My View of the Left

Blog Moving

2006-08-26T22:45:00.000-07:00

From now on, I will be posting on another one of my blogs with I like much more than Blogger. You can read my commentary at this address:

http://tetracide.wordpress.com/

Iran: The Facts & the Future

2006-08-20T18:05:00.000-07:00

This is designed to illustrate the truth behind the Iranian nuclear crisis. Looking over the evidence that the IAEA, the United States government, and the Iranian government itself has provided, it is the undeniable truth that Iran is seeking to develop a nuclear weapon. There are many factors that lead us to believe this.

Allow us to compare nuclear weapons to a teenager’s car. Teenagers typically receive their first car from their parents based on certain criteria. The teen must be responsible, punctual, and trustworthy. Without such characteristics, a parent would have a difficult time handing over the keys to a machine that, if used improperly, could kill someone. There are currently five nuclear weapon states officially recognized by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). They include: the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and The People’s Republic of China. Each of these countries, while not without their own flaws, has demonstrated to be peaceful members of the international community. They have shown responsibility by participating in world-wide decision making under the United Nations, and have contributed to a global economy by participating in free trade and honest entrepreneurship. Iran has failed to demonstrate such characteristics.

On September 16, 2002, the Islamic Republic of Iran declared their desire to begin the construction of a nuclear reactor. Under the NPT, of which Iran was a part of, they were well within their rights to construct such a reactor. Subsequently, the IAEA began the process of ensuring Iran’s nuclear program remained transparent and within acceptable parameters. However, as time went by, Iran’s promises of cooperation began to fade. In the words of IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei on September 8, 2003, “information and access [to Iranian nuclear facilities] were in some instances slow in coming, piecemeal and reactive.” Now it is one thing to be slow in submitting information, but quite another to submit disinformation. Dr. ElBaradei continues: “information provided has been inconsistent with that given previously.”

Growing impatient with the IAEA’s vigorous oversight, Iran began to take action. Iran proceeded with its nuclear testing and rejected the IAEA’s demands to not introduce “nuclear material into its pilot centrifuge enrichment cascade at Natanz.” Expressing its concerns with Iran’s behavior of not only proceeding with nuclear testing without oversight, but also failing to declare nuclear material as required, the IAEA adopted a resolution demanding “Iran remedy all failures identified by the Agency and cooperate fully with the Agency to ensure verification of compliance.”

Iran rejected the resolution, proclaiming that by abiding to its “heavy-handed approach” it would present a “threat of hostile acts by the United States or its client Zionist regime.” Iran itself clearly makes the case that if they were to publicly release information regarding their nuclear program, or comply with a resolution calling for “Iran to provide accelerated cooperation and full transparency” towards its nuclear program would place them at a militaristic disadvantage over their enemies, the United States and Israel. If Iran’s objective is to develop peaceful nuclear energy for its people, why would it be to any disadvantage, militaristic or otherwise, to disclose all information about their program?

Iran’s irresponsible behavior and disregard for the IAEA’s demands, as well as their inability to timely present full and comprehensive data on their nuclear program, in addition to proceeding with unauthorized nuclear tests have demonstrated to the world that Iran falls short of the characteristics required to become a nuclear power.

While Iran plays cat-and-mouse with international patience, Iranian nuclear scientists have proceeded in researching nuclear power in the forum of weaponry. According to the CIA, Iran has sought “nuclear-related equipment, material, and technical expertise from a variety of sources.” Iran, in the past, has secretly enriched uranium far past the required level to be used for strictly nuclear energy. It is clear; Iran does not intent to peacefully develop nuclear energy.

Proponents for a nuclear Iran reiterate the argument posed by President Gerald R. Ford. In a strategy paper he said the “introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals.” Let’s look at this pragmatically. If Iran’s whole reasoning for developing nuclear weapons is to relive the stress on its oil production infrastructure so that it can produce and sell more oil, wouldn’t it be less politically hectic and less expensive if Iran simply increased its number of oil refineries? Doing so would have the exact opposite effect than attempting to develop nuclear energy. The international community would welcome Iran’s effort to put more oil into the world market, thus lowering the price of gas everywhere (having the least effect on the United States considering the U.S. is one of the only nations that does not purchase oil from Iran).

Allowing the Iranian regime to continue its development of weapons of mass destruction is dangerous. The international community has handed over the keys to the car, and an irresponsible, unpunctual, and untrustworthy driver is about to get behind the wheel.

Are America's best days behind her?

2006-06-11T20:57:00.000-07:00

It is argued frequently and with broad strokes that the United States is on a downward spiral. To those who have the ability to step away from the political arena and analyze it with a level head, most can come to the conclusion that these conclusions that damn America are strictly political doom-and-gloom attitudes.

Standing outside that arena also allows informed members of society to view all the facts that are often kicked aside in debate. With a historical and empirical perspective, a much different conclusion can be made.

How does one gauge a country’s overall success? Could it be the quality of life of its citizens? The economic power it projects? Could it possibly be its technological achievements and advancements? Maybe it is based on how many diplomatic solutions it brokers. Because there is no set way of determining how prosperous a nation is, a mixture of all accomplishments and its overall positive effects on society as a worldly whole can come close to the true measure.

The Historical Perspective

Even broader strokes have been made on both sides of the ideological debate regarding the United States’ history. It is often stated that toady, we live in a wretched, violent, unstable time period. However, the educated man would ask himself, “how much more difficult is international terrorism than communism or fascism, or slavery?

Abraham Lincoln once said, “[a] house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free.” 1 His words were powerful, and his meaning was true. Hundreds of thousands of lives were in a constant state of ruin due to slavery. It was a challenge of their day, and it took men of Lincoln’s scope to solve it.

Nationalism and hubris engulfed Europe and triggered one of the largest world conflicts seen. The containment of a conquering Germany and the suppression of the militarily ambitiousness of Austria-Hungry were the day’s headlines, and the strong leaders of the United States and its allies took on that challenge.

The rise of Nazi Germany, and Communist Russia were surly a scary thought. Watching a fascist government slaughter millions of innocent people, and a communist one doing the same was a somber and painful thing to watch. Real people were dying, and real war came. Millions more died in the fight for equality and freedom, and in the end, true leaders like Roosevelt, Truman, and Churchill seized opportunities and dealt with the daunting problems.

And to some, not too long ago, the United States stood on the brink of nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The most deadly of weapons were being mounted and ready to be launched. With the flick of a switch, millions, if not billions of people could have died if it weren’t for the leadership of the free and democratic world.

Today, international terrorism threatens the stability and tranquility of not only the American people, but again, the free and dem-ocratic world. The question is, are we in a more dangerous, vio-lent, and racist world today, than our previous chapters? Slavery affected everyone. Fascism threatened everyone. Communism endangered everyone. Terrorism jeopardizes everyone.

The Empirical Perspective

Fact-based numbers are helpful when it comes to measuring a nation’s success, and it will also conclude the exact opposite of a so-called “American decadence.” It would be illogical to walk through every economic, social, and governmental improvement (yes, there are that many), however the strongest and most far reaching fields are appropriate to look at.

Allow us to first look at our technology: one hundred years ago, in the United States, transportation via gas-powered vehicles was still under way. Only one hundred and forty-four miles of paved roads were available and a measly eight thousand cars were on what roads there were. The average pay was twenty-two cents an hour and the average worker made from two-hundred to four-hundred dollars a year. The five leading causes of death in America were pneumonia, tuberculosis, diarrhea, heart disease and strokes. Only six percent of Americans had graduated from high school, and only two out of every ten adults could read or write.2

Today, needless to say, is much different. In 2005, the United States ranked second in having the most internet users, third in active telephone lines, and third in active cellular mobile telephone use. We have more airports, more kilometers in roadways, and more railways than any other country in the world. We exported 927.5 billion dollars in goods in 2005 alone.3

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 1997 to 2002 alone, the U.S. saw an increase in the number of paid employees in the following fields: mining, utilities, construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, retail trade, transportation and warehousing, information distribution, finance and insurance, real estate, rental and leasing, professional, scientific and technical services, managements of companies and enterprises, administrative, support, waste management, and remediation services, education services, health care and social assistance, arts, entertainment and recreation fields, and accommodation and food services.4

All of these jobs equal economic growth, and that has most definitely been true. In the past 12 months, nearly 1.9 million jobs were created. The unemployment rate fell to 4.6 percent – lower than the average of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. According to an American Research Group poll, 50% of people that disapprove of George W. Bush said the economy is in a recession.5

Unfortunately, the President’s opponents could not be more wrong. Contrary to their belief, the economy is in an astounding state, one that has spurred a real GDP of 5.3%. Because of the President’s tax relief initiatives set in 2003, business investment and job growth has steadily grown.

{Figure 2} (Source: United States Department of the Treasury) 6

More Americans than ever are investing in the market shown by the Dow surpassing 11,000 on January 9th, 2006. According to the U.S. Department of Treasury, the deficit is now where it was during the 1990s and has continued to shrink. Our economy is strong, Americans are going to work, and the markets are benefiting from tax cuts. It could not be more crystal clear.

Another talking point of those who believe America’s golden days are behind her, is that our aspiring children are more disrespectful, and also believe that a variety of things including teen pregnancy, crime, and cancer are all on the rise. That could not be more incorrect. Between 1990 and 2000, the teen pregnancy rate declined by 28%. Teenage girls performing abortions have also decreased.7 Rising crime is also a common misconception. Crime is actually decreasing. The FBI reports that from 1993 to 2002, the crime rate has declined by 23.5%. Another FBI report concluded in 2004 projected the continuing trend: the rate of murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson have all fallen.8

Citizen’s health could also be a key factor in determining the success of a nation. The 2002 estimated national vaccination coverage of hepatitis was 90%, diphtheria and tetanus toxoids: 82%, Haemophilus influenza: 93%, measles-mumps-rubella: 92%, polio: 90%, varicella: 81%.9 Every national coverage percentile has increased from the 2000-01 statistics. The United States’ life expectancy is higher than one hundred sixty-two other countries.10 The number of Health Savings Accounts tripled from March 2005, to January 200611. Americans are living longer, and are becoming more responsible with their future health.

So is America in a state of decadence? With our technological prowess, economic growth, an increasingly more responsible youth, less crime and healthier citizens, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that America is on a downward slope. Quite the contrary, the trends that have been identified in this document all point to a positive direction, whether that is an upward slope of real GDP growth, or a downward slope of crime rates. To the educated American, the United States is a safer, more reliable, and a more prosperous place to live.

[1] http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/22.htm
[2] http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa122102a.htm
[3] http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/rankorderguide.html
[4] http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/advance/TABLE2.HTM
[5] http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/economy/
[6] http://www.ustreas.gov/economic-plan/
[7] http://www.slate.com/id/2140985/
[8] http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/index.html
[9] http://www.cdc.gov/nip/coverage/NIS/figures/02/02-map-menu.htm
[10] http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
[11] http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/healthcare/

Reaganomics

2006-05-25T20:44:00.000-07:00

The United States is a country full of debate, and with an ever growing politically stimulated atmosphere, the informed members of society find themselves boxing each other in the ideological ring of disagreements. So many events capture our attention in the world of today, but every so often events in the world of yesterday capture that same attention and once again, the gloves are back on.

Ronald Reagan, President from 1981 to 1989, casts a shadow of epic proportion on many fronts. Most specifically, his economic policy was one of the most far-reaching attempts to change how America and American’s viewed the federal economic system as well as their own money. I’m proud to share those ambitious reaches and answer the ever lingering question, “Did Reaganomics really work?”

So what was Reaganomics? Reaganomics was a policy implemented by Ronald Reagan that mimicked what is known as supply-side economics which is based on the idea that supply creates its own demand. Thus, Reagan believed that by giving American businesses tax cuts allowed them to increase supply. Complemented with tax cuts for the American families, Reaganomics drove up business revenue, by increasing the personal income revenue percentile and thusly, spurred economic growth.

Surging inflation, plummeting consumer confidence, and interest rates above 20 percent all made up the final years of the Democratic Carter Administration, and laid new and daring challenges for the upcoming Republican Regan Administration. Twenty-nine days into his presidency, Ronald Regan announced his budget plans which included large tax cuts for Americans. According to ABC News, Ronald Reagan held an approval rating of 73% just one month after his tax cuts took effect. Immediately, inflation plummeted, consumer confidence soared, nearly 20 million new jobs created, the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 240 percent, and personal income tax revenues climbed dramatically.

But Reagan wasn’t done yet. When Reagan’s Tax Reform Act of 1986 was passed, it immediate affected American business and households. Business Week’s Michael Mandel mentioned in his 2004 column that “[t]he new law helped support "idea-based" industries such as software and financial services.” Mandel also states that Reagan “helped lay the groundwork for the Information Revolution of the 1990s.”

Sean Hannity, in his book entitled Let Freedom Ring, said it as simple as it could be, “Together, the two Reagan reforms brought the nation’s top marginal tax rate (on the richest Americans) down from an outrageous 70 percent to just 28 percent,” and because of it, “the economy flourished and more wealth was created”.

Despite the many highly-politicized events that shook the 1980’s, the economy remained strong, and maintained a steady climb. The CATO Institute informs us that under the Reagan Administration, America enjoyed a 3.2 percent economic growth average compared to 2.8 percent in the Ford-Carter years – a clear sign that economic activity undertaken in the 1980’s was one of success.

The experts agree: Reagan knew what he was doing, and it worked. “There is no doubt in my mind that that action of Reagan, plus his emphasis on lowering tax rates, plus his emphasis on deregulating … unleashed the basic constructive forces of the free market and from 1983 on, it's been almost entirely up,” said Milton Friedman, former policy advisor to the Reagan Administration in an interview with PBS. “By 1988 we were in early stages of what has now been almost 20 years of economic growth,” mentioned Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995-1999, in another PBS interview.

So, in conclusion, based on the evidence that I have found and presented, I have strong reason to believe that the economic outreach of the Reagan Administration was one that took a country out of a recession, and into a decade of economic growth. Yes, Reaganomics worked. It works in the world of today, and it certainly worked in the world of yesterday.

Sources:
Dalia Sussman, ABC News, “Improving With Age: Reagan Approval Grows Better in Retrospect”

Hannity, Sean. Let Freedom Ring. New York: Regan Books, 2002.

Michael Mandel, Business Week, “Reagan’s Economic Legacy”

Wikipedia. Supply-side economics. 17 May 2006.

William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore, CATO Institute, “Supply Tax Cuts and the Truth About the Reagan Economic Record,”

The Public Broadcasting System. Commanding Heights: Reaganomics. 2006.

The Public Broadcasting System. Commanding Heights: Reaganomics. 2006.

National Video Resources. Ronald Reagan 1981-1989. May 2004.

The Iranian 1953 Coup d'état and the CIA’s Involvement

2005-12-30T02:11:00.000-08:00

The relationship between the United States and Iran has been one roller coaster ride after another. In the past, our economic ties enriched a strong yet unique friendship between the U.S. and Iran, but today, the U.S. has branded Iran as part of an axis of evil and a country which has snubbed its nose to the international demands to stop the research and development of nuclear technology. 1953 Iran was no exception.

One of those roller coasters did an entire 360 degrees around the once Iranian Prime Minister Muhammad Mosaddeq in mid August, 1953. It is a fact that a coup d'état occurred, and that coup d'état was assisted by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Anyone might conclude that this is basic knowledge of the 1953 incident. So how did the sentiment leak into the minds of the Left that we “trained his [the Shah’s] own personal secret police” or that the government which followed after the coup “was installed by the west”?

While I could dive into a diatribe of the low standards some Americans have for their own country, a historical perspective and a rekindled enlightenment of the situation that was the 1953 Iranian coup d'état are required and would be more suitable.

Events surrounding the Iranian coup are important and like many other historical issues and concepts, any discussion should start with the context of the situation. While it is odd that anyone would defend a self-proclaimed communist, it nevertheless should be established that Mosaddeq was no innocent bystander that just so happened to be trampled by the immoral CIA machine. Some like to claim Mosaddeq was democratically elected, yet this is certainly not the case. To replace the Prime Minister Ali Razmara, who was assassinated thirty-nine days before his term was over, Mosaddeq was appointed on April 27th, 1952 by Iran’s legislative assembly, the Majlis. At the end of those thirty-nine days, against the consent of the Shah, and certainly undemocratically, Mosaddeq was appointed. With a clear horizon in front of him, his quest for power was ready to begin.

Almost immediately after his second appointment, Mosaddeq demanded ultimate power over all economic, financial, and personnel aspects of the government. The Majlis refused, and Mosaddeq childishly resigned on July 16th. General Zahedi was to be the new Prime Minister but after much political unrest and even riots, Mosaddeq came back to power on the 22nd, and his bill to give him dictatorial powers over Iran for a time period of six months was passed. The Mosaddeq regime was now in place.

In complete control of his future, things only went downhill for the Iranian people. Twenty days later, not only were economic, financial, and personnel powers in the hands of Mosaddeq, but so was every aspect of Iranian life. In a failed attempt to stop Mosaddeq’s consolidation of power, fifteen Iranian generals were dismissed from service or were forced to retire. Dissent would not to be tolerated by the new regime. As the socialist he was, the dictator enacted communistic economic reform which burdened small villages and farmers to surrender 20% of their land of which would then be divided up into equal parts for the better good. Along came tax increases and the specific targeting of wealthy Iranians. If they refused to pay, they were imprisoned and their property confiscated. It was the decree of the regime that all funds gained were to be redistributed equally to the masses.

Mosaddeq’s stern nationalistic approach to his governing not only ran counter to the Shah’s wishes, but to the United Kingdom’s interests in the region. Mosaddeq’s illegal seizure of western assets spurred even more unrest. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) fiasco led Iran down an extremely difficult path of trying to stimulate its own economy. The UK oil trade was calculated in to Mosaddeq’s economic development plan, but due to Mosaddeq’s personal ego, and his lack of ability to do what was right for his country and his people, UK-Iranian relations, for the first time since 1859, were severed.

Mosaddeq quickly lost support from the military to the religious figures in Iran. The United States also saw this situation as a problem. The early stages of the Cold War were in full swing at this time, and to the U.S.-led Western bloc and the Soviet-led Eastern bloc, any political moves made around the world were considered “wins” or “losses.” With Iran’s failed economy, and severed ties with their leading foreign trade dealer the UK, Iran was left with only once choice – do business with the Soviets and thus, be engulfed into the Soviet sphere of influence.

Because the U.S. did not want to “lose” Iran, Kermit Roosevelt, a senior agent for the CIA, developed a plan to assist the Shah and opposition parties of the Mosaddeq regime in a coup. The operation was dubbed Operation Ajax and a total of $1 million was set aside for the project.

And we’re off to the races!

Operation Ajax had international support. British MI6 agents and CIA operatives made up the operating group. The Qashqai tribal leaders arranged for the two governments, the UK and the U.S., to operate in secrecy in their part of southern Iran. With a footing in place, and the objective clear, it was time to act.

Unexpectedly and only a mere hours before the coup was to take place, Mosaddeq was tipped off. Iranian troops loyal to Mosaddeq spread across Tehran intercepting pro-Shah soldiers in their tracks. Despite what seemed to be a huge setback, CIA agents on the ground as well as General Zahedi himself thought otherwise. Kermit Roosevelt and Zahedi agreed that if the Shah sent a decree detailing the removal of Mosaddeq and the appointment of the lawful Prime Minister, General Zahedi.

The CIA made the arrangements, but before there was any implementation, another decisive blow to the operation came about when the Shah was reported to have fled to Baghdad. Kermit and CIA operatives on the ground now had no communication with the Shah to inquire him for the two decrees needed. In a last ditch effort to instigate the coup, and taking advantage of Mosaddeq’s premature removal of Iranian troops in Tehran, the CIA contacted the Associated Press in New York as well as some Tehran newspapers and told them the coup leaders were armed with the two decrees hoping the Shah would get the message and follow through.

On August 17th, the Shah got the message, and made an announcement that he had signed the decrees however some feared that it was too late. Pro-Mosaddeq newspapers declared the end of the Pahlevi dynasty and the Communist Party’s central committee attributed the coup had failed. Just as the CIA were packing their things to go home, heads hung low, word on the street changed and pro-Shah rallies raged through the avenues of Tehran. Iranian CIA agents, without specific orders, led the crowds to vandalize and overrun pro-Mosaddeq newspaper publishing buildings. Things were moving far more quickly than even the CIA had anticipated. An Iranian general that helped with the original coup days before showed up in front of the Parliament with a tank. Truckloads of military personnel were at every large intersection. In light of the situation, Mr. Roosevelt personally brought General Zahedi to one of the radio stations which were already broadcasting the success of the coup and the decrees from the Shah. Zahedi addressed the nation for the first time as Prime Minister.

Well, let’s hold on a second here. What did the CIA do again? Did they amass the crowds, arm them with AK-47s and point them in the right direction? Actually no, they didn’t. The will of the people and Mosaddeq’s totalitarian and communistic views and policies is what triggered the movement. While the CIA was packing their things due to their failure, the Iranian people stepped up. The full $1 million wasn’t even spent. A measly $75,000 was spent on only mobilizing personnel.

Hindsight is always 20/20, and in light of the aftermath of the 1953 coup, blatant blaming and condemnation of the CIA expectedly follow, but the question still remains; how did the sentiment leak into the minds of the Left that we “trained his [the Shah’s] own personal secret police” or that the government which followed after the coup “was installed by the west”? The CIA surly did not set up any training camps, nor was their any installation of a leader. The Iranian people followed the will of their legal leader, the Shah. Simply and honestly put, the CIA set an already strong movement in motion, and made room for General Zahedi to take his rightful position.

It is in the wish of history, that accurate perspective and informed conclusions remain potent. In 1953, Mosaddeq’s regime was one of brutality, social, and economic unrest brought about by communism. The United States, being the beacon of freedom and prosperity that it is, assisted little in the removal a dictatorship, and that is simply all.

The Ultimate Question

2005-11-10T21:08:00.000-08:00

The left are entertaining in the fact that they put all their energy into one matter, whichever is prominent at that moment, and consistently fail to succeed or at least leave the situation with a victorious light of which they crave.

Not too long ago we had the John Bolton nomination, where the Democrats were caught off guard while gussying up for the celebrating press conference, when the President appointed Mr. Bolton directly to the UN. To the left, John Bolton was a fascist, unethical, dirty old man, and not worthy of such a position. Putting their heart and soul into every speech, they painted that man as unfit for the job, and criticized the President for sending such an obvious moron to the likes of them. However, now, he isn’t talked about at all. We haven’t heard much about him, his business at the UN, and the policies he supports or denounces.

This brings up an interesting question. If Bolton was a spawn of Satan, like the left portrayed him and many others to be, why was he suddenly ignored once the opportunity to obstruct such an evil human being was much more difficult?

The left have amazing and admirable fidelity, whether it be tarnishing the wife and kids of a Supreme Court nominee, or the giddy publicizing of the 2,000 fallen American men and women in the armed service. If history respected the opposing parties of the time more, the modern left would certainly take the cake. Horrific comments made by their idols like Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, or Howard Dean were widely accepted or quietly ignored, highlighting the fact that they refuse to protect America on the political battlefield when it is so clearly under attack from within.

A shrug or a sigh is surly in order, but one cannot help but to think where the party of hate and obstruction is headed. The presidency?

In 2004, the harsh reminder that such anger and antagonism is not strong enough to win the hearts and minds of the American public was all too apparent. However, the left, in their attempt to analyze why the right won (not why they lost), they decided to not re-illustrate their base with their solid positions and values in the arena of ideas, but to rather deceive (Hillary Clinton) and continue to increase the size of their “hate base” (Harry Reed, and many others).

The ultimate question of life is “why?” and while three letters seems easy to say, type, and write, many if not all Americans are still confused in regards to the answer the left may provide to that question. They can run and hide from answering the question for as long as they want, but until they finally answer the silent majority; the voters; the people, they will never taste the sweet taste of power they so eagerly strive for.

Don't Click

2005-11-06T00:04:00.000-08:00

September 11th

2005-09-10T00:20:00.000-07:00

With the fourth anniversary of September 11th looming, we as a group of individuals, and as members of the free and democratic world, must once again revisit the origins of our long held positions. We need to remind those who have forgotten of who we are; a people devoted to a cause of just, and sound principal. We are a people who can see the larger picture for what it is, note its negatives, and embrace its positives.

We need to remind them of who the enemy is; a people with pure hatred, and a vicious, bloodthirsty dream of killing the innocent. They are a people that see no rules, nor abide to any and will stop at nothing to die for their cause.

We need to remind them why we must prevail; such a success would send shockwaves of liberty as it as already begun to. Hoping to win, which may seem to be one of the most fundamental elements of a patriotic society, is vital, and will be the key to such success.

We need to remind them why the enemy will fail; such a failure would send shockwaves of not only disbelief to those who did not support us originally, but send a clear signal to all those who stand for evil, that when the United States and the free world make a commitment, we stand to it.

Thus far on this War on Terrorism, millions have been freed from tyranny, and terrorist networks have been dismembered, disorganized, and maimed more so than ever before. Osama Bin Laden is on the run, instead of planning attacks. Al Qaeda is no longer the functioning terrorist network it once was. Saddam Hussein is behind bars, instead of sending innocents behind bars. Libya no longer seeks nuclear weapons. Freedom has touched Lebanon and eyes have been opened to recognize the United Nations for the corrupt organization it is.

Every anniversary before this one of September 11th, these things have crossed our minds. Images, sounds, smells, feelings, were all things that defined that day. We were angry, sad, and shocked. As some may fail to see, freedom was attacked those fateful hours, yet to this day, we remain free. We will never suffer from such ideologies of hate again, so we will always embrace and spread such ideologies of freedom.

Illegal Immigration

2005-08-25T16:01:00.000-07:00

While the President and I agree on many issues pertaining to domestic and foreign policy, there is one that he and I violently disagree on and the one that I continue to hold against him to this day, and that is border security.

It is a common fact that millions of illegal immigrants move into the U.S. yearly, while only an approximated million are apprehended on the border with Mexico. I find this simply outrageous. How is it that a president so focused and determined to protecting this county (i.e. creating the Department of Homeland Security, the creating of the Patriot Act, the rebirth of the CIA, two ongoing wars in the Middle East) and yet systematically neglect our borders as hundreds of thousands of possibly harmful individuals of either Mexican or Middle Eastern decent this country on a yearly basis?

Some action has been taken, but in my opinion, it is not enough. I would call for the military to have an active roll in protecting our borders, along with a very blunt and final warning Mexican officials that they too need to assist in the fixing of this problem. It has gotten so absurd that the “leading contenders for the presidency of Mexico plan to launch their 2006 campaigns this fall – in Los Angeles,” as reported by NewsMax.com just this Monday.

I also understand what the opposition has to say on this issue as well. There are economic reasons for leaving these borders so porous. While I am a conservative, and while we tend to favor the competition of capitalism over utopian equality for all, we need to draw the line when such issues become issues of national security. This is one of them, and the Republican Party needs to stand of and take charge in this issue before the Democrats do, because both are capable of doing so to get a leg up.

The Right’s Foreign Policy (Part II)

2005-08-06T14:45:00.000-07:00

Spreading Freedom

"We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world." – President George W. Bush, 1/20/05

To some, the phrase “spreading freedom” is something that they could consider wishful thinking, sophistry, or even an idea too ambitious for the times we live in. What some fail to see, is that the spreading of this ideology that has given each and every one of us the ability to speak our minds, work for a living, and enjoy a life as they see fit, is something that will affect the United States in the long run significantly. Democracies, and the related freedoms, are ones that promote peace, lasting governments, and addresses the needs and wants of the people.

Not only is this lifestyle less likely to spur war, it is also a major blow to the threats of today – international terrorism. Freedom, liberty, and democracy are radical opposites of oppression, fear, and authoritarianism. Those elements of good versus evil are in a critical battle right now, and this clash of forces presents new challenges for both sides. Radical Islam has never been more threatened in its history than it is today, and the same goes for the democratic nations of this world. With democratic nations within the center of the major breeding ground of terrorism, radical Islam now has more troubles to face.

When millions of Afghans and Iraqis went to the polls and expressed their willingness to embrace democratic change, they stood up to the elements that oppressed them, and became their enemy. With the freedom given to those people, terrorism can no longer operate with impunity in these countries, but in fact, are being overcome by Iraqi, Afghan, and coalition forces.

So as one could see, spreading freedom where tyranny once existed demolishes the hopes and dreams terrorists hold concerning their location of operation. Iraqi civilians are assisting troops in giving tips to Iraqi and coalition troops. Newly trained police forces are taking the lead in finding and eliminating the enemy, destroying weapons caches, and communicating with the Iraqi people.

These are the prime examples of the right’s foreign policy as it has been implemented into the War on Terror. The will to survive and thrive in a democratic society are so much stronger than the blind hate radical Islamists have for the west, and this is why regime change is so critical to the War on Terrorism. Terrorism flourishes where tyranny exists, so to solve the problem, we are eliminating the breeding ground for those terrorists, and offering a democratic alternative. Nothing could be more effective short of completely annihilating any and all living things in the Middle East (which of course is a ridiculous option).

Ted Kennedy

2005-07-16T22:03:00.000-07:00

Nomination Number: PN1855
Nomination Description: Porter J. Goss, of Florida, to be Director of Central Intelligence.
Vote: Nay

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3619 to H.R. 4567 (Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2005)
Statement of Purpose: To appropriate an additional $70,000,000 to enhance the security of chemical plants and to provide an offset.
Vote: Nay

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3802 to S. 2845 (National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004)
Statement of Purpose: To stop corporations from financing terrorism.
Vote: Nay

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3619 to H.R. 4567 (Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2005)
Statement of Purpose: To appropriate an additional $70,000,000 to enhance the security of chemical plants and to provide an offset.
Vote: Nay

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3615 to H.R. 4567 (Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2005)
Statement of Purpose: To appropriate $70,000,000 to support efforts for identification and tracking for shipments of hazardous materials and continue and expand upon the background check system for commercial driver licenses with a HAZMAT endorsement, and to offset this appropriation with a corresponding reduction from the Human Resources Account of the Office of the Under Secretary of Management.
Vote: Nay

Amendment Number: H.R. 5005
Nomination Description: A bill to establish the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes.
Vote: Nay

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4868 to S.Amdt. 4856 to S.J.Res. 45 (Further Resolution on Iraq)
Statement of Purpose: To provide statutory construction that constitutional authorities remain unaffected and that no additional grant of authority is made to the President not directly related to the existing threat posed by Iraq.
Vote: Yea

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4513 to S.Amdt. 4471 to H.R. 5005 (Homeland Security Act of 2002)
Statement of Purpose: To strike title II, establishing the National Office for Combating Terrorism, and title III, developing the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism and Homeland Security Response for detection, prevention, protection, response, and recover to counter terrorist threats.
Vote: Yea

Measure Number: S. 1689 (Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004)
Measure Title: An original bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan security and reconstruction for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.
Vote: Nay

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 1882 to S. 1689 (Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004)
Statement of Purpose: To establish a National Commission on the Development and Use of Intelligence Related to Iraq.
Vote: Nay

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 1859 to S. 1689 (Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004 )
Statement of Purpose: To promote the establishment of an Iraq Reconstruction Finance Authority and the use of Iraqi oil revenues to pay for reconstruction in Iraq.
Vote: Nay

What I find odd about the position of Ted Kennedy, is that he is one of the few (if not only) elder Democrat that has actually bought into the beliefs of the moveon.org group, and the Michael Moore wing of the Left. Ted Kennedy has said plenty of pretty words in his service for this great country. But his recent actions with President Bush in the White House, he, and along with the leading party leaders, have stretched so far into the extreme that I cannot hold the notion that we, as a nation, must deal with this.

Ted Kennedy is an old, tired man. His contribution to this country has been significant, but not necessarily helpful. Still, I applaud him for his desire to assist his country, but that goal has been thrown into the wind. Kennedy’s comments in the past few years have gathered into an array of hateful, and near treacherous rhetoric. It is time for him to retire, and live the rest of his days where he would rather be – behind a bar at happy hour.

The Case for Democracy

2005-06-22T14:00:00.000-07:00

I just go a hold of Natan Sharansky's book, The Case for Democracy, and I must say, it is a brilliant book that all conservatives should get a hold of. Sharansky's history and the story of his life that he shares in this book give him an enormous amount of credibility.

While I preach the reading of this book to all my fellow conservatives, I would also extend that invitation to my opponents on the Left. The book is simple blueprints for democracy, and with the experiences that Sharansky shares with the reader are ones that should catch anyone’s attention. The Case for Democracy is a wonderful read, and an amazingly informative book on the workings of democracy and how effective that way of life can overcome tyranny and oppression. I give it a huge thumbs up and recommend this book to all those who share my views, and those who don't.

Democrats Still Don't Get It

2005-05-11T15:59:00.000-07:00

“Fighting terrorism should not be the alpha and omega of America's security policy. Yes, Al-Qaeda remains a threat, but it's a plain fact that ‘terrorism’ is not a menace meriting hysteria or neglect of other national priorities;” – Katrina vanden Heuvel, Editor of The Nation, 2/1/05
The United States have fallen victim to what I guess we could call “nuisance attacks” for over 20 years. History, at one time, was the day's headlines, and its political impact still has an effect on today's affairs. But the history that I’m about to talk about is not the kind that one would have to open a history book and read about. Recent history is enough to prove the logic, and further base the argument that terrorism “is not a menace.”

In 1979, Iranian terrorists seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held U.S. citizens hostage for a considerable amount of time. In 1983, a truck full of explosives drove into another U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63 people. Another raid of the same nature, only six months later, and this time, 241 US servicemen are killed. And then another, in 1984.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid. Then in August a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed. Fifty-nine days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed. Terrorists seize plans over Scotland, detonate an explosive, and kill 259 innocent individuals.

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women. A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.

Again, terrorism strikes, but this time, in America itself. In 1993, a car explodes under the World Trade center in an apparent attempt to bring them down. They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep. The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on October 12th, 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.

And finally, the events of September 11th turn on the lights, and the threat is finally seen. I would like for those on the Left who truly believe that terrorism in “not a menace” and just a “nuisance” to tell that to the families of the victims of 9/11. Tell them that their lost loved one’s life is not worth defending, because America can handle it. America can sit on its hands and take these attacks as crimes, and treat them as such. I’m sure they would love to hear from College Professors that their loved ones that died that tragic day were not innocent, but were “ignorant” “little Eichmanns.”

Now that we’ve proven that terrorism is real, and a real threat of grave importance, we should then arrange ourselves to a more productive mindset. What’s the best way to combat terrorism?

Example A: Treat terrorism as a crime, investigate attacks, and attempt to arrest these killers.
-- It seems we tried that for many years, and Clinton proved it to us that this method failed. So we can scratch that one.

Example B: Use special ops forces to assassinate or capture key leaders such as Osama Bin Laden and claim premature victory.
-- I think anyone can see that even though this has been preached (and continues to be preached) by some on the Left, it is a complete backwards and illogical point of view. Anyone can see that this method would not deal with the even more powerful element of hatred, but just one man’s hatred and dreams to see America fall. Scratch this one.

Example C: Isolate financial and military ties, engage in massive search operations to seize, and sever terrorism’s leadership, and communication.
-- This might just work. With no financial ties, terrorism is left with sleeping in caves or ditches. With massive search operations, terrorists would always be on the move, and with limited allies and a bounty on their heads, terrorists and their political affiliates have no where to hide.

If nothing were to be done, terrorism would still be coordinating, and implementing attacks on innocent civilians of the free world. If we were to continue the Clinton way of dealing with terrorism, we would still be searching for Iyman Faris, a terrorist who worked with al Qaeda to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. They failed because the Patriot Act allowed the intelligence regarding that bombing to be enforced and local police arrested him. This feeble ideology that Americans can take the heat is one the Left has implemented in this country for too long. Anything tougher than what the brilliant President Clinton had done is wrong, racist, and fascist.

The Right’s Foreign Policy (Part I)

2005-05-09T16:59:00.000-07:00

And it’s Modern Implementation
By Tetracide

May 9, 2005

“Peace through strength.” We’ve all heard it, in some way or another. This broad concept has been used to label conservative foreign policy for many years, most significantly demonstrated during the Cold War. Although many have heard this phrase, only a few understand it. Can they step back from present day politics and look at the 2 party system and compare and contrast the major differences? To those who can’t, I’d be more than happy to share the majority of the Right’s views on foreign policy, and provide evidence of its success in the modern world.

Forgive me, but to fully understand the implementation of foreign policy, one must understand the positions the Right hold in homeland security.

“We're in for a long struggle in this war on terror. And there are people that still want to harm America. And we have an obligation to our citizens to work together to do everything we can to protect the people.” – President George W. Bush, 6/11/02

Intelligence/Military Readiness. Now normally, discussing this subject I would branch off on a rant about how Clinton slaughtered our military for eight years, but I won’t rant, only remind. The Right truly believes that if we are to meet a challenge, we should be ready, if not more than ready to meet it. It isn’t a secluded fact that conservatives and Republicans alike are more comfortable with a substantial military. But, they are often criticized as wanting too much power over the world, the citizens of this country, and the daily operations they undertake. Of course, this is just politics, and it is not the true intent.

That intent can best be demonstrated by the events of 9/11. No my Leftist friends, this isn’t scare tactics, this is just an example. I could very well use Pearl Harbor. However, 9/11 was a reminder that a stagnant intelligence community would be devastating to national security in today’s world. Intelligence failures have become apparent in the events leading up to 9/11, the War in Afghanistan, and the War in Iraq. These potent operations have had their setbacks in the intelligence arena. If you are one of those people who like to get to the source of the problem, check out this Associated Press story from March 1999. Again, just a reminder that these setbacks cost the American people, and the journey they have undertook in defending it and defeating Terrorism. Intelligence is but one factor, and military readiness is another.

Having a military on its starting marks, ready to be deployed in one swift order should be a comforting sentiment. Knowing that hundreds of thousands of men and women that have volunteered to risk their life for this country, are ready to do so, has to be a comforting sentiment. In the 50’s and 60’s the threat was a nuclear war. In the world of today, the threat is international terrorism. The confliction between the ways of approaching these risks was drastically different.

Ronald Reagan had a vision. And with that vision, he was able to see the threat of Communism, and dealt with it in a way that caused significant controversy. Instead of appeasing, or meeting agreements, Reagan stood firm against the ideology, and using the patriotism and capitalistic society of America, he crushed the Soviet Union without firing a shot. While this was a magnificent victory for America and democracy, it was a completely different time, and completely different circumstances.

Bill Clinton had a vision. He believed that after his presidency, people around the world and in America would see him as some kind of hero; that is actions around the world would be considered compassionate like Clinton made himself to be. However, Clinton’s policy stretched our forces thin, over extended military recourses, and under funded the military all together. With this deadly combination, Clinton setback our military many years during his two terms.

George W. Bush has a vision. And with that vision, he is able to see the threat of international terrorism, and is dealing with such threats in a way that have spurred significant controversy. Instead of creating an iron curtain around the U.S., pulling diplomats, dismantling foreign embassies, and making any kind of sacrifices, he has and continues to wound the terrorist network that happily killed three thousand Americans on 9/11. While our accomplishments so far have been great, there is plenty more things to be done. With a strong military, strong intelligence, and an unwavering commitment to the task, our succession, and terrorism’s defeat will be the ultimate end.

Multiple Reasons Were Stated and Are Still Accurate

2005-02-24T20:34:00.000-08:00

By Tetracide
February 23, 2005

Fact is fact right? If something is a “fact” it cannot be refuted, and it cannot be argued. If something is a “fact”, it cannot be questioned or disproved. That’s the great thing about history; it is, and always will be. So what if I said there were more reasons than weapons of mass destruction in regards to Iraq? Does anyone know how many of my Leftist opponents would jump on that and question it? Does anyone know how often they use the argument in an Iraq war debate? I’d say too often, and I’d say they’re wrong. The reason I bring this up, is because the Left are attempting to refute, argue, question, and disprove a fact; the fact that numerous reasons were given in the prelude of war in Iraq.

Let us start with the argument, “Freeing the Iraqi people was a backup plan, after WMD were not found.” Not only is this one of the more arrogant arguments, but it is also an attempt to disprove fact. On February 26th, 2003, President Bush came before the American Enterprise Institution, to discuss Iraq, and its continued defiance of the civilized world. In his speech, he said this:

“The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us. Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them.”

Who are we, the free people of this world, to say that an oppressed nation such as Iraq does not deserve the human right to be free? Who are we to deny their civil liberties and continue to grant their unrelenting abuse and torture, under a dictator? The freedom of the Iraqi people was a major aspect, and a critical goal in Operation Iraqi Freedom. To make the argument that the United States, and her many allies in the War in Iraq are only there to topple a dictator, and then leave the country in such a fragile state, is foolish, and imprudent.

Next is one of the more controversial facts. Iraq and terrorism ran hand-in-hand in their quest to destroy their common enemy; the United States. Some are obstinate to this reality, and it is a shame that they refuse to see that. To present the fact that this was a credible reason for engaging Saddam, it requires proof that such a relationship existed. This I will do with detail. Allow me to fill you in.

We’ve all used the 9/11 Commission as a resource to dispute this, but few actually quote its content. This commission was very careful not to contradict itself, and it succeeded in not doing so, but in its section entitled “The Foundation of New Terrorism” it clearly states the Saddam, worked with Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist network to a degree on many occasions. At one point in time, Saddam reached out to Osama, and at another, Osama reached out to Saddam. The Left would lead you to believe that the two people that hate the United States the most did not work together in any way shape or form. They could not be more wrong.

“In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Laden's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Laden. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Laden's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Laden or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Laden declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States.”

It is a fact, that Iraq reached out to Al Qaeda, and it is a fact that Al Qaeda reached out to Iraq. In an intelligence report dated May 22, 2003, a meeting was held between Osama, and a senior intelligence officer. The 9/11 Commission report describes the meeting:

“Bin Laden is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. Two CIA memoranda of information from a foreign government report that the chief of Iraq's intelligence service and a military expert in bomb making met with Bin Laden at his farm outside Khartoum on July 30, 1996. The source claimed that Bin Laden asked for and received assistance from the bomb-making expert, who remained there giving training until September 1996, which is when the information was passed to the United States.”

As some Leftist refuse believe otherwise, there are many other terrorist organizations outside of Al Qaeda’s network, some of which operated in Saddam’s Iraq with no opposition. Not only did Saddam request for suicide bombings against American civilians in state-controlled newspapers, but he rewarded families of these suicide bombers with checks. In fact, in April 2002, Saddam increased the payment from $10,000 to $25,000. In a State Department report entitled Background Information on Terrorist groups, dated back in 2000, details Iraq’s funding of multiple terrorist groups. They are as follows:

Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
a.k.a. Fatah Revolutionary Council, Arab Revolutionary Brigades, Black September, and Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims

Description:
International terrorist organization led by Sabri al-Banna. Split from PLO in 1974. Made up of various functional committees, including political, military, and financial.

Activities:
Has carried out terrorist attacks in 20 countries, killing or injuring almost 900 persons. Targets include the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Israel, moderate Palestinians, the PLO, and various Arab countries. Major attacks included the Rome and Vienna airports in December 1985, the Neve Shalom synagogue in Istanbul and the Pan Am flight 73 hijacking in Karachi in September 1986, and the City of Poros day-excursion ship attack in Greece in July 1988. Suspected of assassinating PLO deputy chief Abu Iyad and PLO security chief Abu Hul in Tunis in January 1991. ANO assassinated a Jordanian diplomat in Lebanon in January 1994 and has been linked to the killing of the PLO representative there. Has not attacked Western targets since the late 1980s.

Strength:
A few hundred plus limited overseas support structure.

Location/Area of Operation:
Al-Banna relocated to Iraq in December 1998, where the group maintains a presence. Has an operational presence in Lebanon, including in several Palestinian refugee camps. Financial problems and internal disorganization have reduced the group's activities and capabilities. Authorities shut down the ANO's operations in Libya and Egypt in 1999. Has demonstrated ability to operate over wide area, including the Middle East, Asia, and Europe.

External Aid:
Has received considerable support, including safe haven, training, logistic assistance, and financial aid from Iraq, Libya, and Syria (until 1987), in addition to close support for selected operations.

Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)

Description:
Founded in 1974 as a Marxist-Leninist insurgent group primarily composed of Turkish Kurds. The group's goal has been to establish an independent Kurdish state in southeastern Turkey, where the population is predominantly Kurdish. In the early 1990s, the PKK moved beyond rural-based insurgent activities to include urban terrorism. Turkish authorities captured Chairman Abdullah Ocalan in Kenya in early 1999; the Turkish State Security Court subsequently sentenced him to death. In August 1999, Ocalan announced a "peace initiative," ordering members to refrain from violence and withdraw from Turkey and requesting dialogue with Ankara on Kurdish issues. At a PKK Congress in January 2000, members supported Ocalan's initiative and claimed the group now would use only political means to achieve its new goal, improved rights for Kurds in Turkey.

Activities:
Primary targets have been Turkish Government security forces in Turkey. Conducted attacks on Turkish diplomatic and commercial facilities in dozens of West European cities in 1993 and again in spring 1995. In an attempt to damage Turkey's tourist industry, the PKK bombed tourist sites and hotels and kidnapped foreign tourists in the early-to-mid-1990s.

Strength:
Approximately 4,000 to 5,000, most of whom currently are located in northern Iraq. Has thousands of sympathizers in Turkey and Europe.

Location/Area of Operation:
Operates in Turkey, Europe, and the Middle East.

External Aid:
Has received safe haven and modest aid from Syria, Iraq, and Iran. The Syrian Government expelled PKK leader Ocalan and known elements of the group from its territory in October 1998.

Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO)
a.k.a. The National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA, the militant wing of the MEK), the People's Mujahidin of Iran (PMOI), National Council of Resistance (NCR), Muslim Iranian Student's Society (front organization used to garner financial support)

Description:
Formed in the 1960s by the college-educated children of Iranian merchants, the MEK sought to counter what it perceived as excessive Western influence in the Shah's regime. Following a philosophy that mixes Marxism and Islam, has developed into the largest and most active armed Iranian dissident group. Its history is studded with anti-Western activity, and, most recently, attacks on the interests of the clerical regime in Iran and abroad.

Activities:
Worldwide campaign against the Iranian Government stresses propaganda and occasionally uses terrorist violence. During the 1970s the MEK staged terrorist attacks inside Iran and killed several US military personnel and civilians working on defense projects in Tehran. Supported the takeover in 1979 of the US Embassy in Tehran. In April 1992 conducted attacks on Iranian embassies in 13 different countries, demonstrating the group's ability to mount large-scale operations overseas. The normal pace of anti-Iranian operations increased during the "Operation Great Bahman" in February 2000, when the group claimed it launched a dozen attacks against Iran. During the remainder of the year, the MEK regularly claimed that its members were involved in mortar attacks and hit-and-run raids on Iranian military, law enforcement units, and government buildings near the Iran-Iraq border. The MEK also claimed six mortar attacks on civilian government and military buildings in Tehran.

Strength:
Several thousand fighters based in Iraq with an extensive overseas support structure. Most of the fighters are organized in the MEK's National Liberation Army (NLA).

Location/Area of Operation:
In the 1980s the MEK's leaders were forced by Iranian security forces to flee to France. Most resettled in Iraq by 1987. In the mid-1980s the group did not mount terrorist operations in Iran at a level similar to its activities in the 1970s. In the 1990s, however, the MEK claimed credit for an increasing number of operations in Iran.

External Aid:
Beyond support from Iraq, the MEK uses front organizations to solicit contributions from expatriate Iranian communities.

Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)

Description:
Broke away from the PFLP-GC in mid-1970s. Later split again into pro-PLO, pro-Syrian, and pro-Libyan factions. Pro-PLO faction led by Muhammad Abbas (Abu Abbas), who became member of PLO Executive Committee in 1984 but left it in 1991.

Activities:
The Abu Abbas-led faction is known for aerial attacks against Israel. Abbas's group also was responsible for the attack in 1985 on the cruise ship Achille Lauro and the murder of US citizen Leon Klinghoffer. A warrant for Abu Abbas's arrest is outstanding in Italy.

Location/Area of Operation:
PLO faction based in Tunisia until Achille Lauro attack. Now based in Iraq.

External Aid:
Receives support mainly from Iraq. Has received support from Libya in the past.

As anyone can see, Iraq is not shy when it comes to support for international terrorism. This was one of the major justifications for the war. With Saddam’s clear and obvious intent on lifting sanctions and becoming a nuclear power, and his ongoing relationship with Terrorist organizations, the United States, and her many allies decided that such a mixture of interests were one of grave and urgent attention. If the civilized world was to do nothing, countries like Germany, and France would continue to work with the dictator to lift sanctions, and allow Saddam to raise himself to a recognizable, dangerous, world power. But we did not do nothing. We took actions, despite heated opposition, and our accomplishments are clear and rewarding. And to seal the case; in a PBS interview with Richard Perle, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, and James Woolsey Former director of the CIA from 1993-1995, both stated clearly that Saddam was a terrorist sponsoring state. What do they know that the Left doesn’t? Better question: What does everyone know that the Left doesn’t?

Another critical justification runs hand-in-hand with Saddam’s continued oppression of the Iraqi people, and that was his violation of economic sanctions. The UN Oil-for-Food Program (OFF) was one of sound, and warranted motivation. The OFF was a band-aid, attempting to fix a broken arm; the band-aid being the assistance of the Iraqi people, and the broken arm being the totalitarian dictator, Saddam Hussein. The OFF stated that all profit made by the limited selling of Iraq’s oil was to be used for humanitarian efforts. Instead, Saddam used that profit to line his palaces with gold, and bribe French and German companies into making even more money through Saddam.

According to Peter van Walsum, a Dutch diplomat who headed the Iraq sanctions committee in 1999 and 2000, the UN “never had clear decisions on anything. So we just in effect condoned things.” In an interview with the New York Times, he also stated, "Everybody said it was a terrible shame and against international law, but there was really no enthusiasm to tackle it,"

This kind of negligence allowed thousands of Iraqis to starve, including women and children. Through the OFF, Iraq was given the decision of who it would sell its oil, and from whom it would buy its humanitarian relief provisions. To oversee all of this, and to make sure Iraq sold its oil at a reasonable price, was the UN. With an annual budget of only 1.5 billion, the UN was overseeing and monitoring a 10 billion dollar program. Corruption was imminent, and has now been uncovered.

A Congressional investigator reported as late as August of 2004 that $5.7 billion was earned from selling oil outside of the OFF. That was $5.7 billion that was, under UN sanctions, supposed to go to the starving Iraqi people. It didn’t. The Independent Inquiry Committee into the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program submitted a report on February 3rd, 2005 describing their findings. This, to date, is their most current document. According to the Committee, “There can be no question that bribes and other abuses, including shipments of overpriced or substandard goods, provided many opportunities for illicit gains, often part of a deliberate effort by Iraq to ‘reward friends’ or cultivate political influence.”

Adding to the corruption, the UN had no eagerness to fix the well known problems. In the same 246 page report provided by the IIC, it noted “weaknesses in some of the supporting documentation, controls and safeguards in place to maintain the integrity of the accounting and financial reporting functions.” With both sides of the table turning a blind eye to international law, Iraq continued to “reward friends” and cultivate political influence in hope to life sanctions and rise to a world power.

What I have described only scratches the surface of Saddam’s continued violations. In fact, the IIC continues its research in uncovering one of the largest scandals in our history in terms of dollars. Of course, this information, this detailed, was not available to President Bush when making the difficult decision of war or continued deception. But what was available was the obvious. Corruption was being covered sleazily and to ignore it would have been a lack of leadership and candor.

To some degree, Leftists refuse to see heinous human rights violations as a justification for war in Iraq. While they continue their campaign for gay rights, gun control, and minority rights, they continue to turn a blind eye to torture of which was not uncommon in Iraq under Presidential order. One early example of this was a speech by President Bush to the Ford Community and Performing Arts Center on April 28th, 20030. He said this in his opening statements:

“I spoke with Najda Egaily, a Sunni Muslim from Basra who moved to the United States five years ago. Najda learned the price of descent in Iraq in 1988, when her brother-in-law was killed after laughing at a joke about Saddam Hussein in a house that was bugged. In Iraq, Najda says, we could never speak to anyone about Saddam Hussein -- we had to make sure the windows were closed. The windows are now open in Iraq.”

But why would anyone take the President seriously? Besides, he is only a man with top level clearance on all intelligence and receives daily updates. Why should we take his word seriously? Why don’t we just go straight to the credible sources shall we? In a State Department report dated March 4th, 2002, it covers 7 different sections in great detail. I will highlight key facts (there is that word again) from only three of them.

Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life:
The State Department reported that as of 2001, “membership in certain political parties [was] punishable by death,” and “that there is a pervasive fear of death for any act or expression of dissent, and that there are recurrent reports of the use of the death penalty for such offenses as "insulting" the President or the Ba'th Party.”

Disappearance:
The State Department report mentioned that over 16,000 cases of disappearances were reported by the U.N. The majority of those cases are persons with Kuridish backgrounds. “The Special Rapporteur estimated that the total number of Kurds who disappeared during that period could reach several tens of thousands. Human Rights Watch (HRW) estimated the total at between 70,000 and 150,000, and AI at more than 100,000. The second largest group of cases known to the Special Rapporteur consists of Shi'a Muslims who were reported to have disappeared in the late 1970's and early 1980's as their families were expelled to Iran due to their alleged Persian ancestry.”

Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment:
Saddam Hussein violated his own countries constitution, when he ordered torture to a degree only seen by his police and his Sons. “According to former prisoners, torture techniques included branding, electric shocks administered to the genitals and other areas, beating, pulling out of fingernails, burning with hot irons and blowtorches, suspension from rotating ceiling fans, dripping acid on the skin, rape, breaking of limbs, denial of food and water, extended solitary confinement in dark and extremely small compartments, and threats to rape or otherwise harm family members and relatives. Evidence of such torture often was apparent when security forces returned the mutilated bodies of torture victims to their families.”

According to a British Foreign Office Report released December 2nd, 2002, “about 15% of Iraqi’s population have fled the country, rather than live under Saddam.” That 15% amounts to between three and four million. It should not be so quaint in the minds of Leftists, Saddam’s ability to systematically torture and starve his own people. But the Left ignore this; they would care more about African American’s vote for their next candidate than the genocide that took place in Saddam’s Iraq.

Saddam not only captured, arrested, or killed random and strategic enemies, but most distinctively he gassed his own people using weapons of mass destruction. In March of 1988, Saddam ordered a massive mustard and cyanide gas attack on the city of Halabja in northern Iraq, killing more than ten thousand innocent Kurdish civilians. Photos of the event are out there, but why would anyone need to see them? Why would someone think that these events aren’t worth action to stop them? How could someone dismiss this atrocity?

Many have, and they will forever be guilty, but the justifications for war in Iraq are many, and these are just a few. All of which are still facts, even after being analyzed, scrutinized, and debated by the Left. Facts will always be facts, and it is a fact that Saddam threatened the peace of the region and in turn threatened the peace of the world. Attacking such threats on their turf is a new strategy, which was never even thought of before September 11th. Terrorism spawns where tyranny exists, and tyranny existed in Saddam’s Iraq. His support for international terrorism, his ambition to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and his continued defiance of U.N. resolutions, and economic sanctions were a deadly combination. And in the world of post-9/11, the free people of the world cannot and will not stand by as threats gather and plot to kill more innocence. To ignore such threats, to trust dictatorships or terrorist-sponsoring countries at their word, is something we cannot do any longer.

Some may call this propaganda. Some may call it the twisting of facts. Some might call it blind faith behind a man who has no idea what he’s doing. I call it truth. I call it fact. And I call it steadfast leadership. This is Iraq. These are but a few reasons. And may we thank those who saw these facts, and addressed them properly in defense of the free world.

The War on the War on Terror

2005-01-23T19:36:00.000-08:00

Through my interest in politics, I have found myself in situations where I come face to face with voters, adults, and scholars that have very opposing views. At times, I’ve completely surrounded myself in their views, and I watched in awe. At first, appalled, and just disregarded their opinions as uneducated and full of anger. And then, I realized that I needed to get to know my opponents. Reading very biased articles, opinionated commentary, and slanted news coverage were some of the things that I indulged in. I came out of that experience feeling the same way I did when I walked in, only more informed. I want to share with you my view of the Left, and how they have become a serious problem, and fail to see it.

On September 11th, we had a national tragedy. Three-thousand innocent Americans were killed by radical Islamists. At that moment in time, the world stood still and watched as New York fire fighters and volunteers attempted to save lives. News anchors like Dan Rather broke down in tears on air, as did Brit Hume and many, many Americans on that day. In the following weeks, we saw America at its best. We saw random individuals waving flags on top of overpasses. American stickers on every car, and flags posted and raised on every house. It was truly spectacular to see such patriotism. As the weeks went by, and the tough decisions were being made, we saw a gradual, yet very apparent shift in attitude. Bits and pieces of the left, some more radical than the others, opposed our actions to defend ourselves. We scratched our heads, and pressed on.

We find a threat in Iraq; a tyrannical government with dangerous connections with al-Qaida[1], and equally as dangerous ambition towards weapons of mass murder[2]. Knowing full well that the threat of terrorism is real, and has been untouched for many years, we take no chances in trusting such a government to remain in power. We propose the oust of Saddam Hussein on the basis of weapons of mass destruction, heinous human rights violations, defiance of UN resolutions, and undermining economic sanctions. And again, only in a much larger force, the left becomes outraged.

Again we scratch our heads, and wonder why the left just can’t make the connection. We try to help them by showing them the evidence that their leaders in the government viewed, and the evidence that was given to the UN by Collin Powell[3]. Still, they refuse to agree to our conclusion. As a nation, we are supposed to stand together for our countries values, but those times have come and gone. As this article unfolds, remember this saying, “Bad news for America, is good news for the Democrats, and good news for America, is bad news for the Democrats.” This will continue to be proven throughout this article.

The War on the War on Terrorism

As events unfolded, and the realization that two of the largest oceans on this planet no longer protected us, we decided that we could not allow such a fight that September 11 provoked to take place on our soil. The United States government came to the conclusion that to make sure we never suffer such atrocities like September 11th, we had to take the fight to the Terrorists.

Terrorism is an intricate web of hate, stealth, and deceit which covers this world in no particular pattern, but for sure, one concentrated area would be the Middle East. To the Left, Terrorism is a crime, and that the actions they make (Mogadishu, Khobar Tower, US Embassy bombings, WTC 93’)[4], deserve to be approached like any police response. This is a dangerous, short-sighted point of view, one that cannot be implemented in this government any longer. We decided to give the Terrorists hell where they lived, planned, and trained. While combating Saddam’s Iraq, we heard the never ending rhetoric of how we are bound to fail, that our cause was unjust, and indirectly demonstrating that the freedom of 25,374,691 Iraqi civilians wasn’t worth one soldier’s life in a “sovereign country”[5]. The Left were so talented that they even made up some bogus talking point that we left the capture of Osama Bin Laden to Afghan war lords, and that we diverted resources to Iraq from the hunt.[6]

In fact, we worked along side the Northern Alliance, once lead by Ahmad Shah Massoud – a sworn enemy of Osama Bin Laden for many years[7]. Even though the Northern Alliance was such a successful ally, the Left continued to serotype and call these soldiers “Afghan war lords.” Afghanistan was a miraculous success and the Left continue to deny that because it is counter to their agenda.

While we heard criticism in the aftermath of Afghanistan, we heard criticism before, after, and during the struggle to free Iraq.

Before. As the case was being presented to the United Nation’s Security Council, French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin badgered members of the Security Council in secret to persuade them not to join a US-led coalition against Iraq[8]. Official disagreement was centered within the condescension of Villepin, but it seemed that the US Senate had a different point of view. On October 11th, the U.S. Senate voted in Joint Resolution 114 with a 77 to 23 vote[9]. So, if people like John Kerry, John Edwards, and even Hillary Clinton can see a threat in Iraq, why do they fight our effort tooth and nail now? The Left has become the type of people that change their favorite football team mid-season. Some loyal fans would call them a “ship jumper” or something like that. The Left has jumped off America’s “ship” and back onto their own.

Now before the war, many Leftists presented the fact that the United States backed Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, and we gave chemical weapons to Saddam to use. With is true, yet back when this took place, Saddam had not yet expressed his aggressiveness against the U.S. Another talking point was that this was Bush’s revenge for his Father’s attempted assassination; again, purely false, derived from the lefts residing hatred for the entire Bush family.

During. During the Iraq war, we saw the outrage of the Left in complete awe. “Shock and Awe” was indeed a jaw dropping display of American air superiority, and precision, yet when civilian casualties became apparent, the Left decided that this war was not worth it, too bloody, too costly, and we should pull out right away because we were never going to win. By the time President Bush announced “mission accomplished”, Iraqi hospitals were being repaired, rebuilt and rehabilitated. Same with clinics, schools, etc.[10] Yet, the liberal news media never showed you that bit of news. It was more important to have Democratic Analysts scorning Bush for giving troops false hope by saying “mission accomplished”.

During the operation, the Left continued to mock the justifications for going to war, and still held out hope that Saddam would prove the ignorant U.S. wrong. As the months passed, the Left screamed that there were no weapons of mass destruction, never was, and never could be. Unfortunately they were wrong again. Detailed documents found in Iraq pointed to a very potent operation regarding the Syrian border, Iraqi agents, and mysterious cargo[11]. Other documents pointed to nuclear planning[12]. How will the left react to this? They will call it bogus, proved wrong, and not enough evidence, when in fact the evidence in right in front of them.

It continues to boggle my mind how the Left could practically rejoice when American lives are lost. At the Political Crossfire Forums, we had a topic devoted to placing bets on how many lives would be lost in 2005[13]. Other topics paraded the attacks on our soldiers in a mess hall, calling this a prime example of why we were bound to fail in the first place. This has been the Left’s attitude throughout this war. They have ignored the good new completely, and have paraded the bad, and using that as their arguments. That phrase comes to mind, “Bad news for America is good news for the Democrats, and good news for America, is bad news for the Democrats.”

Now, it's one thing to find documents detailing the friendship of Saddam and al-Qaida, or intelligence showing Saddam transporting suspicious material through the Syrian boarder, or confirmed ties through the 9/11 Commission, but it's another to convince someone who just wont see the facts, like the few we see here on this board. Now most, will accuse the government of lying or stretching the truth, when in fact, they are the ones lying to themselves. And it is sad really, because the overwhelming evidence towards Iraq’s continued defiance and violations of UN Resolutions, Economic Sanctions, and human rights, just to name a few. So, if these people, the people that refuse to see past their nose when it comes to the truth, are going to accuse the government, even the CIA of lying to the American public, and to the many countries that are backing us, then my fellow conservatives, I will join you in shaking your head to them. They have continued to defend Saddam Hussein as if they were his own defense lawyer. They look at the Iraqi population with disgrace, and are completely stereotypical of them, immediately stating that they all hate America, and that they will become Terrorists due to that hate. Because of that Terrorism, they believe that the American troops will be over run, and more Americans will die. They can only hope, because, said simply, it gives them more blood to debate with. The more blood is spilt, whether it be the same Iraqis they immediately call Terrorists and hateful people, or their own countrymen, the more they can disagree with George here at home.

After. This hatred, this utter refusal to accept the Iraq war seemed to peek at it’s end. The Left screamed that no exit plan was constructed, and that Bush did not have a plan to win the peace. It seems they look at only information that helps their view, because the U.S. Government had a detailed plan for post-war success[14].

While the Left continued to attempt to prove Iraq was wrong, using theories or just plain false information, massive weapons caches were being found, chemical weapons and labs were uncovered[15]. It was an amazing shock, for such information to not be more attractive to the news media, but Abu Graib, or missing weapons in Iraq was more significant. Working with the media, the Left engaged in a massive campaign to prove that Iraq was not worth it. To prove that, every singe time American blood was split, they used it as another example, exactly like Michael Moore did with the mother that hated the President because a terrorist killed her son. These kinds of tactics prove that the Left love to have more blood to debate with. The more blood split, the stronger their case. The stronger their case, the more they can bash Bush. The more they bash Bush, the closer they think they get to the Presidency.

Does anyone see the pattern? A domino effect, through the war, through the hearts of Iraqis and Americans (of which are now working together to fight real Terrorism), which all leads back at home, just so they can bash Bush. And, what they don’t seem to see, is that they are maiming this country more so than ever before. They are calling this wonderful country, a terrorist state, even a fascist state with a fascist government. What they continue to fail to see is that that attitude is one of hate, negativity, and pure pessimisms degrade our people. This, ladies and gentlemen of the Right, is why they lost this election. The American people saw this hatred (of which started January, 2000), and the American people were appalled. How could a political party, be so drastic as to secretly put forth forged documents into the “un-bias” news media. How could a party be so extreme as to criticize Alberto Gonzalez immediately as anti-humanitarian or some such idiocy? How could a party be so cynical as to call the United States “stingy” in providing humanitarian relief, when it was the United State’s ships first to land in Southern Asia, when it was Collin Powell first to make the phone call to the President of Sri Lanka? It continue to baffle me folks.

Now, the war on the war on terror expands all the way back to the 1990’s with the Clinton Administration. As Clinton worried about his legacy, dodging impeachable actions, and making friends, he continued to ignore, slash, and cripple the United States defense, and armed forces. During the 2000 Presidential Campaign, then Governor Bush at a Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) national convention, criticized the Clinton Administration of military neglect, and called the U.S. armed forced as “a military in decline.” Vice President Gore countered Bush’s statements by stating that the U.S. military is “the strongest and the best in the entire world.”

While those words are correct, it is not the point. The United States should not compare her military might to the might of other nations, but to the needs of national security. This is the clear mindset of the Left. They truly believe that we must have a balance of power. They feel that the United States as the lone superpower is not fair to the rest of the world. Some call it compassionate. I call of short-sighted.

Missile Defense. The Executive Summary, Report of the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, published by Congress on July 15, 1998,[16] stated that there was most definitely a growing missile threat to the United States. Yet, Clinton showed no mandate to pursue missile defense. In fact, he dismantled Bush Sr.’s Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS). In a DOD News Briefing on May 13, 1993, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin announced a decision was made to cancel the missile defense program inherited from the Bush Administration. In a Bottom-Up Review of defense policy in 1993, the Clinton Administration, through FY 1995-99 drastically under funded the Nation Missile Defense (NMD) program. Following that review, Clinton complied with a recommendation to reduce the NMD program.

Clinton finally signed into law a mandate stating a NMD system would be deployed as soon as technologically possible. The next day Clinton stated that no decision on deployment had been made. This in itself contradicts the Congressional legislation. The contradiction continued. As development of the NMD system continued, it became apparent that these acts were in violation of Clinton’s wishes to keep the ABM Treaty. Clinton’s continued failure of judgment, leadership, and policy left the American people at risk with a trailing missile defense system.

The Military neglect expands beyond America’s borders. In 1994 Stanley Riveles (U.S. representative to the ABM Treaty) announced that the Clinton Administration refused Russian President Boris Yeltsin's proposals to work with Washington towards a Global Protection System[17]. In September of 1994, in a joint statement with Russia, Clinton voiced strongly in preserving the viability and integrity of the ABM Treaty. This ultimately terminated the NMD, and severed any cooperation with Russia towards a Global Protection System and the further development of NMD.

Clinton continued to neglect the real threat of ballistic missile attack, by downgrading every missile defense system in place, dismantling the GPALS, under funding the NMD programs, and halting the SDI. He vetoed an entire Department of Defense authorization bill, cut research and development funding, and circumvent the Constitution of the United States Senate in reviving the ABM Treaty.

In more ways than one, the Clinton Administration was the most damning entity to the United States, in a time of unrest, and a growing threat from hostile nations, and terror-sympathizing nations. His lack of judgment in regards to foreign policy set back the U.S. military years behind the threat that grew without opposition.

More to come.

1. 9/11 Commission Report: Chapter 2
2. Saddam’s Strategic Intent
3. Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses the U.N. Security Council
4. Mogadishu, Khobar Towers, U.S. Embassy Bombings
5. Iraq not worth going to war
6. Operations still taking place
7. The Northern Alliance
8. Villepin's 'world-vision'
9. H.J.Res. 114
10. Clinic and schools open
11. Saddam agents on Syria border helped move banned materials
12. Iraq Survey Group
13. The 2005 American Body Count
14. Pre-war Planning for Post-war Iraq
15. Sarin, Mustard Gas Found, Chemical Lab Found, Weapon Stocks Found
16. Executive Summary
17. The September 26, 1997 ABM/TMD Agreements