
Wooo Hooo! somebody notify the Mooslims
They're in Syria; some were scrapped (with the help of the Russians) and ended up in metal recycling sites in Europe; chemicals were dumped into the Euphrates River; some are buried in the sand. And, btw, did Kay, Deulfer, and the ISG ever thoroughly look for WMDs in Fallujah before issuing their final report? I don't believe we've heard the final word on Saddam's WMDs.
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.