|
My local paper printed the following LTTE from me in Saturdays paper:
To The Editor:
I find the following very interesting:
" We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them,"
~ George W. Bush declared on 9/11/01.
Two days later, Paul Wolfowitz argued that the war would focus on "ending states who sponsor terrorism."
And as Wolfowitz deputy, Doug Feith, later told the New Yorker Magazine, "the principal strategic thoughts underlying our strategy in the war on terrorism is the importance of the connection between terrorist organizations and their state sponsors."
Now, some facts about the United Arab Emirates (UAE):
– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate governme nt of Afghanistan.
– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.
And NOW? Now that he no longer needs either his party or the American people for re-election, President Bush wants to allow the sale of operations of some of our most security significant ports by a private British company to one owned by the government of the UAE.
Was Mr. Bush just joking when he told the countries of the world that if you harbor or finance terrorists that you are considered a terrorist state with all of the ramifications that comes with that distinction? Or is turning our ports over to a nation that by his own definition should be labeled a "terrorist state" one of the ramifications that comes with that distinction?
It's been bad enough that he has caudled the Saudi's who financed, harbored and educated terrorists in the ways of anti-western hatred. But this last move has finally got the attention of senators, congressmen and congresswomen in his own party. They are finally realizing that the mutual backscratching was only possible when it benefited the president to do so. Now, he has no need to concern himself with their futures, but of course, they need re-election to stay in power.
On the other hand, as of now we have not heard anything from Congressman Ralph Hall, Congressman Tom DeLay, Senator John Cornyn, or Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, just to name a few. It occurs to me, that if my Republican friends are as serious about national security and terrorism as they have always claimed to be, and I really believe they are, this would be a very good time to contact some of these people and tell them that it doesn't matter if President Bush claims to be from Texas, the security of our ports and thus our nation is much more important than personal connections with the "commander-in-chief", (as one might guess, Texas politicians never have any interest in listening to me). But then again, the elected officials should only take this stand if they honestly believe that national security is a top priority. If not, then forget it all. But someone needs to remember them on election day.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
