osdir.com
mailing list archive

Subject: Building the Post-Kyoto Future - msg#00031

List: culture.discuss.cia-drugs

Date: Prev Next Index Thread: Prev Next Index
  http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/printer_2495.shtml Environmentalism Last Updated: Nov 1st, 2005 - 11:22:37
Building the Post-Kyoto Future
by Dennis Behreandt
November 14, 2005

The new U.S.-Asian pact on global warming has more to do with transferring technology to China than with saving the planet from greenhouse gases.

On July 27, the Bush administration unveiled a new pact between the United States and several of the powerhouse nations of the Asian economy, including South Korea, China, Japan, India, and Australia. Representatives of the nations party to the pact were to hold their first official meeting in November, but that has now been pushed back to sometime after the beginning of the new year. The agreement, though, called the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, was, at the time of its unveiling, a surprise move made to fight the perceived threat of global warming. (For more information on the science, see page 21.)

The new pact is noteworthy for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it is concrete proof that the Bush administration, internationally castigated for its reluctance to embrace the draconian Kyoto Accord, views global warming as a threat. There is more to the story, though, than just the Bush administration's embrace of global warming orthodoxy. That was never really in doubt anyway.

The real story about the new pact has largely been ignored. To listen to most reports in the mainstream media, the new pact is a unilateral move by the United States to undermine Kyoto. What is missed or ignored is that the pact, negotiated over a period of months in near complete secrecy, amounts to an internationally constructed plan to send aid, in the form of high technology, to foreign nations. In the case of China, these foreign aid plans are particularly dangerous.

The Blair Factor

Constrained since taking office by popular conservative disdain of global warming alarmism, the Bush administration has had to steer the nation away from the UN's Kyoto Accord. That treaty mechanism, favored by leftists in Europe and elsewhere, would have required reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases to such a degree that the U.S. economy would have been severely harmed. By one widely cited estimate, the cost of implementing Kyoto would be a staggering $716 billion. Since abandoning Kyoto, the Bush administration (which has been eager to find a global warming plan it could call its own) has been under severe and continual pressure to either reconsider or implement some other related plan.

The principal agent of this pressure campaign has been the office of British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Though the House of Lords recently released a report critical of the science behind the anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming hypothesis, Blair has consistently advocated policies supposedly formulated to fight the perceived threat of climate change. Usually he has done so in a way that points the finger at America.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on January 26, for instance, Blair pointed to purported differences in opinion between the UK and the U.S., and urged the two countries to work together on the issue. "On both, there are differences that need to be reconciled," he said. "And if they could be reconciled or at least moved forward, it would make a huge difference to the prospects of international unity, as well as to people's lives and our future survival."

Blair turned up the pressure at the recent G8 Summit held in Gleneagles, Scotland. Overshadowed by the terrorist attacks on the London transit system that occurred during the summit was Blair's continued call for the United States to do something about global warming. This time, he emphasized that he wasn't looking for the United States to join Kyoto per se, but to do something technological that would have an impact. "What I am trying to do at the G8," Blair said during an appearance on MTV, "is say: 'America is not going to sign the Kyoto Treaty, let's leave that to one side.'"

Instead, what Blair wanted to focus on was an effort to move beyond Kyoto. Foreshadowing the announcement of the U.S.-Asian pact on climate change that would be unveiled just weeks later, Blair, exercising the presidency of the G8, invited both China and India to the summit. Noting during a summit press conference that it will be "emerging economies, like China, like India, who, in the future, are going to be the major consumers of energy," the British prime minister steered the summit toward a joint "communiqué" that emphasized the need to invest in clean technologies and to help developing countries. "We will promote innovation ? and accelerate deployment of cleaner technologies," said the heads of state in The Gleneagles Communiqué. "We will work with developing countries to enhance private investment and transfer of technologies, taking into account their own energy needs and priorities."

Implementing the Post-Kyoto Plan

The press, both in the United States and elsewhere, has been working to paint the U.S.-Asian pact as the surprising action of a renegade superpower. Soon after the pact was announced, for instance, the London Times reported: "The British Government appears to have been caught unawares by the announcement of a six-country pact spearheaded by the United States and Australia to promote cleaner energy technologies across the Asia-Pacific."

In fact, the pact could not have been much of a surprise at all to the Blair government. Indeed, in its major provisions, it is essentially identical to the Blair-engineered G8 Communiqué. During the press conference when the pact was announced on July 28 in Vientiane, Laos, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick seemed like he was reading directly from the G8 script. The pact, Zoellick told the assembled press, "focuses on the interests of energy, both energy security, but also energy efficiency. It focuses on the vital role of energy in development and it also focuses on the issues of climate change. It opens up the possibilities for developing, deploying, and transferring cleaner, more efficient technologies."

A "vision statement" issued by the nations party to the pact also echoed G8 sentiments. According to the joint statement, the parties pledged to "work together, in accordance with our respective national circumstances, to create a new partnership to develop, deploy and transfer cleaner, more efficient technologies and to meet national pollution reduction, energy security and climate change concerns, consistent with the principles of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change."

Communist China

This statement is important because it confirms that the Bush administration supports the principles of Kyoto. But greater ramifications may come from the pact's explicitly stated goal of technology transfer, especially to Communist China.

With regard to China, the pact has two goals. First is the obvious goal of helping the Chinese convert energy production from older polluting technologies to the cleaner technologies coming online in the West. The second and more important goal is to give China (and India) technologies that can generate power more efficiently in the hopes of slaking that nation's growing thirst for oil. At present, demand for fossil fuels in China is growing rapidly and may be approaching a crisis point. This, certainly, is the reality that drove the failed attempt of the government-run Chinese National Offshore Oil Company to purchase UNOCAL this summer. It was also the motivation for China National Petroleum Corp., another government-run energy company, to make the successful acquisition of the formerly Canadian-owned PetroKazakhstan for $4.18 billion.

Realistically, technology and other assistance transferred to the Chinese via the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate will likely have very little impact on that nation's demand for energy. China is already the second-largest consumer of oil after the U.S., using some 5.5 million barrels daily. But it hasn't been enough. According to the Washington Post, in some areas China has "started rationing electric power to industrial plants, and several cities suffered brownouts during heat waves last summer."

Though it won't even make a dent in China's rapacious demand for energy, technology transfer will have an impact, and one that could harm U.S. interests. Chinese firms operating in the current neo-fascist Chinese economic system already flood the U.S. market with goods made cheap by government subsidies. Transferring advanced energy technologies to China will only serve to undermine the current technological edge Western firms depend on to remain competitive.

A more sinister possibility, though, is that the envisioned technology transfers will result in the further strengthening of the dangerous People's Liberation Army (PLA). It is well-known that the PLA already envisions the United States as its chief military rival of the future, that it has designs on the free people of Taiwan, and that it is aggressively modernizing its technology to allow force projection beyond Chinese territory.

According to authors Edward Timperlake and William C. Triplett II, the PLA receives much of its funding for these efforts from the commercial enterprises it controls. In the book Red Dragon Rising, Timperlake and Triplett note: "By some accounts, the PLA's business empire comprises 20,000 companies, employing 600,000 people and having a turnover of at least $20 billion per year." PLA industries make more than guns. According to Timperlake and Triplett, the Washington Post reported that by 1998, the PLA "controlled 20 percent of China's automotive industry and ran nearly 400 pharmaceutical factories, 1,500 hotels, and four of China's 10 biggest clothing factories." The PLA does all this under its doctrine of "Military-Civilian Unity." Transferring high-tech energy production equipment and expertise to Communist China will only tend to increase the power of the PLA.

Nevertheless, the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate will likely be the model for future international efforts to combat the supposed dangers of global warming. "The question is," said Prime Minister Blair during the G8 summit, "can we, as we go forward, create the conditions in which, when Kyoto ends -- which it does in 2012 -- it's possible for the world to move into consensus." The U.S.-Asia-Pacific pact is the first manifestation of that new international consensus, one that may lead to a more dangerous world.


   © Copyright 2005 American Opinion Publishing Incorporated
 

SPONSORED LINKS United state bankruptcy court western district of texas United state life insurance United state patent United state patent search United states patent office United state flag
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Was this page helpful?
Yes No
Thread at a glance:

Previous Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: Re: How to Judge Alito

Good heads up Mark. Is this one of the vaccines which is supposed to kill those who get it?   Peace,   Arlene Johnson http://www.truedemocracy.net-----Original Message----- From: mark urban Sent: Nov 2, 2005 11:30 AM To: cia-drugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [cia-drugs] Re: How to Judge Alito Still fiddlin' while Rome burns, eh Jim?Mice with bubonic plague; leaky borders; Hillary's 2008 run at the oval office; and now this! My God! Did you know the Rummy owns a damn fat share of the company that patented the Tamiflu vaccine?--- In cia-drugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Jim Rarey" <jimrarey@xxxx> wrote:>> http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=20035> > How to Judge Alito> By Henry Mark Holzer> FrontPageMagazine.com | November 1, 2005> > > Much will be said in days to come about Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito: his academic background at Princeton and Yale; his distinguished career as a government prosecutor and appellate lawyer; his experience in representing the United States twelve times before the Supreme Court of the United States; his hundreds of opinions during fifteen years as a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. > > The esteem in which he is held by colleagues, on and off the bench, will be emphasized, as will be the unanimous Senate vote he enjoyed in 1990, when President George H. W. Bush nominated Judge Alito for the Third Circuit.> >  > > None of this, of course, will favorably impress the liberalcrats, whose rancorous ranting has already begun to emanate from the usua l suspects - with Reid, Kennedy, and Schumer in the lead. They and their handmaidens in the media and pressure groups will scrutinize Judge Alito's many opinions - majority, concurring, and dissenting, as well as those in which he did not write but merely joined - looking for something, anything, to prove that he is not the reincarnation of the policy-making Sandra Day O'Connor.> >  > > While the liberalcrats are going down that road - which, for them, is a dead end - some conservatives may need a yardstick by which to measure Judge Alito's judicial credentials. > >  > > That yardstick can be found in the opinions of a Supreme Court justice whom > > Judge Alito will doubtless soon join: Justice Clarence Thomas. > >  > > I have just finishe d writing a book entitled Keeper of the Flame: The Supreme Court Jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas. To write the book, I analyzed every one of Justice Thomas' 327 opinions, written during his fourteen terms on the Court. > >  > > To the extent Justice Thomas' jurisprudence is reflected in Judge Alito's Third Circuit opinions, and as well in his Senate testimony, conservatives can rejoice. For Justice Thomas understands the appropriate role of a Supreme Court justice, the proper methodology for decision-making, and the answers to fundamental constitutional questions - among them, federalism, separation of powers, judicial review, and such Bill of Rights issues as abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, and the alleged rights of prisoners. Does Judge Alito?> >  > > Conser vatives can begin to answer this question by looking more specifically at Thomas' mode of constitutional interpretation, which is based on the premise that the document is not a hunk of clay to be molded by justices in the shape of their own personal values. Thomas begins with the words of the Constitution itself, and, if necessary, looks to how they were understood by the Framers. Does Judge Alito?> >  > > Thomas believes that the doctrine of Separation of Powers means that federal courts should not legislate, or usurp the powers of the executive. Does Judge Alito?> >  > > Justice Thomas has written time and again that an aspect of separation of powers is the "vertical" relationship of the federal government to the states, and that the Constitution's Tenth Amendment must be re ad to keep the federal government out of what is peculiarly state business - and that the Commerce Clause must be read to limit the power of the federal government. Does Judge Alito?> >  > > Unlike virtually every one of his current colleagues, and certainly those who have preceeded him as justices of the Supreme Court, Thomas refuses to censor political speech in the name of "protecting the electoral process." He also refuses to consider so-called "commercial speech" as a lesser form of what the First Amendment is supposed to protect. Does Judge Alito?> >  > > His Eighth Amendment jurisprudence is unique, because he holds that the "Cruel and Unusual Punishments" Clause, as originally intended and written, does not create a vast cornucopia of so-called "prisoners' rights." Does Jud ge Alito?> >  > > Justice Thomas stands alone as a Supreme Court justice in expressly challenging the junk Swedish and other social "science" upon which the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education school desegregation decision was based, and in believing that paternalistic racial discrimination, such as "Affirmative Action," is just as offensive and unconstitutional as malignant racial discrimination. Does Judge Alito?> >  > > These comments are but the tip of the iceberg. And there is much more about the jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas that Judge Alito could do well to emulate.> >  > > It is against that jurisprudence that the qualification of Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court must be judged by conservatives. If he passes that test, President George W. Bush will not only have redeemed himself from the Harriet Miers near-disaster, he will have struck a memorable blow for the Constitution of the United States of America and, like Justice Thomas, added to the Court yet another "Keeper of the Flame.">Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS  Visit your group "cia-drugs" on the web.   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: cia-drugs-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS  Visit your group "cia-drugs" on the web.   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: cia-drugs-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Next Message by Date: click to view message preview

Unhinged

    http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=20052   UnhingedBy David Horowitz and Ben JohnsonFrontPageMagazine.com | November 2, 2005HE SPOKE WITH GREATER AGITATION THAN USUAL. He fumbled nervously with a paper, turning it over and over with his left hand, this way and that, like a little child about to get caught in mischief. Then Harry Reid began swinging his right arm wildly, stating he was closing the Senate doors, forcing Senators to relinquish their cell phones and Blackberrys for the sake of ?national security.? Reid squelched the work of the American people for three hours in order to harangue Republicans with insane accusations like this: The [Lewis] Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: How the administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions. As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this administration.   Of course, the Libby indictment doesn?t do anything of the kind. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald specifically stated, ?This indictment is not about the war.? It shows that Libby could not remember clearly, or did not want to remember clearly, the details of a number of discussions about Valerie Plame?s CIA job several months before. Plamegate is about a British intelligence report that Saddam was seeking fissionable uranium in Niger, a report that the Brits still stand by and that Joe Wilson?s oral account bolstered. The Libby ?window? only opens speculation that the British may have manufactured of manipulated intelligence if, like Harry Reid and his Democratic nutcases, you regularly indulge in fits of acute paranoia.   Reid?s analysis has the other shoe on the wrong foot, too. It?s Democrats who have attempted to destroy to the character, reputation, and credibility of George W. Bush for more than two years and to criminalize their political differences with him over the war. Recall that the removal of Saddam Hussein was demanded by two presidents, one of them ? Bill Clinton ? a Democrat, and was authorized by a majority of Democrats in multiple Congresses. The last three Democratic presidential candidates have considered Saddam?s WMDs a major national security threat. Recall that the authorization for the use of force to remove Saddam was passed by Democratic majorities in both houses and that John Kerry ? a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee with access to all the intelligence information that the Bush administration had ? spoke eloquently on behalf of the authorization to remove Saddam by force. Recall that full membership of the Security Council voted on November 8, 2002, to give Saddam a 30 day ultimatum to report on what he had done with the tons ? that?s thousands of pounds, Harry ? of nerve gas and other WMDs that UN inspectors had already established he had manufactured; and that Saddam failed to do so. That?s why we went to war. Recall that even Russian and Jordanian intelligence said Saddam had WMDs, as did the intelligence agencies of a dozen other nations (and the Russians should know).   The Democrats are liars. They have defected from a war they themselves authorized and they have blackened the reputation of Americans more effectively than al-Jazeera. These leftist partisan hacks have put politics above principle so securely that they give al-Jazeera and the terrorists confirmation of America?s evil intentions ?from the mouth of the beast.?   For example, Reid claimed Bush ?consistently and repeatedly manipulated the facts? before the war. Dick Durbin seconded, averring, ?Intelligence information was distorted, was misused, and we have seen as late as last week the lengths which this administration has gone to try to silence and discredit their critics of the misuse of this intelligence information.? Durbin threatened daily invocations of Rule 21 until the committee complied. ?Be prepared for this motion every day until you face the reality,? he said.   After his national temper tantrum, Harry Reid faced a crowd of reporters, where he thundered, ?If the administration had all the information that they have now back then, they wouldn't even have brought it to the Congress for a vote.? What would Sen. Reid have us do ? reinstate Saddam as president of Iraq? Reopen the rape rooms and fire up the plastic shredders? The United States has toppled a monster, given a captive people their freedom, and sunk the dagger of democracy deep into the heart of the Muslim world. Millions of Iraqis ? including members of the Sunni Triangle ? voted for a pluralistic, democratic future, a major setback for the terrorists. Libya came to an unexpected arms agreement, thanks to the threat of force in Iraq. Lebanon demanded its right to self-determination. Syria initiated a pullout after 30 years of occupation, and Egypt began democratization of its own. In the face of these developments, the best foreign policy the Democratic Party?s Senate leadership can offer is: Ba?athists forever.   Reid rattled on, indicting the war he and his party supported:   We know that there were no [WMDs] now in Iraq. We didn't know it at the time. We know now that we didn't know at the time that there was no al-Qaeda connection. We know now that we didn't know then that there was no 9/11 connection. We know now that they had no plan for winning the peace. We didn't know that at the time.   We know nothing about the cargo trucked by an ominous-looking Russian-led caravan across the Syrian border before the beginning of the war. Reams of intelligence ties Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda before the war, not least including the fact that its terrorist affiliate Ansar al-Islam conducted training in northern Iraq during his reign of terror. And the White House has consistently stated there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11.   What we know is that the Left?s military alternative would have ended in disaster. There is no way we could have maintained 200,000 troops on the Iraqi border in perpetuity, as Ted Kennedy proposed. The American people?s complacency after one of the most rapidly successful military campaigns in modern history is troubling enough. If terrorists pouring in from Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia had begun sniping at U.S. soldiers stationed on the border ? as we know now they would have ? it would have made Nick DeGenova?s dream of a million Mogadishus come true. Popular support would have imploded, as it did in Beirut and Somalia, and the Left would have forced us to retreat yet again, emboldening the terrorists, and leaving Saddam Hussein further in their debt. How would he have rewarded their service when he finally acquired WMDs, as the Duefler Report confirms was his long-range plan?   In response to this Harry Reid and Dick Durbin seek a new Nye Commission. Senate leftists seek to scapegoat a war they voted to authorize on their political enemy, who happens to be commander in chief of the armed forces and leader of the free world. Since Karl Rove escaped unscathed by the indictment scandal, they have to force a phony scandal by other means, because they have no alternate plan, except to abandon Iraq and the Middle East to the terrorists, ultimately allowing them to regroup and face down the Great Satan in the United States.   They hunger for this investigation has nothing to do with truth, since the 9/11 Commission and other inquiries have repeatedly cleared the Bush administration of charges it pressured intelligence agents to produce pro-war reports or massaged their estimates. If anything, Bush and Cheney downplayed some the raw information handed them by the CIA, for which the CIA attempted to hang the blame for its own incompetence on Bush.     Yesterday?s stunt was also unnecessary, since Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-KS, said he already told Senate Democrats his committee would wrap up the second phase of the investigation by next week.   That investigation stalled ? not because of Roberts or the Republicans ? but because the Rockefeller Memo laid bare the left-wingers? desire to twist the committee?s findings for crass partisan advantage. This after the Democrats, under repudiated Minority Leader Tom Daschle, politicized the Intelligence Committee, breaking up its nonpartisan composition following the 2002 elections.  Not just members of both political parties, but every intelligence agency in every nation in the world, believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Harry Reid, John Kerry, John Edwards and others decided they did not want to be on the wrong side of a war in 2002. Now, their actions undermine the troops they placed in harm?s way and the cause for which those troops are fighting and dying: to establish an Iraq that is peaceful, democratic, and no longer a threat to its neighbors or the United States. Instead of supporting their mission, Reid and his followers seek indictments or resignations from everyone who disagree with them and indulge baseless conspiracy theories to smear their enemies. They have become unhinged in their pursuit of political blood ? but it is American soliders who will pay with their blood for the Left?s efforts to delegitimize their efforts. YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS  Visit your group "cia-drugs" on the web.   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: cia-drugs-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Previous Message by Thread: click to view message preview

***Groups Alert***Urgent Action Alert***Don't allow the missing link*** For a l

***Groups Alert***Urgent Action Alert***Don't allow the missing link*** For a long while now I have been meaning to initiate a promotion and campaign for TheRevolutionaryCoalition>>>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheRevolutionaryCoalition That time never seemed to arrive due to circumstances I won't go into here for lack of time For those that don't know, this is the uniting of the super third party to replace the corrupt and broken ones we are up against Listen everybody...You do need to go there and sign on even if you are up to your eyeballs in commitment, already... This is the important link that can't be missing if we are to succeed in fixing any of our differing issues, problems or matters WTP_U will be networking the promotion for this most urgent matter as of now and we hope those of you who have been just watching, will now take a stance and join in the action Things are heating up and the "Truth Movement" is taking off You must tell everyone else about this coalition... We will be sending our letter of alliance to The Revolutionary Coalition and hope many others soon follow suit... Go here and read what others are saying and ours will appear shortly>>>http://www.therevco.orghttp://www.wtpconstitutionalactivism.org Rick's http://www.truthradio.com Stand by for action Marsha "We The People United Movement" We are many Political and Patriot Groups joining together, to help right the wrongs in America..."United We Will Stand" WETHEPEOPLE_UNITED http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WETHEPEOPLE_UNITED/ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS  Visit your group "cia-drugs" on the web.   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: cia-drugs-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Next Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Unhinged

    http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=20052   UnhingedBy David Horowitz and Ben JohnsonFrontPageMagazine.com | November 2, 2005HE SPOKE WITH GREATER AGITATION THAN USUAL. He fumbled nervously with a paper, turning it over and over with his left hand, this way and that, like a little child about to get caught in mischief. Then Harry Reid began swinging his right arm wildly, stating he was closing the Senate doors, forcing Senators to relinquish their cell phones and Blackberrys for the sake of ?national security.? Reid squelched the work of the American people for three hours in order to harangue Republicans with insane accusations like this: The [Lewis] Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: How the administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions. As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this administration.   Of course, the Libby indictment doesn?t do anything of the kind. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald specifically stated, ?This indictment is not about the war.? It shows that Libby could not remember clearly, or did not want to remember clearly, the details of a number of discussions about Valerie Plame?s CIA job several months before. Plamegate is about a British intelligence report that Saddam was seeking fissionable uranium in Niger, a report that the Brits still stand by and that Joe Wilson?s oral account bolstered. The Libby ?window? only opens speculation that the British may have manufactured of manipulated intelligence if, like Harry Reid and his Democratic nutcases, you regularly indulge in fits of acute paranoia.   Reid?s analysis has the other shoe on the wrong foot, too. It?s Democrats who have attempted to destroy to the character, reputation, and credibility of George W. Bush for more than two years and to criminalize their political differences with him over the war. Recall that the removal of Saddam Hussein was demanded by two presidents, one of them ? Bill Clinton ? a Democrat, and was authorized by a majority of Democrats in multiple Congresses. The last three Democratic presidential candidates have considered Saddam?s WMDs a major national security threat. Recall that the authorization for the use of force to remove Saddam was passed by Democratic majorities in both houses and that John Kerry ? a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee with access to all the intelligence information that the Bush administration had ? spoke eloquently on behalf of the authorization to remove Saddam by force. Recall that full membership of the Security Council voted on November 8, 2002, to give Saddam a 30 day ultimatum to report on what he had done with the tons ? that?s thousands of pounds, Harry ? of nerve gas and other WMDs that UN inspectors had already established he had manufactured; and that Saddam failed to do so. That?s why we went to war. Recall that even Russian and Jordanian intelligence said Saddam had WMDs, as did the intelligence agencies of a dozen other nations (and the Russians should know).   The Democrats are liars. They have defected from a war they themselves authorized and they have blackened the reputation of Americans more effectively than al-Jazeera. These leftist partisan hacks have put politics above principle so securely that they give al-Jazeera and the terrorists confirmation of America?s evil intentions ?from the mouth of the beast.?   For example, Reid claimed Bush ?consistently and repeatedly manipulated the facts? before the war. Dick Durbin seconded, averring, ?Intelligence information was distorted, was misused, and we have seen as late as last week the lengths which this administration has gone to try to silence and discredit their critics of the misuse of this intelligence information.? Durbin threatened daily invocations of Rule 21 until the committee complied. ?Be prepared for this motion every day until you face the reality,? he said.   After his national temper tantrum, Harry Reid faced a crowd of reporters, where he thundered, ?If the administration had all the information that they have now back then, they wouldn't even have brought it to the Congress for a vote.? What would Sen. Reid have us do ? reinstate Saddam as president of Iraq? Reopen the rape rooms and fire up the plastic shredders? The United States has toppled a monster, given a captive people their freedom, and sunk the dagger of democracy deep into the heart of the Muslim world. Millions of Iraqis ? including members of the Sunni Triangle ? voted for a pluralistic, democratic future, a major setback for the terrorists. Libya came to an unexpected arms agreement, thanks to the threat of force in Iraq. Lebanon demanded its right to self-determination. Syria initiated a pullout after 30 years of occupation, and Egypt began democratization of its own. In the face of these developments, the best foreign policy the Democratic Party?s Senate leadership can offer is: Ba?athists forever.   Reid rattled on, indicting the war he and his party supported:   We know that there were no [WMDs] now in Iraq. We didn't know it at the time. We know now that we didn't know at the time that there was no al-Qaeda connection. We know now that we didn't know then that there was no 9/11 connection. We know now that they had no plan for winning the peace. We didn't know that at the time.   We know nothing about the cargo trucked by an ominous-looking Russian-led caravan across the Syrian border before the beginning of the war. Reams of intelligence ties Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda before the war, not least including the fact that its terrorist affiliate Ansar al-Islam conducted training in northern Iraq during his reign of terror. And the White House has consistently stated there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11.   What we know is that the Left?s military alternative would have ended in disaster. There is no way we could have maintained 200,000 troops on the Iraqi border in perpetuity, as Ted Kennedy proposed. The American people?s complacency after one of the most rapidly successful military campaigns in modern history is troubling enough. If terrorists pouring in from Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia had begun sniping at U.S. soldiers stationed on the border ? as we know now they would have ? it would have made Nick DeGenova?s dream of a million Mogadishus come true. Popular support would have imploded, as it did in Beirut and Somalia, and the Left would have forced us to retreat yet again, emboldening the terrorists, and leaving Saddam Hussein further in their debt. How would he have rewarded their service when he finally acquired WMDs, as the Duefler Report confirms was his long-range plan?   In response to this Harry Reid and Dick Durbin seek a new Nye Commission. Senate leftists seek to scapegoat a war they voted to authorize on their political enemy, who happens to be commander in chief of the armed forces and leader of the free world. Since Karl Rove escaped unscathed by the indictment scandal, they have to force a phony scandal by other means, because they have no alternate plan, except to abandon Iraq and the Middle East to the terrorists, ultimately allowing them to regroup and face down the Great Satan in the United States.   They hunger for this investigation has nothing to do with truth, since the 9/11 Commission and other inquiries have repeatedly cleared the Bush administration of charges it pressured intelligence agents to produce pro-war reports or massaged their estimates. If anything, Bush and Cheney downplayed some the raw information handed them by the CIA, for which the CIA attempted to hang the blame for its own incompetence on Bush.     Yesterday?s stunt was also unnecessary, since Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-KS, said he already told Senate Democrats his committee would wrap up the second phase of the investigation by next week.   That investigation stalled ? not because of Roberts or the Republicans ? but because the Rockefeller Memo laid bare the left-wingers? desire to twist the committee?s findings for crass partisan advantage. This after the Democrats, under repudiated Minority Leader Tom Daschle, politicized the Intelligence Committee, breaking up its nonpartisan composition following the 2002 elections.  Not just members of both political parties, but every intelligence agency in every nation in the world, believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Harry Reid, John Kerry, John Edwards and others decided they did not want to be on the wrong side of a war in 2002. Now, their actions undermine the troops they placed in harm?s way and the cause for which those troops are fighting and dying: to establish an Iraq that is peaceful, democratic, and no longer a threat to its neighbors or the United States. Instead of supporting their mission, Reid and his followers seek indictments or resignations from everyone who disagree with them and indulge baseless conspiracy theories to smear their enemies. They have become unhinged in their pursuit of political blood ? but it is American soliders who will pay with their blood for the Left?s efforts to delegitimize their efforts. YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS  Visit your group "cia-drugs" on the web.   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: cia-drugs-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Sign up for updates to this mailing list. email:
Loading Comments...
Home | News | Patents | Sitemap | FAQ | advertise

Advertising by