Dubya gets Schooled on being Commander in Chief....

JoseCuervo

New member
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
9,752
Location
South of the Border
It will be interesting to read the comments of the Limbaugh parrots on this one... My bet is most of them don't really care enough to read this in its entirety. ('Cept for Nemont....and maybe Fecl...)

Protecting Our Military Families in Times of War: A Military Family Bill of Rights

Remarks as prepared for delivery.

One year ago this week, American soldiers raced across the desert to Baghdad. Ten months ago, George Bush stood on an aircraft carrier and proclaimed "mission accomplished."

But today we know that the mission is not finished, hostilities have not ended, and our men and women in uniform fight on almost alone with the target squarely on their backs. Everyday, they face danger and death from suicide bombers, roadside bombers, and now ironically, from the very Iraqi police they are training.

We are still bogged down in Iraq — and the Administration stubbornly holds to failed policies that drive potential allies away. What we have seen is a steady loss of lives and mounting costs in dollars, with no end in sight.

We were misled about weapons of mass destruction. We are misled now when the costs of Iraq are not even counted in the President's budget. But having gone to war, we have a responsibility to keep and a national interest to achieve in a stable and peaceful Iraq. To leave too soon would leave behind a failed state that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a threat to our future, a problem for the Middle East, and a dangerous setback in the war against terror.

But the answer is not a stubborn pursuit of the same arrogant policies; the answer to failure is not more of the same. Instead we must return more effectively to the international community, and share the authority and the burdens with other nations. We need to use the tools of diplomacy as well as the tools of war. All of us support our troops. But if we had built a true coalition, they would not have to fight almost alone — and Americans would not have to bear almost all the costs in Iraq. This President is so committed to tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that he refused to ask them to sacrifice even a small portion of that tax cut to give our soldiers the weapons and equipment they need.

The lesson here is fundamental: At times, conflict comes, and the decision must be made. For a President, the decision may be lonely, but that does not mean that America should go it alone.

And while we should seek allies, we must never give anyone else a veto over our national security. At this decisive time in our history, when we confront ongoing challenges in Afghanistan as well as Iraq — and the mortal challenge of those that would use terror as a weapon and religion as a shield, there is no greater imperative for a President than the Constitution's command to provide for the common defense. If I am President of the United States, we will do whatever it takes to ensure that the 21st century American military is the strongest in the world. I will not hesitate to use force when it is needed to wage and win the War on Terror.

At the heart of that force must be a fully prepared, fully equipped, fully staffed, state-of-the-art military ready to face any adversary, anywhere. Four years ago, George Bush said that our troops lacked the support they needed. Four years ago, he promised them: "Help is on the way." He sent that message to the same military that had been built up in the 1990s and was soon to perform so brilliantly in Afghanistan and Iraq. Well, I say this today: George Bush can't have it both ways. He can't decry the military's readiness in 2000 and then take credit for its success in 2001, before he even passed his first defense budget. Now, in 2004, our armed forces are more extended than at any time in a generation — and at this time, they are still waiting for help.

Twenty-five hundred of them are still waiting for medical care. Helicopter pilots have flown battlefield missions without the best available anti-missile systems. Civil Affairs personnel, almost all of them reservists, are stretched to the breaking point, building schools and hospitals. Unarmored Humvees roll toward the next perilous turn in the road. The 428th Transportation Company had to ask local businesses back home to donate the steel to armor their vehicles, and when this President heard about it, instead of saying, "never again," he said, "good idea." And tens of thousands of troops were deployed to Iraq without the most advanced bullet proof vests that can literally make the difference between life and death. Lives and blood will always be the cost of war, but we should never send young American's into harm's way more exposed to danger than they have to be.

This President has had his chance; and this President has not delivered.

So, let me say here today, to every soldier and every soldier's family: This time help is on the way, and it won't be coming from George Bush.

If I am President, never again will parents or husbands or wives of soldiers have to send them body armor instead of photographs and care packages. Last month a young newlywed in Virginia who, as her husband was about to ship out to Iraq, gave him a bullet proof vest for Valentine's Day. I can tell you right now: in a Kerry Administration, no one will be getting body armor as a gift from a loved one; it will come from the Armed Forces of the United States of America. We will supply our troops with everything they need — and we will reimburse each and every family who has had to buy body armor because this Administration made Valentine's Day part of the procurement process.

Our military is about much more than moving pins on a map or amassing expensive new weapon systems. A strong military depends first of all on the courage of the men and women who stand a post or go out on patrol in places around the globe and who carry on every day until the mission is accomplished for real. We need a Commander-in-Chief who honors and supports them, for real; a Commander-in-Chief who repays their risks on the battlefield by providing them with the best weapons and protections as they go into battle, a Commander-in-Chief who recognizes their commitment and sacrifice, and offers their families a decent life here at home.

To all of the military families who are here today, we say thank you. And to my fellow veterans, the band of brothers who have been with me for so long and to whom I owe so much, I pledge that unlike the time when we fought side by side, I will be a President who does what's right for our men and women in uniform.

I will never forget that our true power is measured not only by the strength of our weapons, but by the spirit of our soldiers.

To me, that is not just rhetoric; it is the reality I lived — and it is central to the work of my life. So I come here today to propose a Military Family Bill of Rights — real and specific guarantees — that will keep faith with those who served and the families who share in their sacrifice.

Our military families have the right to expect real leadership of the armed forces from the Commander-in-Chief. They have a right to competitive pay and quality housing, decent health care and dental care. Quality education for their children. First rate training. The best possible weaponry and state-of-the-art equipment. They have a right to timely deployment information. And they have a right to know that, in the event of tragedy, help will be there to care and provide for their families and for them.

America needs a President who will do all that it takes to create the most modern fighting force on earth. When the 4th Infantry Division found Saddam Hussein, they had an unmatched wealth of knowledge about their surroundings and they were connected in an unprecedented way to their commanders. They're known as the "digital division," transformed in the Clinton Administration, when the decision was made to outfit the 4th Division with the latest advances in information technology. Their vehicles in the field have keyboards and touch screen monitors so that troops can access real time maps, track battlefield movements, and even send commands by e-mail. We need to do this across the board. We need to revolutionize our military capability. Our enemies don't use the old tactics and -strategies — neither should we.

Our emphasis has do be on empowering soldiers to fight more precisely, on reducing the incidents of friendly-fire and on building a military fit for the future, not the past. That means pushing technology down to the smallest units. When we took on the Taliban, precision bombs onboard planes flying from aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean were guided to their targets by U.S. Special Forces riding horses across the hills of Afghanistan. They could do that because of what we did to strengthen the military in the last decade, but there is so much more to do. By pushing real-time information, and the ability to take action, into the hands of those closest to the frontlines, we can prepare ourselves for the perils and possibilities of the years ahead.

The war in Iraq taught us that a lightening-fast information-age military can drive to Baghdad in three weeks, but the instability that follows requires a large force — and we cannot rely on reservists alone to make up the difference. I propose to add 40,000 troops to the regular Army, not to send to Iraq, but to ease the burden on troops who have been deployed from one global hot spot to the next with no end in sight. This doesn't mean we have to spend more on the military; instead, we have to be smarter about what we spend by shifting priorities within the defense budget, and scaling back some programs that do more for defense contractors than for the national defense.

We are weaker today militarily than we should be, but this Administration stubbornly refuses to admit it. Soldiers in Iraq are paying the price everyday because our forces are spread too thin. There simply aren't enough of them to provide a prudent reserve of active-duty troops to respond if they have to in other hotspots. More than 180,000 members of the National Guard and Reserves are on active duty. Stop-loss programs have kept more than 30,000 troops in the ranks after their enlistments expired. If I am President, I will instruct my Secretary of Defense to conduct a long-range review of the nation's military force structure. And until that review is completed, I will not appoint a Base Closure Commission.

We should not begin that work until we are clear that we are not wasting resources on excess bases, and until we know what our future needs will be at home and around the world.

And as we expand the size of the active-duty Army, we must also recognize that more numbers alone are not enough. The threats of terrorism and the conflicts of the future can only be met with more engineers, more military police, more psychological warfare personnel and civil affairs teams — more special operations forces and more training for peace keeping missions. We need a force that is as well prepared, well-trained, and well-equipped to stabilize a failed state as it is to wage war in an open desert or on urban streets.

America's strength is not found in our military alone, but in every area of American life. In small towns and cities across this country, there are judges, public administrators, educators, economists, civil engineers, and public safety professionals. They represent a vast untapped reserve of citizens capable — and I believe willing — to make their contribution to national security. It is time to marshal their skills and experience in service to America. They are an army unto themselves; and today I propose that we enlist thousands of them in a Civilian Stability Corps, a reserve organization of volunteers ready to help win the peace in troubled places.

Like military reservists, they will have peacetime jobs; but in times of national need, they will be called into service to restore roads, renovate schools, open hospitals, repair power systems, draft a constitution, or build a police force. A Civilian Stability Corps can bring the best of America to the worst of the world — and reduce pressure on the military.

Yet in the end, at the core of our defense are the men in women who wear the uniform, their families, and all those who I call my brothers and sisters, the veterans of this nation. Their concerns are as critical to our strength as the weapons systems we buy or the troop numbers we deploy. We have a sacred obligation to do our part for those who have borne the burdens of battle. This is about the character of our nation and who we are as a people; it is about keeping America's promise, about love of country, and the debt we owe to those who defend it.

America entered into a covenant with those it drafted and those who enlisted, but the truth is that, with every story of a veteran who goes without adequate health care every day, that covenant is broken. There are countless veterans who fought our wars who are now fighting year after year for the benefits they earned. Last year they had to defeat a Bush Administration proposal to increase fees and co-payments, which was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt drive an additional one million veterans from the VA health care system. The President then came back with a plan to drive 500,000 from the system by 2005. And then he submitted a similar proposal this year.

If I am President, as part of a Military Families Bill of Rights, we will fully fund veterans health and veterans benefits — and our veterans will no longer be the neglected soldiers of America.

And we have to secure the rights not only of those who served in the past, but of patriots all across this country who serve today — in the active duty military, the Reserves, or the National Guard.

Twenty-percent of our Reservists and their families don't have health care coverage. But George Bush threatened to veto funding for Iraq if it included more money for health care for Reservists, and then tried to cut the pay of soldiers in the field and school aid for children of military families. If I am President, our men and women in uniform will get the benefits they deserve.

This Administration also attempted to cut family separation allowances, imminent danger pay, and impact aid — the help local schools depend on to give military kids the best possible education. I will protect them all — and as President, I will sign legislation to provide for those families who suffer a loss in war and to protect the livelihood of reservists who are called up and have to leave their jobs. This legislation will include $250,000 on top of their present life insurance policies for all service members who die in the line of duty.

I will honor the family members of those who fall in service not just with words, but with deeds. People like Cyndi Stever and her ten year old daughter Nichole. When Tony Stever was killed by enemy fire in Iraq last April, Cyndi said she felt she had lost her whole life. But more loss was to come — not just from an enemy, but from her own government. Not long after she buried her husband, Cyndi was told she and Nichole would have to leave their home. Military housing — they were told — is for military families. And since Tony made the ultimate sacrifice, they were no longer a military family.

How can this happen in the United States of America? It's not right to tell a family that has just received that knock on the door, "Oh, by the way — you have to pack up your home and move." Move where? Who among us thinks it's right to say such a thing? Who among us could move on short notice when you don't even know where your paycheck will come from? If this Administration says we can afford to throw massive tax cuts at the wealthiest Americans, then don't tell us to throw bereaved military families out of their homes without a chance to pull life back together.

So the Military Family Bill of Rights, will allow the spouses and children of those killed in action to remain in military housing for up to a year after the loss of a loved one. It will offer help to move on to a new life. It will provide one year of pay to military dependents of soldiers killed in action. It will make permanent increases in family separation allowances, and permanent guarantees of reservist access to military healthcare. For reservists who are called up, it will also permit penalty free withdrawals from their IRAS to cover the unexpected expenses of lengthy activations and deployments. This is the least we can do for those who give the most they can to our country.

To me, guaranteeing these rights and organizing our armed forces accordingly is personal; it is in my soul and it's been a large part of my life. This commitment goes back more than 35 years to the years of my own service. It was then that I learned, together with some of you here today, about our obligations to each other and our country's obligation to those in uniform. And since then, from the struggle for care in our VA hospitals, to post-traumatic stress disorder, to Agent Orange, to the battle for military strength and military pay, to the struggle for answers as we kept faith with our obligations to find the truth about POW/MIA, I have tried to be a voice and a champion for those in uniform who serve our country.

I make this simple pledge: If I am President, I will fight for a constant standard of decency and respect for those who serve their country in our armed forces — on active duty and as veterans. It should be no other way and if I am president, it will be no other way.
 
P

pawclaws

Guest
Same old rhetoric Elkgunner. I can not believe someone can use so many words and say absolutely nothing. I think this record is about worn out bud. This article contains nothing but unproven accusations and it's kind of like my Grandma used to say; "Tell a lie enough and pretty soon you'll begin to believe it yourself!" That is really what is going on here my friend and that is why I find your "copy and paste" so objectionable. You are are promoting propaganda, repeating rumor and hearsay and doing far more damage than good. Maybe it is fun for you; but, in my opinion it is counterproductive to our best interests. Ask yourself these three questions before you say anything:

1. Is it true?

2. Is it necessary?

3. Is it helpful?

If the answer to any one of these questions is no or unknown then leave it alone; please.

Thanks for listening.
 

ROCKYMTNELKSTALKER

New member
Joined
Mar 27, 2001
Messages
33
Location
Trego, MT USA
Talk about a crock of bull,""Help is on the way." He sent that message to the same military that had been built up in the 1990s and was soon to perform so brilliantly in Afghanistan and Iraq."
Our military was cut almost to the bone in the 90's thanks to the Clinton administration. There were enlisted soldiers, sailors, and marines on active duty that were drawing food stamps and receivein AFDC, while on active duty!! I'm not just talking about the lowere enlisted either. I know of at least 10 cases that the people getting help from the outside were at the e-6 level. The Clinton administration had cut so deep into the pockets of those that served this country that a great many with families had no choice but to get out of the military and join the private sector just so they could feed their families with their heads held high.
Clinton sent our troops into Bosnia with no clear military objective and with rules of engagement that made them targets, not protectors. Clinton sent soldiers into Somalia to accomplish a specific mission, but wouldn't alow them to use the resources that were needed to accomplish it, then when things went to hell and 19 americans had lost their lives, he pulled them out without so much as an appology for putting them into the fire without support.
In 8 years of Billary bliss, the US military had their budget consistantly cut, lost more military lives witout any form of retrobution other then doing investigations and trying to please the outside world through diplomacy. Bush was right when he said help is on the way, they needed it. look at what help they got. Increase in military spending, increases in pay, recruitment back to almost the numbers of the late 80's. Sounds like much needed help to me. Seems to me that everytime we get a DemoRat in office the military is the first to suffer. It took strong leaders like Reagan, and Dubyah to fix the great screw ups of the DemoRat administrations before them.
JMO
 

yz1

New member
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
43
Location
Minnesota, USA, Earth, MilkyWay
elkgunner, may I be so bold, where did you acquire this quote. I'm :confused: , as George W. Bush didn't become our President until 2001, this post is espousing that he has been our President, before 2000. I know that he didn't become our President until January 20, 2001.

Ken :cool: :D ;)
 

Nemont

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
4,349
Location
Glasgow, Montana
EG,
Great campaign speech. It is interesting that he says he will add 40,000 troops to the active duty roster without spending anymore money. That is roughly the personel for two active divisions. Any idea what it costs to Reconstitute and equip a division?

On the body armor issue here is what I hear from my brother has been over there and friends who are over there now. Every soldier deployed with their personal kevlar body armor. (The same type we use during Desert Storm)
The new body armor they are talking about is in short supply because there was only one vendor. Now there are 6 and troops are recieving them quickly. Maybe my these guys are lying to me but I doubt it.

EG I am curious if you have spent any time around active duty, or guard and reserve on active duty, troops?

What I have been told is that what they are needing more than anything is real war time ammo. The real stuff is different than training ammo. When was the budget to and stockpile of war fighting ammo slashed 1993 to 2000 who voted for the budget: John Kerry as well as his clone Ted Kennedy. Signed by who WJC. It takes years to build up adequate supplies of ammo.

Why don't you ask the troops who they would rather have in office, as their Commander and Chief? I haven't heard them griping about body armor and troops will gripe and grouse about anything that they percieve as being wrong.

Nemont
 

JoseCuervo

New member
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
9,752
Location
South of the Border
YZ,
Nemont is correct, it was a campaign speech released by Kerry. I think the reference to 2000/2001 is that Bush took praise for the readiness in 2001, which would have been under a budget passed under Clinton. It is kind of funny wording in the speech, but I think that is the point.

Nemont,
No, I have not spent much time around Active Duty troops, other than hunting/fishing with them while on leave. That is why I do take your insight as relevant, and I appreciate your offerings.
:cool:

Paws,

Ok, I'll play your silly game. I didn't know I had to clear all my posts thru your tests, but, here goes....

1. Is it true?

2. Is it necessary?

3. Is it helpful?

If the answer to any one of these questions is no or unknown then leave it alone; please.
Question One: Is it true? I don't know, but as it is released by the Kerry campaign as a "campaign promise", and given that Kerry is Leading in most polls, and could likely be the next Commander in Chief, I think we should be aware of his thoughts, and we should hold him to his promises, if elected.

Question Two: I am stumped as to why anything is "necessary" in these forums, but it sure provides more "food for thought" than the stupid post of Elkchsr that you did not seem to have any problem with. :rolleyes:

Question Three: Is it Helpful? Yes, I think it is helpful that we all have the complete speech to read, and discuss. It would seem to cause a problem if nobody could get us all to the same page for the initial topic on the discussion.

So, I have passed the Paws test, thank you very much.....

It was amusing that you had to dimsiss it as "Same old rhetoric ", which implies that you were unable to distinguish between areas that were fundamentaly flawed, and those that were valid. :rolleyes:
 

Erik in AK

New member
Joined
Mar 28, 2002
Messages
676
Location
not killing a ram
PAY ATTENTION CUZ I'M ONLY GONNA SAY THIS ONCE

The American Military of 1992-2000 did what it did IN SPITE of the Clinton Administration not BECAUSE of it.

Military Family Bill of Rights...what a crock. Nice stump speech but bullshit from word one.

Article 1 of the Armed Forces Code of Conduct sums up my personal ideaology nicely:

"I am an American fighting man. I serve in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense."

John Kerry is a goddamned liar! He was an Navy OFFICER in Viet Nam, I repeat: He was an OFFICER...who came home overly decorated(because he was an officer) for his service and then testified before congress that he witnessed "war crimes" that he, as an OFFICER was in position to do something about. So where are the records of reprimands or arrests or Captain's Mast proceedings under Lt Kerry? Where's the good Lt's Court Martial testimony? Its not there. Wanna know why? Cuz the decorated Boston Brahmin came home and jumped out of uniform and straight on to the political bandwagon du jour...war protest. If Viet Nam had been popular, or at least not so un-popular John Forbes Kerry would have joined the f#%&ing VFW instead of the VVAW. This bitch has been a political whore his whole contrived life and I rue the day he becomes president.

I am no hero. I am just one of the faceless few in uniform who get up every morning, put on our BDU's and dutifully go to work, be it in some air conditioned office or some dusty third world shithole. I'm damn sure not here for the money. I joined out of tradition and grew to believe in the promise of America so I stayed and continue to serve. I (we) do care about who is President because I (we) want to know that we have the full consideration of the President when being employed.

Bill Clinton DID NOT care about those in the armed forces period dot. Historical, irrefutable FACT. Don't argue it.

John Kerry, despite his service, is cut of the same ideaological and political cloth as WJC and I do not trust him.
 
P

pawclaws

Guest
"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." --Sun Tzu (6th century B.C. Chinese general) in "The Art of War"

The United States is at war. Since 1993, the year of the first Islamist attack on the World Trade Center, our homeland has been a frontline in the war with Jihadistan, a borderless alliance of Islamist groups with global reach, who are relentlessly targeting the U.S. as surrogates for Islamic nation states. While orthodox Muslims (those conforming to the teachings of the "pre-Medina" Quran) do not support acts of terrorism or mass murder, very large sects within the Islamic world are indoctrinated with the "post-Mecca" Quran and Hadith (Mohammed's teachings). These are the writings that call for "Jihad" or "Holy War" against all "the enemies of God." Hence, "Jihadistan," or "nation of holy war."

In the war to deter Jihadistan terror, there are two recurrent themes in President George W. Bush's leadership as Commander-in-Chief (his primary Constitutional role). First, he has emphasized that we must know our enemy and endeavor to keep the warfront on their turf. Second, President Bush has rightly insisted that we must know ourselves -- that we must not lose our resolve to conduct this war in defense of our nation and our national interests.

On the first count, we have, thus far, succeeded. While Leftist politicos and their Leftmedia minions are loath to give credit where credit is due, it is nothing short of remarkable that, since 9/11, our Armed Forces, and the multitude of agencies supporting them, have prevented any further catastrophic attacks on U.S. soil.

On the second count, however, our nation's resolve is at great risk of being undermined by President Bush's political opponent, Leftist agitator John Kerry, who should think twice about starting every stump-speech by questioning our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. Doing so only serves to endanger our forces in those regions -- and the security of our homeland -- by undermining U.S. resolve.

Like his mentor Ted Kennedy, Kerry has suggested that the rationale for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom was cooked up by the administration and the CIA -- that there are no WMD and, consequently, no looming threats against the United States. But Kerry and Kennedy et al. are wrong -- dead wrong -- and their use of our military campaign against Jihadistan as political campaign fodder is not only unconscionable -- it is, potentially, calamitous.

In his 2002 State of the Union speech, George Bush exercised little ambiguity in putting the "Axis of Evil" on notice: "North Korea is a regime arming with...weapons of mass destruction.... Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror.... Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to...develop nuclear weapons for over a decade. ... States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. ...[T]he price of indifference would be catastrophic."

Notably, President Bush added, "We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction." Now fast-forward two years to the nuclear WMD web linking Pakistan, Libya, Iran, Iraq and North Korea, a network of terror that has been incrementally exposed in the last 60 days. How is it that revelations about the status of nuclear WMD development programs in these nations has suddenly surfaced?

Subsequent analysis by The Federalist's leads us to conclude that the CIA (much-maligned by Kerry and Kennedy, who suggest the agency failed to provide accurate estimates of Iraq's undiscovered WMD) succeeded in a high-stakes "takeover" of the nuclear black market prior to 2002. It's an operation that is largely responsible for exposing the aforementioned Islamic web of nuclear WMD development -- and a success that will likely remain unheralded beyond this column.

As we noted last week, the most recent WMD revelation was the International Atomic Energy Agency's "discovery" of advanced uranium-enrichment equipment (gaseous centrifuge technology) at an air force base outside Tehran. That equipment was found to have traces of uranium refined to 90% of isotope 235, which has applications only in limited space reactors such as those in nuclear submarines -- and nuclear bombs. (We're quite certain Iran is not preparing to launch a nuclear submarine.)

Did Iran construct this particular component of advanced nuclear refinement technology? It's doubtful. While Iran has its own successful nuclear WMD program, the source of the recently discovered equipment was very likely North Korea, by way of Iraq. Two years ago in Federalist No. 02-42, we reported that the enriched uranium at the core of North Korea's nuclear WMD program was the product of gas centrifuge technology. Our sources tell us there is substantial evidence that North Korea transferred that technology to Iraq in the last decade.

Iraq, after all, had plenty of time, compliments of the French and French-fortified hand-wringers in the UN, to spirit the bulk of its biological and nuclear WMD into Iran and Syria prior to the coalition invasion last March. (You'll recall that when the coalition's Desert Storm invasion of Iraq was imminent in 1991, Saddam transferred his frontline squadrons of fighters to Iran.)

Of course, some still have their head in the sand, insisting that Iraq had no active nuclear WMD programs in recent years. (Ironically, that is precisely where some elements of his WMD programs likely remain concealed -- in the sand.) For example, as we noted in Federalist No. 03-28, the CIA recovered gas-centrifuge components from Iraqi nuclear scientist Mahdi Shukur Obeidi, who had buried the hardware in his back yard prior to the coalition's invasion of Iraq last year.

Who, then, is the common denominator of these various nuclear WMD programs, and what does he have to do with the CIA? He is Abdul Qadeer Khan who was, until his role in trading nuclear technology was recently exposed, Pakistan's top nuclear scientist, and the father of the "Islamic bomb." Khan collected most of his nuclear know-how from Western Europe and China over the last 20 years.

It is the considered opinion of our analysts that all these recent WMD revelations are the direct result of a covert operation to cultivate operatives in the nuclear black marketplace, particularly Khan, and ultimately control a substantial part of that market in an effort to track sellers and buyers.

While it is not yet clear what the exact nature of the relationship between Khan and the CIA was, suffice it to say that our analysts believe he was either working for the CIA in the latter years of his proliferation endeavors -- or his actions as the nuclear WMD black-market kingpin were transparent to the CIA -- for at least the past four years, and possibly for the last decade.

Contrary to President Bush's assertion that the U.S. would "work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction," we believe the CIA either conned Khan, or used him as the con in a covert operation to provide "materials, technology, and expertise" in an effort to determine which state-sponsors of terrorism were buying nuclear WMD components, and the current stage of their nuclear WMD program development.

It's an old ruse: If you want to know who the distributors and customers are, and how far they have advanced their programs and networks, set up your own shop, undercut the competition, and they'll line up at your door. We believe that is precisely what the CIA did, using Khan wittingly or unwittingly, in setting up one of the most brilliant -- and high-stakes -- con games ever.

Khan apparently operated with the full knowledge of Pakistani President (and former general) Pervez Musharraf, who granted Khan a full pardon after his activities were exposed last month. Khan outsourced a significant amount of production work to Malaysia, centering on one B.S.A. Tahir, a prominent businessman with Malaysia's Scomi Precision Engineering. Last month, speaking at the National Defense University, President Bush identified Tahir as the "chief financial officer and money launderer" of A.Q. Khan's black market ring. Indeed, it was Scomi precision-manufactured centrifuge parts that were seized in the Mediterranean aboard the BCC China late last year, en route to Libya.

Regarding North Korea's role, NSA Condoleezza Rice notes that details of Khan's con were having a profound impact upon the United States' ability to confront and negotiate with Pyongyang. "Now the North Koreans should also recognize that, with the unraveling of these proliferation networks, the A.Q. Khan network, what the Libyans are now freely admitting and talking about, that their admissions and what they say is not the only source of information about what's going on in North Korea," said Dr. Rice. "And it's probably a good time for the North Koreans to come clean."

Like any good sting operation, when it was determined by the CIA that all the information that could be gleaned from the Khan con had been collected -- prior to the transfer of any nuclear weapons to terrorist surrogates -- the CIA, through international channels, exposed the operation and put all Khan's clients on immediate notice that the extent of their nuclear WMD programs is a matter of record with the CIA.

Of course, all Khan's Islamic customers know that in the heart of the Middle East right now, within easy striking distance of any of them, is a substantial U.S. and coalition military force. In light of this fact, what can we make of Libya's sudden surrender of all its nuclear components a few weeks ago?

Mere coincidence? We think not.

George W. Bush has proven himself an outstanding Commander-in-Chief, and the CIA, should it ever acknowledge this operation, will certainly redeem itself in regard to its successful endeavor to track nuclear WMD. That notwithstanding, perhaps the greatest immediate threat to U.S. national security and sovereignty is not al-Qa'ida and company; rather, it is those among us whose phony political rhetoric is weakening our national resolve
 

JoseCuervo

New member
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
9,752
Location
South of the Border
Paws,

1. Is it true?

2. Is it necessary?

3. Is it helpful?

If the answer to any one of these questions is no or unknown then leave it alone; please.
 

ELKCHSR

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Messages
13,765
Location
Montana
Well said Eric...
Great find Paws...
People that have never served in the military or honestly supported its members will never understand what Eric said. To even think Mr. Klinton had any thing to do with the positive re enforcement of any of our military is just naive to say the least. I have family members that didn't want his signature on their retirement papers, so they stayed in for an extra tour just to make sure that didn't happen...
 
P

pawclaws

Guest
posted 03-19-2004 11:55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elkgunner said---
"Question One: Is it true? I don't know, but as it is released by the Kerry campaign as a "campaign promise", and given that Kerry is Leading in most polls, and could likely be the next Commander in Chief, I think we should be aware of his thoughts, and we should hold him to his promises, if elected.

Question Two: I am stumped as to why anything is "necessary" in these forums, but it sure provides more "food for thought" than the stupid post of Elkchsr that you did not seem to have any problem with.

Question Three: Is it Helpful? Yes, I think it is helpful that we all have the complete speech to read, and discuss. It would seem to cause a problem if nobody could get us all to the same page for the initial topic on the discussion.

Paws says---
Is it true?

Based on my very best analysis of the piece; I believe it is probably true. In any case it is a fair characterization of how the CIA does business regardless of the current policies of any sitting administration.

Is it necessarry?

Absolutely! I think it only fair that equally eloquent cut and paste be presented in view of the quantity of such presented which represents the opinions of differing views.

Is it helpful?

Depends on your perspective I guess. It might be downright annoying!
 
P

pawclaws

Guest
Finish the quote or put three periods following it EG; Cut and paste if you must; but, do not use it out of context. Darn Liberals..... :rolleyes: ...and "no"; it isn't. What got Bush in trouble is the prevaricating, spin doctoring of the facts, largely by the DNC. You know even if there are "NO" weapons of mass destruction at all; so what!! Bush trusted the best advice of the people who should have known and did their best to offer a knowledgeable opinion. Everybody makes mistakes; however, in this case I don't think one was made. You Bush slammers are underestimating the cunning of Hussein and his supporters. Ashistory has already shown, underestimating the likes of this lunatic is a mortal mistake. Even today, brand new underground storage facilities are being discovered along with massive networks of tunnels throughout Baghdad. There is still the issue of the 40 tractor trailers entering Syria from Baghdad four days before the engagement began and a little matter of three freighters sitting off the coast flying flags of let's say axis allies that I understand were invoiced for Afghanistan.
 

feclnogn

New member
Joined
Dec 11, 2000
Messages
802
Location
next to the rock over by the tree on the other sid
Also keep in mind as far as WMD goes, the french intel said they had them, British intel said they had them, Russian intel said they had them, our intel said they had them and Israeli intel said they had them. Where did they go? They either went somewhere or Saddam just played the most brilliant round of poker in the history of the world. If that is the case he would be the first person to have a perfect hand and ultimately loose the game. Was it all a bluff? I tend to think it was not.

If you wonder why the french the germans and the russians did not join with us, see Ithaca's post a few day ago about the major scandal breaking at the UN. Put 2 and 2 together and it should be obvious.
 

yz1

New member
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
43
Location
Minnesota, USA, Earth, MilkyWay
elkgunner

When you post a quote, the credit for that quote should be given, least others believe you’re responsible for the quote. From the responses to this quote, you’re not capable, this time!
hump.gif


Ken :cool: :D ;)
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
102,558
Messages
1,655,124
Members
32,036
Latest member
jackmathew
Top