Wednesday, January 21, 2004
Our Nation's Most Important Issues
Two of the most critical issues for disposition by the United States of America are the WMD question and the War on Terrorism as it relates to immigration and borders.
WMDs Must be Found and Destroyed
Reuters, UPI and the respected London Telegraph and the London Times have reported this morning Dr. David Kelly, the WMD expert who committed suicide shortly after his questioning by top British government officials, stated that private documents reveal Dr. Kelly indeed thought Iraq owned WMDs.
The British government committee asked Dr. Kelly specifically about statements he proportedly made to a BBC reporter that Kelly was not willing to admit their 45 minute deployment capability claimed by Prime Minister Blair and President Bush. Meanwhile, BBC practically put its corporate hand on the Bible, stating Kelly disagreed there were WMDs in Iraq. That wasn't true, and BBC has had a lot of 'splaining to do, again.
First of all, let's disabuse the notion that the WMD question was legitimate. Everyone in the world, including France, Germany and the U.N. knew, or stated they knew of their existence. Questioning that fact only came up as a response to the president's numerous reasons for preemptive war on Saddam Hussein. For the opponents of the war, this seemed as good a opportunity as any to find a reason that the president and Blair lied to all of us.
So, now that it turns out one of the world's experts (he was an expert when the BBC interviewed him; he must be now as well), Dr. Kelly, said he was convinced there were WMDs in Iraq. Moreover, he stated they were deployable within days. Hardly a material difference with Blair. Forty-five minutes, two days? Who cares? If the enemy's attack is done in secret, the time it takes to get it done doesn't matter. Many scenarios have been presented using 45 minutes. Again, the BBC, the war critics and the media got it wrong. There are indeed WMDs in Iraq, or somewhere close by.
This story should be placed on front pages, above the fold, in the same position as the salacious coverage of Dr. Kelly a few months ago. But don't expect it. We are engaged in a cultural/political fight to the end, and most of the elite media are central actors in this fight for their own survival.
Yet, the discrediting of the NY Times, USA Today, BBC, CNN, CBS and others seems to sit in the middle of the room like the elephant people talk about during interventions with alcoholics and drug addicts. People don't seem to mind that they're lied to by the very people who are entrusted as the Fourth Estate to disseminate information.
The establishment media should be focusing on the discovery of these weapons, not distorting the truth to fit their political needs. As usual, irresponsible editors and publishers who know better, continue their ridiculous editorial meeting moot trials of Blair and Bush.
We'll see how the world press handles this loss of trust with BBC, and others. I suspect it will go unnoticed. Frustrating as that is, however, I am more concerned about where these materials are and who has them.
War on Terror
About a week after the 9/11 tragedy, I had lunch with my daughter in Irvine, California. Poeple seemed to be getting used to the idea that America had been attacked. I, sorry to say, had felt we were vulnerable many years before. I'm not saying I told you so, but I told you so. Anyway, two Arab men (not Persian) spoke Farsi at a table across from us. They looked at no one, paid by credit card. then left. I thought at the time they just might be one of "them." Of course, they were probably just as like you and me.
How strange it is to realize the people you're talking to, or living next door to or doing business with might want to kill you. That the people you thought came to the U.S. to make a good life for themselves actually don't want any part of your good life, they only want to take your life.
The president is proposing a first step in immigration reform. Thinking about our problem here in California and in other border states where militias have formed to help prevent illegals from entering, I've reached the conclusion we may be too late to avoid bloodshed. I don't make this statement lightly. I feel terrible sadness, along with great disappointment, that we've allowed the problem of illegal immigration to receive the perennial sidestep from our leaders.
First, what's the problem? The US estimates that 700,000 illegal immigrants simply strolled into the US last year and ventured inland without stopping (up to Arkansas to work for Tysons or WalMart, into New Mexico, up to Washington). The bonanza years before brought nearly 8 million in, their identities, politics and whereabouts unknown.
It seems the U.S. has finally overcome denial and has begun to show leadership. I support the President's proposal for immigration reform. It's a first step, a process finally for appealing to the common sense and better natures of our foreign friends who would give anything to become citizens.
However, part of the proposal is helpful in identifying where and who illegals are. What it won't do is prevent others from coming in and in fact may exacerbate the problem. Here's where I believe we need to take desperate measures, place troops on the borders, and stop this senseless enablement of Mexican immigrants. Find the illegals inside the US, force them to go through the naturalization process, but stand firm at the borders. If it takes troops, so be it. We have to do something.
Contrary to popular belief, immigration control is a national sovereignty issue, not a direct civil rights issue. If the President would use the same rhetoric relating to borders as he does national security, i.e., "...we do not need a permission slip to defend ourselves," and not be afraid to use necessary force, the influx will eventually stop. Only when this million-people march into the U.S. ends can we achieve some stability, thus becoming more able to keep terrorists outside our continental borders and shores.
How do we do it? If we have the capability to know when an old Mig taxis down a runway in Iran or Syria, we can stop illegal immigration. It may be impossible to patrol the entire border at once, but certainly we can stop the sieves and breaks along the line.
But, such a proposal isn't very pretty. It would likely get bloody. However, America must retain its sovereignty if we are to survive. We've made tough choices in the past. The real question is are we Americans up to it? Are we strong enough and centered enough in our own values to make the touch choice?. Or is this a choice we must never make? What's the alternate? Just let the illegals pour in?
We can't sidestep this forever.
Thanks for the read.
WMDs Must be Found and Destroyed
Reuters, UPI and the respected London Telegraph and the London Times have reported this morning Dr. David Kelly, the WMD expert who committed suicide shortly after his questioning by top British government officials, stated that private documents reveal Dr. Kelly indeed thought Iraq owned WMDs.
The British government committee asked Dr. Kelly specifically about statements he proportedly made to a BBC reporter that Kelly was not willing to admit their 45 minute deployment capability claimed by Prime Minister Blair and President Bush. Meanwhile, BBC practically put its corporate hand on the Bible, stating Kelly disagreed there were WMDs in Iraq. That wasn't true, and BBC has had a lot of 'splaining to do, again.
First of all, let's disabuse the notion that the WMD question was legitimate. Everyone in the world, including France, Germany and the U.N. knew, or stated they knew of their existence. Questioning that fact only came up as a response to the president's numerous reasons for preemptive war on Saddam Hussein. For the opponents of the war, this seemed as good a opportunity as any to find a reason that the president and Blair lied to all of us.
So, now that it turns out one of the world's experts (he was an expert when the BBC interviewed him; he must be now as well), Dr. Kelly, said he was convinced there were WMDs in Iraq. Moreover, he stated they were deployable within days. Hardly a material difference with Blair. Forty-five minutes, two days? Who cares? If the enemy's attack is done in secret, the time it takes to get it done doesn't matter. Many scenarios have been presented using 45 minutes. Again, the BBC, the war critics and the media got it wrong. There are indeed WMDs in Iraq, or somewhere close by.
This story should be placed on front pages, above the fold, in the same position as the salacious coverage of Dr. Kelly a few months ago. But don't expect it. We are engaged in a cultural/political fight to the end, and most of the elite media are central actors in this fight for their own survival.
Yet, the discrediting of the NY Times, USA Today, BBC, CNN, CBS and others seems to sit in the middle of the room like the elephant people talk about during interventions with alcoholics and drug addicts. People don't seem to mind that they're lied to by the very people who are entrusted as the Fourth Estate to disseminate information.
The establishment media should be focusing on the discovery of these weapons, not distorting the truth to fit their political needs. As usual, irresponsible editors and publishers who know better, continue their ridiculous editorial meeting moot trials of Blair and Bush.
We'll see how the world press handles this loss of trust with BBC, and others. I suspect it will go unnoticed. Frustrating as that is, however, I am more concerned about where these materials are and who has them.
War on Terror
About a week after the 9/11 tragedy, I had lunch with my daughter in Irvine, California. Poeple seemed to be getting used to the idea that America had been attacked. I, sorry to say, had felt we were vulnerable many years before. I'm not saying I told you so, but I told you so. Anyway, two Arab men (not Persian) spoke Farsi at a table across from us. They looked at no one, paid by credit card. then left. I thought at the time they just might be one of "them." Of course, they were probably just as like you and me.
How strange it is to realize the people you're talking to, or living next door to or doing business with might want to kill you. That the people you thought came to the U.S. to make a good life for themselves actually don't want any part of your good life, they only want to take your life.
The president is proposing a first step in immigration reform. Thinking about our problem here in California and in other border states where militias have formed to help prevent illegals from entering, I've reached the conclusion we may be too late to avoid bloodshed. I don't make this statement lightly. I feel terrible sadness, along with great disappointment, that we've allowed the problem of illegal immigration to receive the perennial sidestep from our leaders.
First, what's the problem? The US estimates that 700,000 illegal immigrants simply strolled into the US last year and ventured inland without stopping (up to Arkansas to work for Tysons or WalMart, into New Mexico, up to Washington). The bonanza years before brought nearly 8 million in, their identities, politics and whereabouts unknown.
It seems the U.S. has finally overcome denial and has begun to show leadership. I support the President's proposal for immigration reform. It's a first step, a process finally for appealing to the common sense and better natures of our foreign friends who would give anything to become citizens.
However, part of the proposal is helpful in identifying where and who illegals are. What it won't do is prevent others from coming in and in fact may exacerbate the problem. Here's where I believe we need to take desperate measures, place troops on the borders, and stop this senseless enablement of Mexican immigrants. Find the illegals inside the US, force them to go through the naturalization process, but stand firm at the borders. If it takes troops, so be it. We have to do something.
Contrary to popular belief, immigration control is a national sovereignty issue, not a direct civil rights issue. If the President would use the same rhetoric relating to borders as he does national security, i.e., "...we do not need a permission slip to defend ourselves," and not be afraid to use necessary force, the influx will eventually stop. Only when this million-people march into the U.S. ends can we achieve some stability, thus becoming more able to keep terrorists outside our continental borders and shores.
How do we do it? If we have the capability to know when an old Mig taxis down a runway in Iran or Syria, we can stop illegal immigration. It may be impossible to patrol the entire border at once, but certainly we can stop the sieves and breaks along the line.
But, such a proposal isn't very pretty. It would likely get bloody. However, America must retain its sovereignty if we are to survive. We've made tough choices in the past. The real question is are we Americans up to it? Are we strong enough and centered enough in our own values to make the touch choice?. Or is this a choice we must never make? What's the alternate? Just let the illegals pour in?
We can't sidestep this forever.
Thanks for the read.
