ZGram - 11/26-2001 - "Lots of revision of history in this one!'

[irimland@zundelsite.org]

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland

ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny

11/26/2001

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

Pat Buchanan is known to all of us.  He was twice a candidate for the
Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party's candidate in
2000.  Now a commentator and columnist, he served three presidents in the
White House, was a founding  panelist of three national televison shows,
and is the author of six books.

His current position is chairman of The American Cause.
http://www.theamericancause.org

His newest book, "Death of the West," will be published in January.

Pat Buchanan in "No more undeclared wars":

[START]

=46DR "lied us into war because he did not have the political courage to lea=
d
us into it," Rep. Clare Luce blurted out in 1944.

The target of Luce's accusation was a president who by then had entered the
pantheon alongside Lincoln and Washington. FDR's courtiers savaged the lady
for maligning the Great Man, but few could credibly deny the truth of what
she had said.

No matter the justice and nobility of America's cause in World War II, FDR
had lied us into war. Even as he soothingly reassured the mothers and
fathers of America ("I have said this before, but I shall say it again and
again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign
wars"), he was stoking war, and provoking Germany and Japan.

=46DR lied about the secret war he had ordered U.S. warships to conduct
against German U-boats. He lied about who fired the first shots when the
U.S. destroyers Greer and Kearney were attacked. He lied about having
discovered Hitler's plans for the conquest of South America and the
Nazification of Christianity. No such plans existed except in the fertile
and creative minds of British intelligence.

=46DR sent picket ships out into the path of the Japanese fleet in the hope
they would be sunk. He gave Lord Halifax secret, but unconstitutional,
assurances America would defend His Majesty's colonies in the Pacific. He
spurned a secret peace offer from Japan's Prince Konoye and issued a secret
ultimatum to Tojo's regime on Nov. 26, 1941.

As Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary two weeks before Pearl
Harbor, "We should maneuver them into ... firing the first shot." FDR was
guilty of impeachable high crimes. But as Field Marshal Moltke told Admiral
Tirpitz, as he ordered the German army to invade neutral Belgium in 1914,
"Success alone justifies war."

And America succeeded absolutely. And with FDR's death on the eve of total
victory in the "Good War" in 1945, people no longer cared how the war had
begun. Yet, our politics were poisoned by Roosevelt's mendacity, as it
would be by Truman's undeclared war in Korea ("a police action") and by
Vietnam, when senators learned they had been deceived in the Tonkin Gulf
incident.

Today, America is being stampeded into a new undeclared war, against Iraq.
Thus it is a time for truth =F1 a time for Congress to do its duty, and
debate and decide on war or peace. We do not need to have our politics
poisoned for yet another generation by the mutual recriminations of a War
Party and a Peace Party in the aftermath of yet another undeclared war.
Questions need answering.

Was Saddam involved in the massacres of Sept. 11? Was he behind the anthrax
attacks? Is he harboring terrorist cells of al-Qaida? Is he preparing
nuclear or bio-terror weapons to attack us? If the answer is "Yes," let
Congress lay out the evidence before the nation and empower the president
to take us to war.

Henry Hyde and Joe Biden, chairmen respectively of the House and Senate
foreign relations committees, should assume their duty to the nation and
history, and assert Congress' rightful role in the decision on war or
peace. Both have said that they oppose a war on Iraq. But that is not
enough.

On Sunday, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice seemed to assert that
President Bush had the justification and right to take us to war against
Saddam, should he so choose. But where did he get this authority? When did
Congress cede it to him, or authorize U.S. attacks on the other Arab states
on the War Party's enemies list?

While the United States could launch air strikes on Iraq at any moment, the
ground troops needed for an invasion are not in place. And given the
halving of U.S. forces since Desert Storm, it would take months before they
are ready to march =F1 time enough for reasoned debate.

Indeed, the semi-hysteria of the War Party suggests it does not have the
evidence to convict Saddam of Sept. 11, and a war on Iraq is but the next
move on the little chessboards of empire they carry about in their book
bags. But a war on Iraq could ravage our relations with Britain, Russia and
NATO; shatter the Afghan war coalition; inflame the Arab street; and
destabilize our Arab allies, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Should the
Saudi monarchy fall to a revolution as a result of an attack on Iraq, Bush
would have lost the oil storehouse his father went to war to defend in 1991.

It's time for Congress to debate again Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Is it to be
containment or war? If it is to be war, we have a right to know why, and to
hold accountable those who take us into war. No more Munichs, no more
Yaltas, Bush said. Right he is. But let us add:

No more undeclared wars. No more presidential wars.

[END]

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

The source for this article is:
 http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=3D25424

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Thought for the Day:

"Who would have thought that we would come to rely upon Pravda to give  us
honest news."

(  Letter to the Zundelsite  )