The Nation - a post, 8/16 3:47

Compare the two posts above

1. 8/15 4:00 David Duke,**** and 2. 8/14 5:05 Cristopher Hitchens,

Question I: Which clear, coherent, empathetic and correct? and which is 60's hate-baiting, full of himself, stupid, and mush mouth?

EXCERPT FROM 1

5) The Iraq war and her son's death did not defend American from hatred or terrorism.

In fact, the war is massively increasing hatred and terrorism. For every one terrorist killed in Iraq, we are creating thousands more who hate and want to hurt America and Americans. This is the surest way to lose the war on terror not win it.

6) Cindy Sheehan's son died for no true interest for the American people.Sheehan has obviously taken a short course in the Michael Moore/Ramsey Clark school of Iraq analysis and has not succeeded in making it one atom more elegant or persuasive. I dare say that her "moral authority" to do this is indeed absolute, if we agree for a moment on the weird idea that moral authority is required to adopt overtly political positions, but then so is my "moral" right to say that she is spouting sinister piffle. Suppose I had lost a child in this war. Would any of my critics say that this gave me any extra authority? I certainly would not ask or expect them to do so.. (and neither does she...)

QUESTION II. Which is fundamentally American as opposed to:

THE LIARS http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/9962.htm

Beyond the Axis of Evil: Additional Threats from Weapons of Mass Destruction

John R. Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security (now US ambassador to the UN)

Remarks to the Heritage Foundation Washington, DC May 6, 2002 …..

Preventing Terrorism's Next Wave

President Bush believes it is critical not to underestimate the threat from terrorist groups and rogue states intent on obtaining weapons of mass destruction. …

The Problem of Noncompliance

Multilateral agreements are important to our nonproliferation arsenal. ! This Administration strongly supports treaties such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Biological Weapons Convention. But in order to be effective and provide the assurances they are designed to bring, they must be carefully and universally adhered to by all signatories. Therefore, strict compliance with existing treaties remains a major goal of our arms control policy. …..While the vast majority of the BWC's parties have conscientiously met their commitments, the United States is extremely concerned that several states are conducting offensive biological weapons programs while publicly avowing compliance with the agreement. To expose some of these violators to the international community, last November, I named publicly several states the U.S. government knows to be producing biological warfare agents in violation of the BWC.

Foremost is Iraq. Although it became a signatory to the BWC in 1972 and became a State Party in 1991, Iraq has developed, produced, and stockpiled biological warfare agents and weapons. The United States strongly suspects that Iraq has taken advantage of more than three years of no UN inspections to improve all phases of its offensive BW program. Iraq also has developed, produced, and stockpiled chemical weapons, and shown a continuing interest in developing nuclear weapons and longer range missiles.

The RECORD http://www.lcnp.org/pubs/RuleofLawbriefing.htm

Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) – In 2001, the United States rejected a draft protocol to the BWC negotiated by BWC states parties to create transparency and verification mechanisms. Instead, the United States seeks only voluntary measures that will not provide sufficient information on facilities and agents that could be diverted for use in bioweapons. Meanwhile, the United States has conducted biodefense programs that may violate the BWC prohibition against developing biological weapons, though absent transparency mechanisms there is no way for third parties to determine that. Although these activities were undertaken in the name of defense, the United States would not rely on another country's assurances that its bioweapons were created for defensive purposes.

Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) – The United States limited its compliance with the declaration and inspection regime of the CWC. It narrowed the facilities open to inspection, prohibited removal of samples, and conferred on the president the right to refuse inspections for national security reasons. The CWC does not permit these limitations, and already contains thorough safeguards for the protection of confidential information. The limitations may prevent accurate results, and other states are applying them to inspections of their facilities. In 2002, the United States led changes in management of the body charged with implementing the CWC, expressing a desire to strengthen CWC operations. And what about Israel's nukes? Who the Liar works with

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/1990s/instituteforadvancedstrategicandpoliticalstudies.htm

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies' "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy. ….

…TEXT: Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them.

Notable Arab intellectuals have written extensively on their perception of Israel's floundering and loss of national identity. This perception has invited attack, blocked Israel from achieving true peace, and offered hope for those who would destroy Israel. The previous strategy, therefore, was leading the Middle East toward another Arab-Israeli war. Israel's new agenda can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone

…..Ultimately, Israel can do more than simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict though war. No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace its seeks. When Israel is on a sound economic footing, and is free, powerful, and healthy internally, it will no longer simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it. As a senior Iraqi opposition leader said recently: "Israel must rejuvenate and revitalize its moral and intellectual leadership. It is an important -- if not the most important--element in the history of the Middle East." Israel -- proud, wealthy, solid, and strong -- would be the basis of a truly new and peaceful Middle East.

Participants in the Study Group on "A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000:" Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University


Posted by JONES 08/16/2005 @ 3:43pm