Why We Must Win The War On Terrorism
What happened on 9/11 was a wake up call to the evils of Radical Islam that should have happened long before that day. Islamic terrorism has been going on worldwide for years. That day, however, the United States homeland was attacked. People don't pay a lot of attention when it's some nightclub in Berlin, or some military barracks in Saudi Arabia once the media finish reporting on it. It's a tragedy, but it happened overseas, not here, and it's soon forgotten. On 9/11, two 150 ton aircraft full of jet fuel flew into the tallest skyscrapers in New York City causing them to collapse killing over 3500 people. Another plane crashed into the Pentagon with much loss of life shortly after. A fourth plane that many believe was headed to either the US Capitol or the White House was brought down instead in Pennsylvania with the help of some very heroic men and women who sacrificed their own lives in order to save hundreds more or possibly thousands more. People started to wake up. For a short time afterward, Americans from both sides of the political spectrum put aside their differences and came together as Americans first. I remember being in my favorite bar in College Park, Maryland, where I live. Many of us were sitting around discussing the attacks. I heard something that I thought I would never hear from one of my liberal friends: "Thank God George Bush is President and not Al Gore. He would have responded to the attacks by finding a way to negotiate with the terrorists, and then gone out and spend a few days hugging a tree." I couldn't believe my ears. Here was a die hard liberal Democrat, who voted for Bill Clinton and Al Gore, supporting a person he despised. What happened on 9/11 was a reality check. Then something happened. The Marxist Far Left decided that they could use the scourge of Islamic terrorism as one of their tools in their quest of bringing down the United States of America from within. Let's look at what motivates these people.

First of all, the Left hates America because we are not a socialist country, and stand in the way of the establishment of a one world government under control of the United Nations. They are in their minds, after all, global citizens first. We have a free market economy that drives the world's economy by making up about 28% of it. Any time you have Capitalism, you are going to have people that get rich, people that end up middle class, and people that end up at the lower end of the economic platform. There is no guarantee of outcome. Life isn't fair. Sorry, but that's the way it is. To the Left, if you redistribute wealth, you can merge the middle class with the lower classes. By doing this, you get to prop up the lower classes economically, and have basically a two tier economic system...the haves and the have nots. The haves will be them, and the have nots will be everyone else, but there will be guarantee of outcome. That guarantee of outcome will apply to everyone especially them. After all, they will be in charge and with their grandiose sense of entitlement, guaranteed more.

There is a jealousy factor here, and it's based on a dual-track education system and its results. There are people that go to college and get degrees in business, and there are people that go to college and get degrees in intellectual disciplines. Here is where the jealousy factor come in. People that get advanced degrees in a business pursuit like an MBA, or advanced degrees in Finance or Economics tend to become financially successful, while those that get advanced degrees in something like Philosophy or English Literature usually don't. Someone with a PhD in English Literature will more than likely end up in some form of a teaching profession, which doesn't pay the same as someone with a MBA landing a job as a Senior Vice President of a major corporation. This idealistic Utopian vision of equal results with them being equal to more, is part of their quest for self-esteem. Those on the Left want to level the playing field to their advantage. The best way for this to happen is Socialism and eventually, Communism. They are willing to use any means at their disposal in order to advance their cause. In the eyes of these egotistical self-centered elites, Capitalism, and especially American Capitalism, is the enemy. If Radical Islam is the enemy of America, it is within the alliance of the Far Left, despite the Left's disgust with the beliefs of Radical Islam like the oppression of women, the human rights violations, and the establishment of a state religion. The enemy of your enemy is your friend. Anything that can be used to bring down America is fair game.

Similarly, American Communists supported the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939, because even though they were antifascists and anti-imperialists, the higher cause was to be anti-Democracy. This was the planting of the seed that would sprout into the venom of Marxist anti-Americanism that began permeating our college campuses in the 1960s with the antiwar movement.

The belief that America is the great enemy continues today. After all, the student protesters of the 1960s, who avoided military service with student deferments, are entrenched as professors and administrators in our colleges today. It's amazing to hear their self-righteous pontification about George W. Bush serving in the Air National Guard rather than going over to Viet Nam, when they wouldn't even consider, or have considered, serving in the military or National Guard in the first place. They claim that President Bush used family connections to get into the Guard, yet many of them also made damn well sure that they used THEIR family connections to get into school. After that, they stayed in school getting advanced degrees, so that they could continue to get those student deferments until they were too old for the military draft. When Bill Clinton ran for President, the Left screamed bloody murder every time someone brought out the point that Clinton had avoided military service with deferments, and by studying abroad. "Military service doesn't matter," was the Left's collective cry. Suddenly, during the 2004 election it did. Why?

Communist funded organizations like International ANSWER, and the European Leftists Intellectuals with their two century old jealous hatred for America joined forces in their antiwar stance against us. It didn't matter that we were the victims of an unprovoked attack. After all, in their minds, we had it coming. They were doing everything in their power to demonize any retaliation we would mount, because the person who stood in the way of their Marxist agenda, George W. Bush, was President of the United States. Within days after the 9/11 attack, the Left mobilized and began their antiwar effort. There is hypocrisy here. You didn't hear one peep out of the antiwar crowd when President Bill Clinton invaded the Balkan States without seeking UN approval. President Clinton never sought, or received congressional approval for that invasion either. Later on, when the threat of Saddam Hussein became too great for Middle East stability, the Senate gave Clinton unanimous approval, and the House voted 360-38 to attack Iraq. Two weeks later, President Clinton ordered air strikes. What the Left forgets to tell you, is that regime change in Iraq was also the policy of the Clinton Administration. The problem is, we didn't back up the air strikes with ground operations. If we had, the Clinton Administration could have had the removal of Saddam as their victory. Of course, you also have the fact that the Democrat politicians screaming about George Bush, and how he mislead the country into war with the claim of a threat of weapons of mass destruction, were claiming the same thing. They read the same intelligence reports that President Clinton, President Bush and their advisers did. Here are the Democrats in their own words:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

The Democrats that are now vehemently opposed to the Iraqi war authorized it in the first place. The "Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq" was passed by both houses of Congress with both Democrat and Republican majority votes. They scream that Bush lied to the nation in order to get the US involved in a unilateral "War for Oil," because of a false claim about weapons of mass destruction. First of all, the war is not unilateral. There are over 90 countries involved in the Iraqi war in one capacity or another. France and Germany, with their Socialist governments opposed the war in Iraq, due to their weapons and oil dealings with Saddam, so I guess you could say that it was a "War for Oil." Oil for France and Germany that is...

Let's look at the Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq. If you haven't read it, read it. It has a total of 23 clauses in it. Only two of the clauses mention anything at all about stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. In twelve clauses the rationale were the sixteen UN resolutions that Saddam was ignoring or defying openly. Resolutions 687 and 689 were the terms of the cease fire of the first Gulf War. Saddam Hussein's violation of those two clauses were grounds in themselves for the authorization to RESUME hostilities against him. The other fourteen resolutions were the failed attempts to enforce them. The United States and the Coalition went to war with Iraq to enforce UN resolutions of international law that the UN was spineless to enforce themselves.

You don't hear the International Socialists, Democrats, or the anti-America Left mention that Saddam had used poison gas on his own people, the Kurds (is gas a weapon of mass destruction?). You don't hear them mention that Saddam's brother-in-law spilled the beans on Saddam about his nuclear weapon development program after he defected. That brother-in-law, by the way, was in charge of Iraq's nuclear program. Saddam was forced to stop his weapons programs for a while, because the UN inspectors actually did their jobs of finding his WMDs and destroying them. The UN was unable to place an occupying military force in Iraq in order to force Saddam Hussein to the terms of their resolutions, including the human rights terms. Because his friends on the UN Security Council, France, Germany, Russia, and China helped him navigate around any sanctions, he was able to obstruct the inspectors, and finally throw them out of Iraq in 1998.

Saddam was providing financial resources to various terrorist organizations including al Qaeda. He was providing training camps for these terrorists in the north, and was behind an assassination attempt against President George Herbert Walker Bush in retaliation for being forced from Kuwait during the first part of the Gulf War. The problem was, Bush Sr. adhered to the UN resolutions of allowing Saddam to remain in power and not marching on to Baghdad and toppling him at that time. Also, once it became evident that Saddam Hussein was continuing to thumb his nose at the numerous UN resolutions, President Clinton should have ordered an all out attack on Iraq, rather than spending much of his presidency hamstringing the military.

The eight years of the Clinton presidency were bleak. They were marked by small inadequate pay raises, reductions in benefits, and reductions in forces that meant working more hours for less money in order to keep accomplishing our missions. In military terms, it is called an increased OPS Tempo. Morale was at an all time low. Besides the administration's attacks on the quality of life of the active duty force, like only authorizing pay increases that were one percentage point LESS than the cost of living index, there were the proposals affecting the quality of life for retirees that contributed to the overall malaise. Proposals, like denying cost of living increases to military retirees, and proposals to deny retirees medical benefits or the use of the commissary, don't do wonders for morale. Not only that, there was a draft dodger, who wrote to an army colonel while he was a Rhodes Scholar claiming how he loathed the military, as the current sitting Commander In Chief. Couple this weakening of the military with basically no response to terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993, the USS Cole and others, as well as the Clinton Administrations reluctance to take down Osama bin Laden, even though he was offered him at least three times by the Sudanese, and America had a reputation as being a paper tiger. Things were different when the attacks on 9/11 happened, George W. Bush was the president, and not Bill Clinton.

The first President Bush failed to remove Saddam Hussein. President Clinton failed to remove Saddam Hussein, and did little in response to terrorist attacks on American interests. Terrorism was a law enforcement problem. The ideology of the second President Bush is different. Terrorist attacks are not law enforcement problems, but acts of war. I couldn't agree more. However, I do disagree with the way this war has been handled. We have been far too "nice" in our approach to this war, which has allowed strong pockets of insurgency to survive. I tend to be much more "hawkish" than this administration is. Shock and Awe should have been a real Shock and Awe. Baghdad and Fallusia should have been leveled like Dresden and Hanover were leveled during World War II. You have to break the will of the terrorists, and the will of the nations supporting them. If we had completely destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure, it would have put the rest of the world on notice that we meant business in this war on terror. Not only would we have shown that we were going to take down active terrorist groups like Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but we were going to take down the states that provided support for them. We would have shown a much higher level of resolve. Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made this very clear while speaking before the Government Reform Committee on September 20, 2001. "The terrorists have the will to destroy us, but they do not have the power. There is no doubt that we have the power to crush them. Now we must also show that we have the will to do just that." Showing restraint in this war on terrorism is in the terrorists' mind, a sign of weakness, and they have used this to their advantage. President Bush has said, "We must make no distinction between the terrorists and the states that support them." This is true. If we don't totally dismantle the entire terrorist network, they will continue to regroup and continue to attack us. Once they acquire them, those attacks will include taking out US cities with thermonuclear weapons.

During the Cold War, the United States had a policy known as "Mutually Assured Destruction." What that meant, is that in the event that we were attacked with any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon, the response would be an immediate launching of nuclear ICBMs to take out the 100 largest cities in the attacking country. We can use the same principle in order to get the Arab world to start routing out and destroying the terrorist factions among them. Terrorism has no country of its own, but it is financed and supported by various countries throughout the world. In the event that there is a terrorist attack on any American city with a WMD of any kind, the immediate response would be to launch a nuclear attack against the 100 largest Islamic cities in the world. In addition, we would also take out Mecca and Medina, as well as North Korea, who has made it perfectly clear that they will provide nuclear weapons to terrorist groups once they develop them. In order for the Islamic countries to get off of the "shit list," they would have to be doing everything in their power to eliminate the terrorists groups from their midst, and bring them to justice.

Terrorism can not survive without the financial and intelligence means provided by the countries that support them. Also, terrorism can not survive without the Far Left's continuing to aid and abet them by continuing their effort to weaken America's will. This needs to stop. We need to mount this war on terrorism from all fronts. First of all, we must continue to go after terrorist groups throughout the world, and destroy them. We need to hold the nations that finance them accountable and use military force if necessary to prevent them from supporting terrorist organizations. We do not need to appease Western Europe. Let them wallow in their failed nanny government programs until their citizens finally have had enough. That will bring back the economic engine that drove Western Europe after the second World War to the prosperity that they enjoyed until their complacency, because we provided for their national defense against the Communist Soviet Empire, allowed them to turn Socialist. A strong Capitalist Europe, coupled with a strong Capitalist America can help build the Middle East into a strong worldwide trading partner. Once the regimes that fund the terrorists have been toppled, the world will be a safer and more prosperous place.

Lastly, we need to go after the Fifth Column Marxist Elites in this country that are doing everything in their power to bring us down. Treason is treason and should be punished severely. There is a difference between disagreement and treason. Also, during a time of war, there has to be more restraint when it comes to certain rhetoric. There was a saying during World War II that said, "Loose Lips Sink Ships." When false information is deliberately published in Newsweek about US Marines flushing the Koran down the toilet in order to bring false discredit to the military, inflame public opinion, and cause increased violence in the Arab world causing an increased loss of life, that's treason. Brian Becker of International ANSWER, Media Benjamin, Susan Sarrandon, Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Martin Sheen, and Ramsey Clark should all be charged with treason. Their actions are all aiding and abetting the enemy. Jane Fonda should have been charged with treason for what she did during the Viet Nam War. She should have been put in front of a firing squad.

If the Justice Department is not willing to go after these people when they cross the line, we as American citizens need to use the power of our freedom of choice to take care of business in our own way. First of all, we can refuse to purchase Newsweek, or support any of the companies that advertise with them until Newsweek cleans itself up. That is the same tactic that the Left used to get Dr. Laura removed from the air when she disagreed with their position on homosexuality. We should refuse to support in any way any of the Leftist Hollywood Elite. Boycott their movies. Same with other entertainers like Bruce Springsteen and Barbara Streisand. Don't attend their concerts or purchase their recordings. Of course, we could give them a taste of their own medicine by attending their concerts en masse and disrupting them with massive demonstrations during the show. Let's see how they like having the shoe on the other foot. If college and university professors use their academic power to intimidate students with failing grades if they don't toe the anti-American/anti-Bush line, they need to be exposed for the Communists that they are, and taken down. Let's hope the Academic Bill of Rights passes, despite the opposition from the academic Far Left. The enemy of our enemy is not our friend. The friend of our enemy is our enemy.