From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Fri Aug 16 2002 - 22:59:37 MDT
United in Fear?
By Jon Bennett
In the United States, few things are scarier than the concept of
bipartisanship. When both sides of the political spectrum agree, it is a
certain sign of a crisis. Democrats and Republicans long ago agreed to
disagree on every subject, no matter how important or how miniscule.
Therefore, when they do arrive at a consensus, we know that we are in
deep trouble. .
The Democrats in Congress have joined President Bush in calling for a
military operation for the removal of Saddam Hussein. In doing so, they
have not only broken the unwritten rule mentioned above, they also
have alienated themselves from the Pacifists, the Arab-Americans, and
the Muslim-American voters who would likely have supported them in
the upcoming 2002 elections. The only explanation is that our
representatives know something big is coming. They know that our
nation's very survival may rely on their cooperation. .
There is no end to the potential dangers Saddam may pose. Many
believe he may have been tied to the attack on the World Trade Center
back on September 11, 2001. Policy makers consider it a fact that he
was involved in the first attack on the Twin Towers back in 1993.
Saddam Hussein specializes in chemical and biological weaponry, and
it is reasonable to suspect that he may have had a part to play in the
Anthrax outbreak in late 2001. .
The entire world knows that Saddam Hussein wants to acquire nuclear
weapons. Israeli commandos risked their lives to dismantle his nuclear
research facilities in the early eighties. One of the conditions for the
Iraqi surrender after the Gulf War was that the United Nations would
send teams to make sure Saddam wasn't building weapons of mass
destruction. However, the UN screwed up, as it always does when
trusted with responsibility, and stopped sending inspectors in 1997.
Why? Because Saddam would not allow them to look for weapons in
certain areas. Rather than force their way into the forbidden areas, they
allowed Saddam to tidy up, move whatever chemicals or viruses or
weapons-grade plutonium he had stored in the area to another location,
and then acted surprised when they didn't find any evidence of
weaponry. .
So, what would be the result if Saddam achieved his dream and
acquired nuclear weapons? Israel may very well be Saddam's first
target. One nuclear attack and he will have finally driven the Jews out
of the region, and have killed the entire Palestinian population, thus
solving two of the biggest regional annoyances. (Contrary to what they
say, Most Arab leaders have very little use for Palestinians, other than
as weapons against the Israeli Jews. That is why none of them offer
amnesty for the Palestinians in their own countries.) .
We can also assume that Mr. Hussein would settle some old scores.
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran would probably be in his crosshairs,
since in the 1980s and 1990s, Saddam was at constant war with these
neighbors. Though many American citizens may not be too heartbroken
if the Iranian government falls, we should be concerned when our gas
prices increase tenfold. With a nuclear advantage, Saddam could easily
overpower his neighbors and gain a complete monopoly over the
Middle Eastern oil fields. This would wreak havoc on the entire world's
economy, and it is safe to say that the United States and Great Britain
would probably feel the sting the strongest.
This is why the cooperation between the political parties is so
distressing. The only way Saddam could have made himself any more
dangerous is if he has already acquired the technology to build a
nuclear weapon. If the CIA provided proof that this madman had
nuclear technology, then the two parties would have no choice but to
unite against Saddam. The threat Saddam poses is so obvious and so
deadly, both Republicans and Democrats are willing to see past their
differences, ignoring the ignorant peacemongers at the expense of their
votes, to the fact that this threat must be eliminated, once and for all.
Let us pray that politics will not reappear to blind one side from this
threat, because in a situation like this, the only thing that is more
frightening than cooperation is the idea that the cooperation may not
last. If either side wavers, the world will feel the repercussions.
###
Jon Bennett is Deputy Director of Special Projects at Frontiers of
Freedom, a non-profit, non-partisan public policy institute dedicated to
protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans and restoring
constitutional limits on the extent and power of government.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:54 MDT