"has honed in on" HOMED!!!
Can't anyone write anymore??? -Miss Grundy Keith Addison wrote: >http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3588 >Right Web | Analysis | > >The Blame Game > >Tom Barry, IRC | October 11, 2006 > >IRC Right Web >rightweb.irc-online.org > >Stumping for Republican candidates across the country in recent >weeks, Vice President Dick Cheney has honed in on a particular >message: Terrorists are "still lethal, still desperately trying to >hit us again," and Democrats are no good at security (Washington >Post, October 8, 2006). The administration and the Republican Party >are again hawking the security issue prior to elections. Not only are >they saying that they are the only ones who can be trusted to protect >the nation's security, but they are also trying to burnish their own >security credentials by tarnishing those of the Clinton >administration. > >As part of this campaign, conservative pundits have attacked the >record of former President Bill Clinton, arguing that he missed >chances to destroy terrorist networks. During a highly publicized >September 24 interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace, Clinton accused >Wallace and Fox of undertaking a "conservative hit job" on his >administration's national security record and of neglecting to >adequately question President George W. Bush's antiterrorism efforts. > >Just as the former president thought it necessary to establish the >political context for the debate over who bears responsibility for >not preventing 9/11, it is also helpful to put the current >fear-mongering campaign into recent historical context-especially >since none of the pre-9/11 efforts had anything to do with terrorism. > >Early in his first term, Clinton faced a concerted attack on his >administration for being supposedly weak on defense when several >hawkish congressional figures and outside pressure groups tried to >revive Reagan-era missile defense programs. In May 1993, Clinton's >Secretary of Defense Les Aspin produced the administration's first >Quadrennial Defense Review, a periodic Pentagon study assessing the >country's national defense posture. Hailed by the administration as a >"bottom-up review" of defense needs and priorities, the assessment >concluded that plans for a full-blown missile defense system were >neither technically feasible, nor financially possible. Aspin ordered >the closure of the Pentagon's Strategic Defense Initiative Office, >downgrading the plans by assigning them to a new Ballistic Missile >Defense Organization. > >This outraged several hardline defense outfits like the Center for >Security Policy (CSP) and High Frontier, as well as the defense lobby >led by Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, and TRW. With their >Republican allies a minority in Congress, the missile defense lobby >mobilized a coordinated grassroots congressional and media campaign >to boost support for a combination of national and regional missile >defense systems. Joining CSP in orchestrating the campaign were a >number of other rightist policy outfits, including the American >Conservative Union, the S.A.F.E. Foundation, the Coalition to Protect >Americans Now, and Americans for Missile Defense, which together >represented a formidable coalition of social conservatives, >neoconservatives, unionists, and hardline Republican nationalists. > >The Coalition to Protect Americans Now revived Reagan's >window-of-vulnerability claim in its demand to abolish arms control >treaties and construct a defense system to "protect our families from >ballistic missile attack." It sponsored a website featuring a map of >the United States where, by selecting a town's location, a reader >could receive often misleading information about which countries had >or soon supposedly would have the capability to strike it with an >intercontinental missile. > >Further enflaming the hardliners was a 1995 CIA National Intelligence >Estimate (NIE) that asserted that apart from Russia or China, no >rogue state could possibly pose a long-range missile threat to the >United States before 2010. In response, congressional hawks, who >after the 1996 elections controlled both houses of Congress, promoted >a Team B-type evaluation of the NIE, resulting in the creation of a >blue-ribbon panel known as the Gates Commission (after its chairman, >former CIA Director Robert Gates). In its 1996 report, the commission >concluded that the technical obstacles facing rogue states in >developing intercontinental missile capability were even greater than >those described by the CIA. > >Unsatisfied with this outcome, the "peace-through-strength" lobby >pushed their congressional allies to establish various "independent" >commissions. Congressional figures affiliated with CSP successfully >lobbied for the creation of two commissions, both to be headed by >Donald Rumsfeld, to examine the ballistic missile threat and >space-based defense capabilities. The unstated agenda of these >commissions was to increase pressure on the Clinton administration to >support new weapons programs and substantially increase major >military spending. Both of the so-called "Rumsfeld Commissions," >which undertook their work in the second half of the 1990s, assumed >that the country faced near-term threats from a "strategic >competitor" such as China, or a "rogue" like North Korea. > >Both commissions received funding from defense spending bills, using >taxpayer revenues to subsidize them. Although billed as independent >and nonpartisan, the two commissions-guided by Rumsfeld and his top >deputy Stephen Cambone-served to reinforce the positions of >administration critics and military boosters. > >The Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United >States issued its report on July 15, 1998. The report contended that >"rogue states" such as Iraq, North Korea, or Iran could deploy >ballistic missiles within "five years of a decision to do so," >contrary to the CIA's estimate that it would take at least 10-15 >years. > >Although initially challenged by the director of central >intelligence, a little more than a year later, in September 1999 the >CIA released a new NIE that was substantially more alarmist than its >previous one. It predicted that North Korea could test a ballistic >missile capable of hitting the United States "at any time" and that >Iran could test such a weapon "in the next few years." Commenting on >the new threat assessment, Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA), a main sponsor of >the Rumsfeld Commission, congratulated himself: "It was the largest >turnaround ever in the history of the [intelligence] agency." House >Majority Leader Newt Gingrich (R-GA) was similarly ecstatic, saying >the commission's conclusion was the "most important warning about our >national security system since the end of the Cold War." > >Although CIA officials argued that the new estimate was the result of >"improved trade-craft," many experts attributed the revision to >pressure from hardline Republicans, the considerable influence of >Rumsfeld, and a campaign by Israel to focus attention on what the >Likud government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saw as a rising >missile threat from Iran. A few years later, Joseph Cirincione, >then-director of the nonproliferation program at the Carnegie >Endowment for International Peace, argued that the CIA's 1995 NIE >"holds up pretty well in hindsight." He accused Weldon and other >Republican hawks of developing "a conscious political strategy" to >attack the CIA's estimate because "it stood in the way of a >passionate belief in missile defense." > >The second Rumsfeld Commission, the Commission to Assess United >States National Security Space Management and Organization, was not >so much a critique of the government's NIEs as an all-out exhortation >to militarize space. The commission found in its January 2001 report >that it is "possible to project power through and from space in >response to events anywhere in the world Š Having this capability >would give the United States a much stronger deterrent and, in a >conflict, an extraordinary military advantage." > >Paralleling a similar assessment prepared by the Project for the New >American Century (PNAC) in its Rebuilding America's Defenses report >(2000), the Rumsfeld space commission argued that because the United >States is without peer among "space-faring" nations, the country is >all the more vulnerable to "state and non-state actors hostile to the >United States and its interests." In other words, U.S. enemies would >seek to destroy the U.S. economy together with its ability to fight >high-tech wars by attacking global positioning satellites and other >"space assets." > >Another commission, chaired by the controversial former director of >central intelligence, John Deutch, was established in 1998 to assess >whether the Clinton administration was failing to adequately monitor >and counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, >particularly in China. The Deutch Commission questioned the >administration's ability to assure China's compliance with nuclear >export controls and expressed alarm that U.S. bond traders might be >helping to finance China's weapons industry. > >Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA) led another commission on China. A >recipient of CSP's annual "Keeper of the Flame" award, Cox identified >Chinese-Americans as suspects in leaking nuclear weapons data to the >Chinese military. His commission, called the House Select Committee >on U.S. National Security and Military/National Concerns with the >People's Republic of China, issued a report in January 1999 accusing >China of large-scale nuclear espionage. The report successfully >sparked widespread fear among the public and policymakers that China >was stealing U.S. nuclear secrets through payments to highly placed >nuclear weapons scientists such as Wen Ho Lee, who worked at the Los >Angeles Nuclear Laboratory-and was later cleared of espionage charges. > >Paralleling the congressional efforts were campaigns by various >hardline and neoconservative pressure groups. PNAC and the Heritage >Foundation issued a joint statement in August 1999 strongly >criticizing what they perceived as the lack of a firm U.S. commitment >to Taiwan. "Efforts by the Clinton administration to pressure Taipei >to cede its sovereignty and to adopt Beijing's understanding of 'One >China' are dangerous and directly at odds with American strategic >interests, past U.S. policy, and American democratic ideals," argued >the statement. > >Concerned that the Clinton administration was doing nothing to >address the viability of an aging nuclear weapons stockpile, Sen. Jon >Kyl (R-AZ) insisted in 1998 that the Department of Defense create yet >another independent evaluation commission-the Panel to Assess the >Reliability, Safety, and Security of the U.S. Nuclear Stockpile, or >the "Foster Panel" after its chair John Foster. Kyl, a proponent of >flexible uses of nuclear weapons, was among the leading opponents of >the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which had Clinton's full support. > >In the early 1970s, Foster had been a key instigator within the Ford >administration's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board for establishing >the Team B exercise. Foster directed the Lawrence Livermore National >Laboratory in the early 1960s and was also a member of the Committee >on the Present Danger (CPD) in the 1970s. Foster also had strong >connections with defense industries. Predictably, his panel >recommended that the U.S. government authorize the speedy production >of new nukes, smaller nukes, and high-tech nuclear weapons that could >reach precise targets. > >The Middle East also occupied center stage for the threat escalators >during this time-but not because of the threat of non-state Islamist >terrorists. Through PNAC, CSP, and the Committee for Peace and >Security in the Gulf (CPSG), the neoconservatives pressured Clinton >to authorize support for the Iraqi expatriates of the Iraqi National >Congress (INC) under the leadership of Ahmed Chalabi and to plan >military operations that would overthrow Saddam Hussein. >Congressional Republicans also mounted anti-Hussein initiatives in >1998. Randy Scheunemann, later a PNAC board member, served at the >time as the national security aide to House Majority Leader Trent >Lott (R-MS), drafting the Iraq Liberation Act, a bill cosponsored by >Lott and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), which allocated $98 million to >the INC and made the overthrow of Hussein official government policy. > >While they succeeded in pressuring Clinton on many fronts, >neoconservatives and allied hardliners failed to push his >administration to fully adopt many issues on their agenda. They saw >Clinton as soft on Israeli security and despised his sponsorship of >the Oslo Accords and his criticism of the rightist Likud policies. > >The irony is that despite all the current rhetoric about how >Democrats have failed to take terrorism seriously-a failure that >purportedly goes back to the early days of the Clinton >presidency-hawkish Republicans and their neoconservative allies spent >the better part of the 1990s advocating policies that doubtless >distracted key policymakers from paying adequate attention to real >security issues. Conservatives were raising the alarm over space >weapons, China, Iraq, North Korea-not terrorism, a threat they chose >to ignore. When George W. Bush arrived in office, his administration >focused on all the issues that his party had put in the pipeline, >instead of on more pressing concerns. > >Tom Barry is policy director of the International Relations Center >(www.irc-online.org) and a contributing writer to Right Web >(rightweb.irc-online.org). > > >_______________________________________________ >Biofuel mailing list >Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): >http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > > _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
