ZGram - 5/22/2004 - "America has a new hero"

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

ZGram  - Where Truth is Destiny:  Now more than ever!

May 22, 2004

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

Today's ZGram is a bit long, but well worth reading - Senator 
Hollings, 81, and about to retire, finally finds the courage 
somewhere, somehow, to talk back to those he says  "know how to make 
you tuck tail and run."

It has always amazed me that such a great big brute of a country, 
America, lets itself be controlled by a few words!  Who the heck 
cares what our enemies call me or you?  If we would stop paying 
attention, that psychological weapon would soon get mighty dull.

If someone calls me an Eskimo, does that make me one?  If someone 
calls you Rumpelstilskin, does that mean you know the secret to spin 
gold?  Name calling is a school yard bully specialty.  It ought to be 
really beneath grown men to fear the schmierfinks' words.

At any rate, here's Senator Hollings, at long last talking back:

  [START]

Senator Ernest Hollings utters the forbidden words
By Senator Ernest Hollings and Axis editorial note.
May 22, 2004, 17:47

Editorial Note:  While it is finally about time that someone in the 
U.S. Senate has the guts and brains to utter forbidden words - But we 
are afraid it's too little ... and much too late - for the people of 
Iraq, the people of the United States, Senator Hollings, - and 
perhaps for the people of the entire the world ... - Les Blough, 
Editor, www.axisoflogic.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sen. Hollings Floor Statement Setting the Record Straight on his 
Mideast Newspaper Column

I thank my distinguished colleagues. I have, this afternoon, the 
opportunity to respond to being charged as anti-Semitic when I 
proclaimed the policy of President Bush in the Mideast as not for 
Iraq or really for democracy in the sense that he is worried about 
Saddam and democracy. If he were worried about democracy in the 
Mideast, as we wanted to spread it as a policy, we would have invaded 
Lebanon, which is half a democracy and has terrorism and terrorists 
who have been problems to the interests of Israel and the United 
States.

It is very interesting that on page 231, Richard Clarke, in his book 
"Against All Enemies," cites the fact that there had not been any 
terrorism, any evidence or intelligence of Saddam's terrorism against 
the United States from 1993 to 2003. He says that in the presence of 
Paul Wolfowitz. He says that in the presence of John McLaughlin of 
the CIA. In fact, he says: Isn't that right, John? And John says: 
That is exactly right.

The reason was when they made the attempt on President Bush, Senior, 
back in 1993, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on Saddam in 
downtown Baghdad, the intelligence headquarters, and it went right 
straight down the middle of the headquarters. It was after hours so 
not a big kill--but Saddam got the message: You monkey around with 
the United States, a missile will land on your head.

So, in essence, the equation had changed in the Saddam-Iraq/Mideast 
concerns whereby Saddam was more worried about any threat of the 
United States against him than the United States was worried about a 
threat by Saddam against us.

I want to read an article that appeared in the Post and Courier in 
Charleston on May 6; thereafter, I think in the State newspaper in 
Columbia a couple days later; and in the Greenville News--all three 
major newspapers in South Carolina. You will find that there is no 
anti-Semitic reference whatsoever in it.

The reason I emphasize that upfront is for the simple reason that you 
cannot put an op-ed in my hometown paper that is anti-Semitic. We 
have a very, very proud Jewish community in Charleston. In fact, it 
is where reform Judaism began. The earliest temple, Kadosh Beth 
Elohim, is on Hasell Street. I have spoken there several times. I had 
the pleasure of having that particular temple put on the National 
Register. This particular Senator, with over 50 years now of public 
service, has received a strong Jewish vote.

Let me emphasize another thing because the papers are piling on and 
bringing up again a little difference of opinion I had on the Senate 
floor with Senator Metzenbaum. It was not really a difference. We 
were discussing a matter, and we referred to each's religion in order 
to make sure there would not be any misunderstanding or tempers 
flaring. The distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Helms, 
referred to himself as the Baptist lay leader, Senator Danforth as 
the Episcopal priest. I referred to myself as the Lutheran Senator. 
And when Senator Metzenbaum came on the floor, I referred to him as 
the Senator from B'nai B'rith, and he took exception. He thought it 
was an aspersion. I told him: Wait a minute, I will gladly identify 
myself as the Senator from B'nai B'rith. I did not mean to hurt his 
feelings. I apologized at that time but not for the legitimacy and 
the circumstances of the particular reference.

Now here we go again, some years later. The Senator from Virginia, 
Mr. George Allen, and I are good friends. Maybe after this particular 
thing he might feel different, but I know his role as the chairman of 
the campaign committee. And so I have an article here where Senator 
Allen denounces Senator Hollings' latest political attack, Senator 
Hollings' antisemitic, political conspiracy statement.

Let me read my column here from the May 6 Post and Courier, and you 
be the judge:

With 760 dead in Iraq, over 3,000 maimed for life--home folks 
continue to argue why we are in Iraq--and how to get out. Now 
everyone knows what was not the cause. Even President Bush 
acknowledges that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Listing 
the 45 countries where al-Qaida was operating on September 11, the 
State Department did not list Iraq. They listed 45 countries and at 
that particular date on September 11, 2001, they did not even list 
Iraq.

Richard Clarke, in "Against All Enemies," tells how the United States 
had not received any threat of terrorism for 10 years from Saddam at 
the time of our invasion. On page 231, John McLaughlin of the CIA 
verifies this to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. In 1993, 
President Clinton responded to Saddam's attempt on the life of 
President George H.W. Bush by putting a missile down on Saddam's 
intelligence headquarters in Baghdad. Not a big kill, but Saddam got 
the message--monkey around with the United States and a missile lands 
on his head. Of course there were no weapons of mass destruction. 
Israel's intelligence Mossad knows what's going on in Iraq. They are 
the best. They have to know. Israel's survival depends on knowing. 
Israel long since would have taken us to the weapons of mass 
destruction .....

Let me divert for a second there. I was here when Israel attacked the 
nuclear facility in Baghdad during the 1980s. In all candor, when 
President Bush, on October 7, 2002, said, after all that buildup by 
Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and everybody else, that facing clear 
evidence of peril, we cannot wait until the smoking gun is a mushroom 
cloud, I thought we were attacking for Israel. I thought that they 
knew about some kind of nuclear development there. And rather than 
getting them in further trouble with the United Nations and the Arab 
world, that its best friend, the United States, would knock it out 
for them. That is why I voted for it. I got misled. Our attack on 
Iraq, the invasion of Iraq is a bad mistake. I will get into that 
later. But let me read even further:

..... With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The 
answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel. Led by Wolfowitz, 
Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there had been a 
domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security 
is to spread democracy in the area. Wolfowitz wrote: "The United 
States may not be able to lead countries through the door of 
democracy, but where that door is locked shut by a totalitarian 
deadbolt, American power may be the only way to open it up."

Namely, invasion. That is Wolfowitz talking. And on another occasion: 
Iraq as "the first Arab democracy ..... would cast a very large 
shadow, starting with Syria and Iran but across the whole Arab 
world." Three weeks before the invasion, President Bush stated: "A 
new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example 
for freedom for other nations in the region."

I referred to those three gentlemen because I know them well. They 
are brilliant. I have been for years associated one way or the other 
with each of them. I read Charles Krauthammer. I wish I could write 
like he can. With respect to Richard Perle, he was sort of our 
authority in the cold war, best friend of Scoop Jackson. That is how 
I met him 38 years ago almost. I followed him and I followed his 
advice, and that is in large measure how we prevailed in the cold 
war. So I have the highest respect for Richard Perle.

And, of course, the other gentleman, Paul Wolfowitz, Paul Wolfowitz, 
I met him in Indonesia when he was Ambassador. He came back. We were 
good friends. He was looking around for a position, and I know I 
offered him one--in fact, we might go to the records and find 
temporarily he might have been on my payroll for a few weeks. But I 
have always had the highest regard for Paul Wolfowitz.

That is why I referred to him. I had their sayings and everything 
else. But let me go, diverting for a minute, right to the Project For 
The New American Century. I have a letter that was written on May 29, 
1998, to Newt Gingrich, the Speaker, Trent Lott, the Senate majority 
leader. These are the gentlemen who said this: We would use U.S. and 
allied military power to provide protection for liberating areas in 
northern and southern Iraq, and we should establish and maintain a 
strong U.S. military presence in the region and be prepared to use 
that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf and, if 
necessary, to help remove Saddam from power.

And that is signed by--and I want everybody to remember these 
names--Elliot Abrams, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John R. 
Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay 
Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter Rodman, Donald 
Rumsfeld, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz, James 
Woolsey, Robert B. Zoellick. There is a studied school of thought of 
the best way to secure Israel. We have been going for years back and 
forth with every particular administration, you can see where we are 
now.

But in any event, the better way to do it is go right in and 
establish our predominance in Iraq and then, as they say, and I have 
different articles here I could refer to, next is Iran and then 
Syria. And it is the domino theory, and they genuinely believe it. I 
differ. I think, frankly, we have caused more terrorism than we have 
gotten rid of. That is my Israel policy. You can't have an Israel 
policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here. I have followed 
them mostly in the main, but I have also resisted signing certain 
letters from time to time, to give the poor President a chance.

I can tell you no President takes office--I don't care whether it is 
a Republican or a Democrat--that all of a sudden AIPAC will tell him 
exactly what the policy is, and Senators and members of Congress 
ought to sign letters. I read those carefully and I have joined in 
most of them. On some I have held back. I have my own idea and my own 
policy. I have stated it categorically.

The way to really get peace is not militarily. You cannot kill an 
idea militarily. I was delighted the other day when General Myers 
appeared before our Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and he 
said that we will not win militarily in Iraq. He didn't say we are 
going to get defeated militarily but that you can't win militarily in 
Iraq.

The papers are the ones that pointed out Wolfowitz, Pearle, and 
Charles Krauthammer were of the Jewish faith. They are the ones who 
brought all this Semitism in there. I can tell you that right now, I 
didn't have that in mind. I had my friends in mind and I followed 
them. We had this in the late 1990s under President Clinton, when we 
passed a resolution that we ought to have Saddam removed from power, 
have a regime change. I was wondering how it went. I had to find my 
old file on this -- Project For The New American Century.

Now, going back to my article, I wrote: "every President since 1947 
has made a futile attempt to help Israel negotiate peace. But no 
leadership has surfaced amongst the Palestinians that can make a 
binding agreement. President Bush realized his chances at negotiation 
were no better. He came to office imbued with one thought - 
reelection."

I say that advisedly. I have been up here with eight Presidents. We 
have had support of all eight Presidents. Yes, I supported the 
President on this Iraq resolution, but I was misled. There weren't 
any weapons, or any terrorism, or al-Qaida. This is the reason we 
went to war. He had one thought in mind, and that was reelection. I 
say that about President Bush. He is a delightful fella, a wonderful 
campaigner, but he loves campaigning. You cannot get him in the White 
House or catch him there, hardly. He doesn't work on these problems 
at all.

I have worked with all of the Presidents. I know the leadership goes 
to the White House and tries to work with him. He is interested in 
one thing, and that is to be out campaigning. So he had one thought 
in mind, and that was reelection.

Again, let me read: "Bush thought tax cuts would hold his crowd 
together and that spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel 
would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats."

Is there anything wrong with referring to the Jewish vote? Good gosh, 
every one of us of the 100, with pollsters and all, refer to the 
Jewish vote. That is not anti-Semitic. It is appreciating them. We 
campaigned for it.

I just read about President Bush's appearance before the AIPAC. He 
confirmed his support of the Jewish vote, referring to adopting Ariel 
Sharon's policy, and the dickens with the 1967 borders, the heck with 
negotiating the return of refugees, the heck with the settlements he 
had objected to originally. They had those borders, Resolution No. 
242--no, no, President Bush said: I am going along with Sharon, and 
he was going to get that and he got the wonderful reception he got 
with the Jewish vote. There is nothing like politicizing or a 
conspiracy, as my friend from Virginia, Senator Allen, says--that it 
is an anti-Semitic, political, conspiracy statement.

That is not a conspiracy. That is the policy. I didn't like to keep 
it a secret, maybe; but I can tell you now, I will challenge any one 
of the other 99 Senators to tell us why we are in Iraq, other than 
what this policy is here. It is an adopted policy, a domino theory of 
The Project For The New American Century.

Everybody knows it because we want to secure our friend, Israel. If 
we can get in there and take it in 7 days, as Paul Wolfowitz says, 
then we would get rid of Saddam, and when we got rid of Saddam, now 
all they can do is fall back and say: Aren't you getting rid of 
Saddam?

Let me get to that point. What happens is, they say he is a monster. 
We continued to give him aid after he gassed his own people and 
everything else of that kind. George Herbert Walker Bush said in his 
book All The Best in 1999, never commit American GIs into an 
unwinnable urban guerrilla war and lose the support of the Arab 
world, lose their friendship and support. That is a general 
rephrasing of it.

The point is, my authority is the President's daddy. I want everybody 
to know that. I don't apologize for this column. I want them to 
apologize to me for talking about anti-Semitism. They are not getting 
by with it. I will come down here every day--I have nothing else to 
do--and we will talk about it and find out what the policy is.

Let me go back to this particular column: But George Bush, as stated 
by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and others, started laying 
the groundwork to invade Iraq days before the Inauguration.

There is no question, he got a briefing. That was the first thing he 
wanted out of former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen. Then the 
nominee, about to take the oath of office as President of the United 
States, wanted to be briefed on Iraq. They had this policy in mind 
coming to town. Mr. President, 9/11 had nothing to do with it, and we 
all know it now. We have to understand it because that is the only 
way really to help Israel and get us out of the soup. Everybody is 
worrying about Iraq. We better worry about Israel because we 
certainly have put her in terrible jeopardy with this particular 
initiative.

Without any Iraq connection to 9/11, within weeks President Bush had 
the Pentagon outlining a plan to invade Iraq. He was determined. 
President Bush thought taking Iraq would be easy. Wolfowitz said it 
would take only 7 days. Vice President Cheney believed that we would 
be greeted as liberators, but Cheney's man, Chalabi, made a mess of 
de-Baathification of Iraq by dismissing Republican Guard leadership 
and Sunni leaders who soon joined with the insurgents.

Worst of all, we tried to secure Iraq with too few troops. In 1966 in 
South Vietnam, with a population of 16 million, General William C. 
Westmoreland, with 535,000 U.S. troops, was still asking for more 
troops. In Iraq, with a population of 25 million, General John 
Abizaid, with only 135,000 troops, can barely secure the troops, much 
less the country. If the troops are there to fight, there are too 
few. If they are there to die, there are too many. To secure Iraq we 
need more troops, at least 100,000 more. The only way to get the 
United Nations back in Iraq is to make the country secure. Once back, 
the French, Germans, and others will join with the U.N. to take over.

With President Bush's domino policy in the Mideast gone awry, he 
can't keep shouting "Terrorism war." Terrorism is a method, not a 
war. We don't call the Crimean war, with the charge of the light 
brigade, the cavalry war, or World War II the blitzkrieg war. There 
is terrorism in Northern Ireland, there is terrorism in India, and in 
Pakistan. In the Mideast, terrorism is a separate problem, to be 
defeated by diplomacy and negotiation, not militarily.

Here, might does not make right. Right makes might. Acting militarily 
we have created more terrorism than we have eliminated.

The title of this article is "Bush's failed Mideast policy is 
creating more terrorism," and, I could add, jeopardizing the security 
of Israel.

They say: He talks like a big fan of Israel. I am. I have a 38-year 
track record. I will never forget some 34 years ago meeting with 
David Ben-Gurion. He talked about little Israel, less than 3 million 
at that time in a sea of 100 million.

Let's say Israel has 5 million people there now, but there are 150 
million Muslims surrounding it. If you punch the particular buzzer I 
did with Yitzhak Rabin one day down on the Negev to scramble the air 
force, I think it was 21 seconds they were up in the air, and in a 
minute's time, they were outside over Jordan.

Militarily, Israel is a veritable aircraft carrier. You can hardly 
fly and you are out of the country, and everybody has to understand 
that. You cannot play the numbers game Sharon plays. He thinks he can 
do it militarily.

I want to remind you, it was in that 6-day war--the book is "Six Days 
of War" by Michael Oren. Look on page 151, and Major Ariel Sharon 
says: Look, we are going to decimate the Egyptian army and you will 
not hear from Egypt again for several generations. And Levi Eshkol, 
the Prime Minister, on page 152 says: "Militarily victory decides 
nothing. The Arabs will still be here."

That is my theme. I have watched it over the years. You have to learn 
not to kill together, but to live together. The finest piece I ever 
read was right in this morning's paper. There is still hope. I refer 
to an article: "Israeli Arabs Exalting in a Rare Triumph." There are 
a million Israeli Arabs. They won a soccer match in Tel Aviv. The 
majority of the team was of Israeli heritage, and they held an 
Israeli flag, if you can imagine that in the political United States 
of America. They are living together. Every Prime Minister since 
David Ben-Gurion has realized that fact: that they have to learn to 
live together. They all moved, and they almost had it under Ehud 
Barak and President Clinton. Arafat proved he did not want peace. He 
did not accept it. That was our one chance.

Unfortunately, rather than working on that one chance and continuing, 
Ariel Sharon went in their face at Temple Mount, the intifada 
started, and he has been killing 10 to 1. He plays the numbers game, 
almost like we had in Vietnam. He thinks he can eliminate by moving 
the ball some, getting some more settlements, bulldozing a house, but 
he is creating terrorism.

I had a headline the other day. When I saw it, I showed it to my 
staff. I said: You all come in here, I want to ask you something. 
"Israel plans to destroy more Gaza dwellings." You see that headline? 
I asked staff members: Suppose they bulldoze your daddy's home. 
Wouldn't you want to cut their throat? They said: In a New York 
minute.

How do you create terrorists? Where is the front line in the 
so-called war on terrorism? I learned the answer recently on a trip I 
was on with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. We talked 
for over an hour with the King of Jordan. He finally cautioned at the 
very end, when we stood up, he said: You have to settle this 
Israel-Palestine question. That is the only way to get on top of 
this. We went over to Kuwait to the Prime Minister when he got 
through, he said: You have to settle the Israel-Palestine situation. 
I will quote Mr. Musharraf, the President of Pakistan. When we got 
there, he cautioned if you can settle the Israel-Palestine question, 
terrorism will disappear around the world.

Then we came in on a Friday evening to make a little courtesy call 
with the French. The distinguished Senator from Virginia with 
Lafayette--and I have slept in Lafayette's bed over there in 
Richmond, VA, and I helped with that particular thing because I 
believe and remember the French help. I will never forget--everybody 
is going to the 60th anniversary of D-Day, but I was at the 50th 
anniversary and we went over to Ste-Mere-Eglise, where a major, who 
was a Citadel graduate, had broken through the line and saved us from 
having to leave the beachhead and go back to England. They made a 
movie of it. A shell burst killed him. They laid him down on their 
side. He is buried on the side of the chapel.

We went to the services. We had talks there. This little old lady 
came. She was about 80 years old, walking with a cane. I was 
listening to the mayor, and she pulled my jacket and she said: Thank 
you, Yank. If you had not come we would be goose-stepping. I turned 
to her and I said, thank you, madam, because if you had not come, we 
would still be a colony.

The majority of the troops on the field at Yorktown with the 
surrender of Cornwallis were French troops. We had French troops that 
helped us get this so-called freedom. All this anti-French stuff, do 
not give me french fries and everything else, is crazy.

I was proud to appear with the Senator from Virginia. But Chirac, he 
said, look, we have to have western solidarity. We have to work 
together now and we have to watch this competition from China in the 
Far East, and we in the western world have to stick together. He said 
he wanted to help in Iraq, but he needed a U.N. resolution to cover. 
He said what we have to do is do something about Israel and 
Palestine. I said, what would you do? He said, I would put in a 
peacekeeping force. I said, would French troops come? He said, French 
troops would come immediately. We would be part of it and we would 
separate them from killing each other every day.

My position is, and I believe in this particular policy as strongly 
as I know how, might does not make right, but right makes might. We 
have lost our evenhanded posture and reputation in the Mideast. We 
are in worse off shape with Israel, our principal interest in the 
gulf. Sharon has not helped us at all. We see him going back and 
forth. They say, oh, no, it is negotiation. But we are throwing over 
the United States-Israel policy of some 35 years insofar as 
negotiating the settlements and the refugees. We are saying forget 
about all of that, let Sharon keep bulldozing them. Now in the 
morning paper on the front page one sees the killing of children, 
they are saying, we are defending Israel. That is the U.S. policy. 
That is not just Israel's policy.

They are coming in there with U.S. equipment, U.S. gun helicopters, 
U.S. tanks that are bulldozing. That is our policy. That is the 
reason for 9/11, whend Osama said, I do not like American troops in 
Saudi Arabia, get the infidel out. That is why they went right into 
that thing. Where do you think we get all this talk about hate 
America? I do not buy that stuff. I have traveled the world. They 
love Americans.

Recently we met with the Ambassadors of Germany and France, and 
Britain in our policy committee and they said the young people are 
disillusioned. They always look to the United States for the moral 
position and taking and defending that particular position. They do 
not look there anymore.

We are losing the terrorism war because we thought we could do it 
militarily under the domino policy of President Bush, going into 
Iraq. That is my point. That is not anti-Semite or whatever they say 
in here about people's faith and ethnicity. I never referred to any 
faith. I should have added those other names from the Project For The 
New American Century, but I picked out the names I had quotes for. 
And for space, I left other things out.

Mr. President, on May 12 of this year, I had printed in the RECORD 
the article in its entirety.

This particular op-ed piece appeared in the Post and Courier. Never 
would they have thought, having read it, if it was anti-Semitic, that 
they would have ever put it in there. Nor would the Knight Ridder 
newspapers in Columbia, SC. Nor would the Metro Media newspapers in 
Greenville, SC. But the Anti-Defamation League picked it up and now 
they have given it to my good friend, Senator Allen of Virginia. I 
have his particular admonition how I am anti-Semitic and I cannot let 
that stay there.

My staff knew I was coming over and waiting my turn in order to talk 
under the Pastore rule. I know I am as vitally interested as anybody 
can be about this issue. Our distinguished colleague from Washington, 
Senator Cantwell, knows this subject backward and forward.

The reason I had not known or gotten all fired up is I have been 
doing some other work and South Carolina has already looked to me for 
everything at that Savannah River plant. I am on the Energy 
Appropriations Subcommittee and we have gotten all the money--do not 
worry about money. This is a policy of nuclear waste disposal, 
high-level waste, being reclassified under an end-around-end deal of 
trying to make it low-level waste and, as Senator Cantwell says, 
pouring in some sand and concrete on top of it. The scientists say, 
watch out, the remains in these tanks are 50 percent as deadly and 
dangerous as the entire tank container.

Back to Saddam, everybody is glad we have gotten rid of Saddam, but 
we can see what has happened. There is an old saying we learned in 
World War II that no matter how well the gun is aimed, if the recoil 
is going to kill the gun crew, you do not fire.

Did this White House and administration ever think of the recoil? It 
severely injured the gun crew. Yes, ordinarily to get rid of Saddam, 
like they put a missile on the intelligence head, they could have put 
a missile on him any time they wanted, but they did not want to do 
that. They wanted the domino policy to ensue.

No, no, getting rid of Saddam was not worth almost 800 dead GIs and 
over 3,500 maimed for life. Some say every time we want to criticize 
the policy, we are weakening the GIs. I am strengthening the GIs. I 
said let's get enough in there so they can secure themselves. We have 
135,000 now. A third of those are guarding the other third, and that 
means leaving a third, 35,000 or 40,000 troops, running out like a 
fire drill to any particular trouble and coming back in and eating. I 
have been there. You can see it in Rafah. They are building a big old 
thing like in Kosovo, where we hunker down and act like we are in 
charge of Kosovo. The Albanians are in charge of Kosovo.

You can't force-feed democracy. It has to come from within. We helped 
liberate Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, 60-some years ago, and Morocco, 
Algeria, Tunisia have not opted for democracy, nor has Libya, nor has 
Egypt, nor has Lebanon, nor has Syria, nor has Iraq, nor has Iran, 
nor has Afghanistan, nor has Pakistan, nor has Jordan, nor has Yemen, 
nor has Aden, nor has Saudi Arabia, nor has the United Arab Emirates.

Come on. So we have to go out and not speak sense with respect to 
policy, and when you want to talk about policy, they say it is 
anti-Semitic. Well, come on the floor, let's debate it. Because my 
friend from Virginia admonishes me. Referring to me he says, "I 
suggest he should learn from history before making accusations." I 
didn't make any accusations. I stated facts. That is their policy. 
That is not my policy.

Mind you me, when we went into Iraq, the only people in the world who 
favored that policy were the people of the United States and the 
people of Israel. The people of Jordan, Iraq, Britain, Spain, Poland, 
Italy, Japan, everywhere around the world said you just don't invade 
a sovereign country no matter how bad the rascal is. We have Kim Jong 
of North Korea--he has weapons of mass destruction, but we don't do 
anything there.

Don't give me this about how we saved this and we did this or did 
that. We have to sort of learn that the front line now is not the 
Pentagon but the State Department. We have to work through diplomacy. 
We live in a global economy and a global world. That is only going to 
come about economically, politically, diplomatically, and by 
negotiations.

The United States, until this invasion and this domino policy for 
Israel--don't tell me it is otherwise, about spreading democracy. 
They know what they are talking about. They are insisting on it. It 
is not a Jewish policy or a Semite policy. It is their domino policy. 
That is exactly what it is. But they know how to make you tuck tail 
and run. Not the Senator from South Carolina. We don't run, we don't 
win, we are not right, we are wrong a lot of times, but I have 
thought this out as thoroughly as I know how, and it worries me that 
here we are.

I said after we got into that thing in Vietnam with the Gulf of 
Tonkin--I came there at that particular time, in 1966, went to 
Vietnam when we were under fire three times--actually over into 
Cambodia before and that kind of thing. We finally came up with 
McNamara writing a book saying he was wrong.

I'll never forget, McNamara comes out to Allie Richenberg near Saint 
Albans to get his tennis lesson at 7 o'clock, and Bob Mcnamara turned 
to Allie and said, "Allie, what do you think about my book?" He said, 
"It's as bad as your backhand. You should not have written it."

But we had to wait 20 years for that one, and we killed 58,000 
Americans. Now we have killed almost 800, maimed for life thousands 
of others. Are we going to just continue on?

What would the Senator from South Carolina do if I were king for a 
day? Yes, I would put the troops in to get security, and I would step 
up the election. I can tell you right now, I have run for all kind of 
offices, 20-some statewide offices and campaigns. But don't put me in 
on that temporary coalition. That fellow, El Baradei, who is running 
around the United Nations to get a temporary coalition or government 
to turn power over to on June 30--don't put me in that. I immediately 
have to repudiate the United States, that I am not a stooge for the 
United States. We just have our fingers crossed that we can hold law 
and order so we can have an election. But don't wait until 2005, or 
December; by September 30, let's get that election going.

Let's realize we are in real trouble. Saudi Arabia is in trouble. 
Israel is in trouble. The United States is in trouble. I am going to 
state what I believe to be the fact. In fact, I believe it very 
strongly. They just are whistling by on account of the pressures that 
we get politically. Nobody is willing to stand up and say what is 
going on.

It was a mistake like Vietnam. We got misled with the Gulf of Tonkin, 
we got misled here, and we are in that quagmire. "Municipal guerrilla 
war and a quagmire," that says George Herbert Walker Bush. I will end 
on my authority--President George Herbert Walker Bush said: Never 
commit U.S. troops into an unwinnable urban guerrilla war and turn 
off the Arab world. Look in that book of his and you will see exactly 
what I am talking about. He is not anti-Semitic. He is sensible. He 
didn't go in.

Yes, Colin Powell, General Powell said if you are going in, let's 
have enough troops. They tried to do it on the cheap. They were ill 
advised. My friend Paul Wolfowitz said you will do it in 7 days. Come 
on. And they let the Republican Guard back into the city of Baghdad 
and into the Sunni triangle, and the next thing you know, when 
Chalabi, who has now been demoted or set aside--he did away with 
their leadership and everything, so they got turned off and they 
buddied up with the insurgents, and now we have hell on our hands. 
Everybody knows that.

So it has been ill prepared, ill advised, and ill administered. The 
entire thing is a mess. Don't give me "support the troops, support 
the troops." I have been with troops, about 3 years in combat, so 
don't tell me about troops. I have always supported the troops.

You ask how many Senators have gotten a Woodward Award from the U.S. 
Army. They don't give that out lightly. I have been with every 
Secretary of Defense until this one, and I think he is brilliant, but 
I think he has made a mistake going along with this domino policy. We 
have it now out on the table, and we will all talk about it, and we 
will be around and ready to debate it.

I appreciate the colleagues yielding to me. I wish I had all the time 
to put all these articles in. I want to thank--and I am going to sit 
here and support my friend from Washington. She has done a 
magnificent job stating what the issue is.

It is simply under the auspices of an accelerated disposal plan going 
around end to reclassify--and it is around end. I had not heard 
anything about it. I have been handling everything at Savannah River 
for 30 some years. I called up the South Carolina Department of 
Health and Environmental Control--DHEC--and they were adamantly 
opposed and gave me the brief they signed a few weeks ago adamantly 
opposing it, with the assistant attorney general's name on it. They 
say this is DHEC policy. I talked to two members of DHEC and they 
said it was never brought up at their meetings. They do not know 
anything about it.

So, yes, it is a little rider for one special State that is injurious 
not only to the State itself--I say that advisedly--but also to the 
United States.

( Source:  http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_7982.shtml )