Base Yes, Bombs No : Do Vieques Protesters Want It Both Ways?

ABCNEWS ^ | March 14, 2003 | John Stossel

[Sacajaweau]

The guys a friggin liar. Read his (Serrano's) testimony before Congress Sept 22 1999.

"I am also sure that at the conclusion of this hearing, the Subcommittee will reach the same conclusion as the Puerto Rican Special Commission on Vieques - It is time for the Navy to leave Vieques."

The Dems are up to "dirty" again.

[taxed2death]

I sometimes listen to WBAI out of NY. It's important to listen to what the enimies are planning....to hear "NEWYORICANS", as they refer to themselves whine endlessly about the colonial imperialism (US military base) on that little rat-hole of an island would make me laugh for hours.

[Jay D. Dyson]

This is typical Leftist claptrap. It's like the Liberals over here decrying our practice bombings, but then they condemn us when our bombs fall astray with unintended consequences.

They expect perfection WITHOUT practice...which only shows how disconnected from reality those morons really are!

-Jay

[GladesGuru]

Just what the long sufering taxpayer needs - a bombing range where we can't drop bombs.

When the locals get hungry, here is a suggestion:

ACVITISTS - THE NEW WHITE MEAT.

And let 'em wash it down with Liberal whine.

[thegreatbeast]

Saw the piece run just a few moments ago. This Serrano is one cynical bastard. His allegiance seems to be skewed more towards PR than it is to NY and the US.

[Coleus]

Let's face the Puerto Ricans are the luckiest of all the Hispanics where they are Natural Born Citizens of the USA, just ask any Dominican. They have no right to complain by our military using a nearly deserted Island to practice bombing and other military exercises. I agree with John Stossel.

The U.S. Navy was ordered to stop its bombing on the island of Vieques after massive protests. (ABCNEWS.com)

Base Yes, Bombs No Do Vieques Protesters Want It Both Ways? Commentary By John Stossel March 14 — For 60 years, American troops have trained on Vieques Island off Puerto Rico. The government bought most of the island because it considered it a perfect place to train sailors and pilots. It's surrounded by ocean, but far from shipping lanes.

Then four years ago, a pilot made a tragic mistake. He dropped two bombs in the wrong place and killed David Sanes, a security guard. Immediately, activists started leading protests against the Navy bombing. They pulled down fences and invaded the property, saying the Navy must leave Vieques.

The activists claimed the bombing caused cancer and polluted the island.

Famous people joined the protests. Al Sharpton went through the fence. So did Robert Kennedy Jr. and actor Edward James Olmos.

Lots of politicians from New York, which has a large Puerto Rican population, got involved too, including Gov. George Pataki, Rep. Charles Rangel, Rep. Jose Serrano, and Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Back in 2000, President Clinton decided the Navy would stop the training in Vieques. "We have not always been good neighbors on Vieques," said Clinton.

President Bush supported that decision.

"These are our friends and neighbors and they don't want us there," Bush said.

Now the military practices its bombing — like this week's test of what they called the "mother of all bombs" — off the coast of Florida.

So what does that mean for the Navy's huge, expensive training base on the mainland of Puerto Rico, 10 miles away from Vieques? It has been home to thousands of troops who had helped support the training-fueling ships and providing shore leave for the sailors.

Close it, says Adm. Robert Natter, because the Navy doesn't need it anymore.

Natter commands the Navy's Atlantic Fleet — 100,000 sailors and Marines now preparing to fight in Iraq.

"My responsibility is to train young sailors and Marines to go into combat. I've got to do that with the money that the taxpayers provide for me. If I can't do that training in Puerto Rico, I quite frankly don't need the facilities there," Natter says.

Local Economy Takes a Hit

That came as a shock to people who live around the base. The base contributes $300 million a year to the local economy.

So now the politicians are upset again.

It's as if some of the protesters want bombs to stop falling from the sky, but they want money to keep falling.

Most of the celebrities and politicians didn't want to be interviewed about that. But Serrano agreed to talk.

Serrano says the protest was only about Vieques, not about the base in Puerto Rico. He says the Navy wants to close that base just to punish the protesters. "They say, we'll fix you. We're getting out. And we're taking everything," Serrano said.

I suggested that funding a bombing support base without bombing was a waste of taxpayer money.

Serrano said, "One could argue that half of the military budget has been a waste of money for a long time."

He says the military shouldn't have any say in closing the base.

"The military doesn't speak in this country. The military keeps quiet," he said, adding, "Let Congress decide if it wants to close that base."

He doesn't think that will happen. With the presidential election coming up and everyone courting Latino votes, he says the Navy will stay put.

"When the president realizes that it's getting close to 2004, and this becomes another Latino political issue again, he's gonna tell them, you don't have to go. And they won't go," Serrano said.

He may be right. With votes at stake, politicians may spend millions on a base the Navy doesn't even want.

Give me a break!

[Taxman]

Developers want the land, after the US taxpayer clears it of unexpended ordnance, to build resort hotels and such.

The developers have been after Vieques for years, and spent a lot of money generating opposition to continued US Navy presence there.

Think San Juan island. It is a beautiful island, and has some truly spectacular beaches.

As Rush says, follow the money.

[DugwayDuke]

You may recall the furor over the Base Realinment And Closure (BRAC) back in 1995 in California. One of the bases earmarked for closure was in Ron "Red" Dellums (D-CA) district. Good old "Red" was famous for several things. One, he was chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, claimed he needed to be there to make sure the military didn't spend too much money. Second, he was a leftist democrat, ie, he earned the nickname "Red". He also was one of the most anti-military democrats there was. (Isn't it peculiar that the dems would put an anti-military guy in that postion?)

Well, one of the biggest bases in "Red's" district was slated to be closed. He threw a hissy. When asked about whether he supported cutting military spending, his comment was: "Not in my district." proving that the dems really see the military establishment as a jobs program only.