Sub Rosa Transmogrification
I was just scanning the Letters to the Ed. section of 8/24/06 Wall Street Journal when I noticed letter writer D. Horowitz's letter, "Cult of Soros," in which he correctly says that a million Iranian Muslim fundamentalists were yelling "Death to America" way back in 1979, and that their fanatical hatred is nothing new.
True enough, but it got me to thinking: why did the Reagan administration then provide them arms (including TOW missiles) as proven by Iran-Contra? Reagan's policy on Terrorism was as bankrupt as Bush's.
If strategic bombing was ever justified, it was in Iran during the 1979 embassy takeover, and why President Carter ignored this option is an unknown.
Please remember that Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton all presided over administrations that provided arms, training and chemical weapons to this Mid East region, including to the mujahadeen. How did that serve to inhibit the threat? Those weapons were provided to Saddam and Osama bin Laden, to name but a few.
And when Osama bin Laden fought the Russians under Carter administration support, he was backed implicitly. He was our pet Saudi in Afghan Shepherd clothes. Until he decided to bite us, that is.
When they're our dogs, we don't care who they bite. When Saddam employed chemical weapons vs. Iran in the early '80's, rest assured they were provided by America.
When the Russians invaded Afghanistan, the Carter position was that this was an illegal action, unjustified and in violation of international law. However, a few years later, when the U.S. invaded the same country, the action of invasion has morphed into a democratic action.
The Iran-Contra affair was the result of illegal executive actions that sold arms to Iran to gain illicit funds to run illegal operations in El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua. (Since oral sex was not involved, there was no impeachment.)
Given this history, one must wonder what's happening under the table in this administration.
True enough, but it got me to thinking: why did the Reagan administration then provide them arms (including TOW missiles) as proven by Iran-Contra? Reagan's policy on Terrorism was as bankrupt as Bush's.
If strategic bombing was ever justified, it was in Iran during the 1979 embassy takeover, and why President Carter ignored this option is an unknown.
Please remember that Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton all presided over administrations that provided arms, training and chemical weapons to this Mid East region, including to the mujahadeen. How did that serve to inhibit the threat? Those weapons were provided to Saddam and Osama bin Laden, to name but a few.
And when Osama bin Laden fought the Russians under Carter administration support, he was backed implicitly. He was our pet Saudi in Afghan Shepherd clothes. Until he decided to bite us, that is.
When they're our dogs, we don't care who they bite. When Saddam employed chemical weapons vs. Iran in the early '80's, rest assured they were provided by America.
When the Russians invaded Afghanistan, the Carter position was that this was an illegal action, unjustified and in violation of international law. However, a few years later, when the U.S. invaded the same country, the action of invasion has morphed into a democratic action.
The Iran-Contra affair was the result of illegal executive actions that sold arms to Iran to gain illicit funds to run illegal operations in El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua. (Since oral sex was not involved, there was no impeachment.)
Given this history, one must wonder what's happening under the table in this administration.
posted by rangeragainstwar at 8:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home