Oklahoma Ping!
If you want on
or off this list
Freepmail me.
Posted on 11/16/2005 6:38:25 AM PST by OXENinFLA
A REAL WAR -- (Senate - November 15, 2005)
[Page: S12775] GPO's PDF
---
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today because, as I travel around Oklahoma, one of the things I find is a lack of recognition of the war we are in, why we are there, what the problems are associated with it. Every one of us has a heavy heart for the fact that we now have troops committed and dying and sacrificing every day in the war on terrorism.
As I thought about what to say to my constituents in Oklahoma but also to the American people, I found that I could not say it as well as retired MG Vernon Chong of the U.S. Air Force. I wish to read, for a few moments, a commentary he has written, dated October 1, 2005. If you would indulge me to read that, I think it will give us some enlightenment to where we are. He says:
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war, and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer, as far as the United States is concerned, is 1979--22 years prior to September 2001--with the following attacks on us:
Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut, Lebanon, Embassy, 1983; Beirut, Lebanon, Marine Barracks, 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland, Pan-Am flight to New York, 1988; First New York World Trade Center attack, 1993; Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Khobar Towers Military complex, 1996; Nairobi, Kenya, U.S. Embassy, 1998; Dares Salaam, Tanzania, U.S. Embassy, 1998; Aden, Yeman, USS Cole, 2000; New York, World Trade Center, 2001; Pentagon, 2001; and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, Plane Crash, 2001
Why were we attacked: Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administration of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were no provocations by any of the Presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
[Page: S12776] GPO's PDF
Who were the attackers? In each case, the attacks on the U.S. were carried out by Muslins. What is the Muslim population of the World? Twenty-five percent. Isn't the Muslin Religion peaceful? Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominantly Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration, or you were eliminated.
Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews, or of taking over the world--German, Christian, or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the attention of the world on the U.S., but kill all in the way--their own people, or the Spanish, French, or anyone else. The point here, is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslins there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders, and what they are fanatically bent on doing--by their own pronouncements--killing all of us ``infidels.'' I don't blame the peaceful Muslins. What would you do--if the choice was shut up, or die?
So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct, and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win, if you don't clearly recognize, and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions: Can we lost this war? What does losing really mean? If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.
We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question--``What does losing mean?''
It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home, and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is: We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorists to attack us, until we were neutered, and submissive to them.
We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals, and for the reason that they would see that we are impotent, and cannot help them.
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train, and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done.
The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France.
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life will all vanish, as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they are threatened by the Muslims?
If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?
The Muslims [Islamo-fascists] fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore, are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite, and really put 100 percent of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And, it is going to take that 100 percent effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by ``imploding.'' That is, defeating ourselves, by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life-and-death seriousness of this situation.
President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously?
This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily, or we will most certainly lose all of them, permanently.
And, don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory, and in fact, added many more since then.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict, and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying.
We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police.
By the way, all of those have gone to trial or are going to trial, and will be punished.
Again, these are MG Chong's words:
These are the type of prisoners, who just a few months ago, were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues, and otherwise murdering their own people, just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.
And just a few years ago, these same types of prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.
And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was, and is, providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.
Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who, for several days, have thought and talked about nothing else but the ``humiliating'' of some Muslim prisoners--not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but ``humiliating'' them.
Can this be for real?
If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.
To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle, as Rome burned--totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife.
Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in, and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.
Remember, the Muslim terrorists' stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into all non-Muslims--not just in the United States, but throughout the world.
We are the last bastion of defense.
We have been criticized, for many years, as being ``arrogant.'' That charge is valid, in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful, and smart; that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us; and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world.
We can't.
If we don't recognize this, our Nation as we know it, will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive, if we are defeated.
And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone--let alone everyone, equal status, or any status for women.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war, or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written, or read.
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.
And, they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom, and will not apply it to you, or even to themselves, once they are in power.
They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other, over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the ``peaceful Muslims''?
I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.
After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country, and the World.
Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, and that includes the politicians and media of our country, and the free World!
Those are the words of retired MG Vernon Chong, U.S. Air Force.
I think it brings to mind the very important facts that face us today. We are at war. The war is real. The threats to our country and to our freedom are real. We must come together as a nation and recognize this threat, or we stand to lose the very principles, the very freedom, we each cherish so much.
I yield the floor.
Dr. Coburn read a letter from a retired Air Force General into the record who to spoke to what he was wanting people to hear.
You didn't tell the whole story from Snopes -- Gen Chong is real and he forwarded this essay which ended up getting his name attached:
The above-quoted essay about the war on terrorism is yet one more example of misattribution through e-mail forwarding. Although USAF Major General Vernon Chong is indeed a real person, according to the Air Force News Agency (AFNEWS) the essay was not written by him; it was something he came across and forwarded to an acquaintance via e-mail, thereby attaching his name to it and inadvertently causing other recipients to erroneously assume he was its author.
When General Chong was contacted by AFNEWS he said that he did not recall who wrote the essay, so for now the identity of its true author is unknown to us.
Last updated: 15 November 2005
I would've included the Black Hawk Down incident along with the Hotel bombing attempt in yemen to get US troops, along with the Space Needle attempt.
Still a good speech. This is ridiculous that this has to be explained over and over and over to portions of idiots in this country--including idiot politicians who we know are lying through their teeth.
Dr. Coburn would make an AWESOME candidate and President.
BTTT
Dr. Coburn is a good man. He needs to run for president some day. I am proud to have formerly lived in Oklahoma and that its citizens elected this man - he has a real spine!
Good man.
Excellent speech.
Make him Majority Leader.
Direct answer to that question is Yes.
As you measure the response to some of his other positions--the effort to take some of the pork out of the spending bill for example; you see his broad electoral appeal.
However the Political Establishment is absolutely against him. The Senate was overwhelmingly critical of his position on the spending bill. And this effort is going to be met with silence also.
Properly organized and funded, he might have a shot at getting the Republican nomination through the normal process.
That said, I also want to cast some realism on General Chong's paper.
Recognition that the Moslems represent a clear direct military threat to Western Civilization and the obvious challenge presented by the need for a response does not mean that we need to endorse the foreign or military policy of the incumbent administration as the basis for defense.
To the contrary, the current effort is failing. In part for reasons identified by General Chong--we need to recognize who the enemy is and it is not terrorism, it is militant Moslems, many of whom are ethnically identified; Congress needs to specifically Declare War; we need to close and control the borders; and we most urgently need to develop and foreign and military policy that will work.
We need to be able to politically separate the issues of illegal immigration from the south from the need to be able to control our national territory. Although I personally would support deporting all illegals; and view the economic cost of supporting them in the US as having a net cost far in excess of any reduced labor cost benefit, we need to debate that issue separately from the fundamental issue of border control.
We don't need to sacrifice American lives and waste our tax dollars trying to civilize Iraq. Iraq is not a real country--it is a collection of at least four and perhaps five separate religious and ethnic groups that have been at each others throats for over a thousand years. It is never going to be a Democratically governable country--face it.
The easy obvious solution is to divide the country. The local Moslem's don't like it? If they were really willing to be part of an effective solution, we might give their views and objectives some consideration but they are not. We need to do it--and control the aftermath in the narrow geographical areas that are important to the US with treaties (oil production and military basing).
Torture is immoral and wrong. If you support it, what are you going to say to Jesus Christ when he asks you about it? It is also unnecessary in a realistic effort to make a practical response to deprive American citizens of their Constitutional rights. The Law is the foundation of our Republic. We don't need to abrogate the Law to mount an effective response to the Moslems--we need to find effective leadership.
Oklahoma Ping!
If you want on
or off this list
Freepmail me.
BTTT
There is no question in my mind that some, not all, national Democrat leaders would trade losing for regaining their personal political power. Howard Dean, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, and Ted Kennedy head the list.
After yesterday's vote...and my two Senators...Cornyn and Hutchison, chose to vote with the democrats...in trying to set a course for a Vietnam ending to Iraq...
Can you adopt me??? I like Coburn!
I think I will see if the Alabama freepers will adopt me also...because I really like Sessions also.
Since there is no one taking credit for writing this speech (MG Vernon Chong just forwarded it and did not know who wrote it), I vote to add one more militant action by the Islamists - Oklahoma City Bombing of the Murrah Federal Building, 1995, and then continue to forward this speech.
..."I would've included the Black Hawk Down incident..."...
It may be better to not refer to the "Black Hawk Down incident", but rather the "Battle of Mogadishu", in which a small unit of US Army Rangers, SOF Detachment Delta, and US Navy SEAL operators, supported by 10th Mountain Division troopers, killed some 1,000 Somali muslim ambushers at a cost of 18 US KIA and around a hundred WIA on October 3-4, 1993. This battle and the high number of US casualties was the result of Clinton Administration mission-creep and the fecklessness of Clinton and his worthless SecDef, Les Aspin, who refused to let the Task Force use armor or AC-130 gunship support. If they had the latter, they would have killed several thousand muslims...
Coburn should be the #1 candidate for President on the GOP side, not McLame. #2 should be Pence!
Tom Coburn for President!
Well, OK, but he still SAID IT and obviously agreed with it!
Coburn/Pence! Or Pence/Coburn works for me! These two guys make George Allen look like Bush 41, and Giluiani look like Jimmy Carter.
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.