Fox: US/Mexico seeking 6 terrorists with chem/radiation materials

Regulator, I'll have to defer to you on Mexico's history and government, you certainly have been more exposed to it than I have. I visited Mexico a couple of times in the 1980s (like you, I have Mexican cousins, since my aunt married a Mexican, but they have since moved to the U.S.), but have never lived in Mexico (nor in the Southwest, for that matter). So if you tell me that Pancho Villa is more akin to George Washington than to Billy the Kid in the eyes of most Mexicans, then I stand corrected. But my point is that if you were to separate countries into "friendly" and "unfriendly" camps, Mexico would be in the "friendly" camp more often that not since the 1920s. Mexico was our ally during the Cold War, and ten years ago actually agreed to eliminate tariffs on most U.S. products as part of NAFTA (something very few of our allies would be willing to do). Now, before I get flamed again, I am not implying that Mexico was our Cold-War ally and eliminated most of its tariffs because it's government is so big-hearted and loves us so much. Of course Mexico did it for their own selfish interests, and there is no doubt in my mind that the Mexican government was merely looking after number one. But isn't that how it usually works in international relations? When a country's interests are in line with our own, it will support us, and if it isn't it will not. The problem with Mexico is that it usually supports us when it's unavoidable or when they get something out of it as well. And, returning to the original thread, it is certainly in Mexico's self interest to make sure that guys who came across the border don't mount terrorist attacks against us. So my point isn't that Mexico is as good a friend as Great Britain or Israel, but that it ain't China either, and will help out when it's in it's in its interest to do so.

As for how demographic changes could make the Southwest a majority-Mexican area in a few years, I certainly can't argue with you on that. Even if illegal immigration was stopped completely (which as I have stated ad nauseum, I absolutely support, and believe we need to put National Guardsmen right on the border if necessary), higher birthrates among Mexican-Americans makes this a certainty---it's a matter of when, not if. But I do not equate having a Mexican-American majority in California with having California become one of the United Mexican States. And if we can make Mexican-Americans see that their cultural values are more attuned with those of the Republican Party than with those of the Democrats, and we reduce the verbal animosity towards Mexicans, we can reclaim Califoria as the Republican stronghold it has traditionally been. For the record, of course I know California has voted exclusively for FeinBoxer and ClintonGore since the early 90s, but California voted for the GOP presidential candidate in 9 out of 10 elections from 1952 to 1988---the lone exception being, unfortunately, when our hero Barry Goldwater started the modern conservative movement in 1964.

Dead U.K. Expert: Saddam Built a Dirty Bomb
Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com
Monday, Aug. 4, 2003

New evidence of Saddam Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction was provided last June by a top weapons expert, now dead, and it could have an enormous impact on the 2004 presidential election.

The stunning revelation by the British scientist, who committed suicide last month over the issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction could have anti-war Democrats running for cover.

According to Britain's Sunday Times, Dr. David Kelly had amassed convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein had built and tested a dirty nuclear bomb as long ago as 1987, and was perfectly capable of building the deadly weapons right up to the final months of his regime. Moreover the radiological weapons could have been used by terrorists to create panic and widespread contamination in a crowded city.

Dr. Kelly presented evidence of the bomb to the British government back in 1995 and recommended to Foreign Office officials that it be highlighted in the government's intelligence dossier on Iraq, which spelled out the reasons justifying an attack on Saddam's regime. However, the Times reports, despite secret Iraqi documents being produced to prove its existence, for unexplained reasons it was not included.

In a June interview with the newspaper, Kelly revealed that Saddam originally built the dread weapon capable of causing cancer and birth defects for use against Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war as a tactical weapon and an instrument of terror.

Moreover Kelly insisted that said Iraq still "possessed the know-how and the materials to build a radiological weapon, "adding that the threat posed by such weapons was potentially more serious than some other weapons of mass destruction because Iraq still retained the main ingredients to build dirty bombs such as nuclear material and high explosives.

When the Times asked why this shocking information was not featured in the British government's case for going to war against Iraq, Kelly said he did not know, but added that there were people in government who were skeptical about the potency of such a weapon. In Private

In private, Kelly is said to have believed the evidence should have been included in the dossier because of the possibility that Iraq could reactivate the program even after it had been stripped of other non-conventional weapons.

Later, in July, during his testimony to a Parliamentary foreign affairs select committee in remarks which the Times says have been largely overlooked, Kelly told John Maples, a former Conservative spokesman on defense and foreign affairs:

"On one inspection that I led...the acknowledgment was made by General Fahi Shaheen, together with Brigadier Hassan (two senior Iraqi weapons specialists), that they had undertaken experiments with radiological weapons in 1987." And the Times added that when Maples asked: "Do you think that is true?" Kelly replied: "Undoubtedly it is true." Maples pressed Kelly for details as to why the matter of the dirty bombs had not been included in the government's dossier, saying, "A dirty nuclear bomb, I would have thought, was pretty significant." Kelly explained only, "You cannot include everything."

Maples told the Times this weekend that he remained puzzled and uneasy over why the government had excluded evidence of the dirty bomb from its dossier: "It is a mystery why this issue (of the dirty bomb) was not picked up by the government and why Kelly gave me the answer he did - that there was lots of other stuff that had to be included."

"They (the government) were obviously looking for ways of making the dossier as attractive as they could, and as threatening as they could, and you would have thought Iraq's ability to let off a dirty nuclear weapon was pretty serious." The Times said that Iraq's dirty bomb was made from a material called radioactive zirconium which was packed into a bomb casing with high explosives. Iraq had access to zirconium stored at its Al-Tarmiya reactor site - under United Nations safeguards - ostensibly for use in its peaceful nuclear power program.

The revelation that Saddam had the capability of building dirty bombs and had once done so and tested the lethal weapons that could have been supplied to terrorists groups could provide convincing proof that Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction - a fact being discounted by Democrat presidential candidates and many in their party.

As the Times noted, one of the main reasons for invading Iraq cited by both the British and American governments was the danger that Saddam could pass weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaida terrorists. Kelly's revelations bolster that claim.

Clinton wasn't and hasn't been in office on 9-11. Bush was. Clinton should be in jail for any number of reasons with the borders being one of them. Regardless Clinton's dereliction isn't the issue; Bush's is which is compunded by his lack of actions since 9-11 and his attempting to get a deal with Fox about it over the UN fiasco. Might I ask what Bush has done to STRENGTHEN our borders?? I'm really looking forward to hearing that.

I am sure anything I say to you would be pointless at this time, but here are a few things for you to consider before you join the elect Howard Dean campaign a.k.a. vote for Pat ala Perot campaign.

1. Just how many dollars would you spend on border control? I would personally like to see a lot more spent, but answer the question with a hard number and ask yourself if spending that same number elsewhere would do better.

Take the argument that the libs are throwing around: "Lets put missle defense on every passenger plane in the country" ... Hmmm I think that building a computer system to store the fingerprints from every site in Iraq/Ashcanistan would be $$ better spent. Heck, hire a few more CIA agents to listen to another 1% of suspected calls comming from the mid-east and we would get more defense for the cost...

2. When you hear the liberal media (aka any non-fox station) talking about 'border control' they are doing it for a reason -- it is either

a) good local politics - hear southern states (we don't hear anything about it up here in NY because it would serve no purpose). This kind of story is great ratings in the TX,NV,AZ etc markets.

b) good for furthering their political agedas (they know Bush is 'weak' on the issue)

Finally -- put togther a plan and promote border reform. Remeber that we will need work against decades liberal policy. Bush cannot just wave a magic wand and fix everything, I am sure that much of this is enshrined in the law that was passed over the last 60 or so years (after all, isn't it law that local cops cannot ask if someone is illegal in certain states -- WTFIUWT). Bush may be able to call in the national guard to watch the borders, but I think that we have more pressing needs for our troops. As for going out and 'hiring more agents' look at the TSA and tell me that you have faith in the govt rushing anything and doing it right. It has to be seeded properly in order for it to work.

If you have nothing constructive to say on the matter STFO. Bitching about it 24/7 like a radio host will do nothing. You cannot put up a three-layer fence full of land mines up on the border, (while that is probably the solution). Don't get me wrong, I do think that we need to do more here, but maybe we should start by doing a few of the following:

1. Normalize and regulate the importation of transiant farm workers (a large draw for 1st time illegals).

2. Severely punish companies that are not complying with the law. Have Ashcroft crack down on the construction industry. I am sure the GOP would get a few extra union votes on the issue.... Let the dems come out screaming abou t how the 'President is taking their jobs away and giving them to ... ' oops..

3. Curtail highway and other funds to states that are enacting policy which encourages illiegal immigration. California is a good example: Every dollar that they spend propping these POS up should be taken from funds given to the state by the federal govt. Let's see how long they last... The rational is that since illegal imigration is a federal responsibility, the state is costing the rest of the country $$ with thier policies which specifically increase federal costs.

I am sure the FR can come up with thousands of evil little plots to push this stuff forward. There is actually a lot of good politics that can be played here!

Recognize that you have to work with what you have to work with, and helping Howard Dean get elected is definitly not in your best interest.

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.