-Caveat Lector-
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: May 2, 2007 3:40:52 PM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: How "the Greatest Republican President" Felt About Pre-
Emptive Strikes
From President Reagan's newly-released diaries:
http://news.aol.com/dailypulse/050207/_a/reagans-diaries/
20070502111509990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
June 7, 1981:
"Got word of Israeli bombing of Iraq -- nuclear reactor. I swear I
believe Armageddon is near."
--------
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004197
The radical insufficiency of the [Non-Proliferation Treaty]
confirms once again the wisdom of deploying a missile-defense
shield. This project, widely ridiculed when it was first proposed
by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, has become an urgent national
imperative. The U.S. needs a strategic system to defend its own
skies, and portable ship- or airborne theater systems to defend its
allies.
But even if we could deploy an impermeable missile shield tomorrow
(and no missile shield is likely to be impermeable), there are
other ways than missiles to deliver nuclear weapons. Such weapons
can be packed into shipping containers and brought into American
ports, or smuggled across our borders wrapped inside, say, a bale
of marijuana. Countering this particular facet of the threat
defensively is virtually impossible -- a fact that points toward
yet another urgent imperative.
In the National Security Strategy that he unveiled at West Point in
June 2002, President Bush enunciated a doctrine of pre-emption.
Certain kinds of international challenges, he said, must be
forcibly answered before the evidence of danger is presented to us
in the shape of a mushroom cloud. The United States, Bush declared,
"can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the
past":
"The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of
today's threats, and the magnitude of the potential harm that could
be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that
option. We cannot let our enemies strike first."
This was precisely Israel's thinking when it destroyed Iraq's
reactor at Osirak in 1981. At the time, Israel's action was
condemned by all the countries of the world, including the United
States. In its unanimous resolution, the U.N. Security Council
asserted that Iraq was a member in good standing of the NPT, had
"accepted [IAEA] safeguards on its nuclear activities, and . . .
these safeguards have been satisfactorily applied to date." It went
on to denounce Israel's raid as a "danger to international peace."
We can now see things as they are -- that is, just as the
government of Israel saw them in 1981. In the aftermath of Sept.
11, fanatical anti-American regimes like those ruling Iran and
North Korea cannot be permitted to obtain weapons that can be
easily hidden and used without warning to destroy entire cities in
an instant. If peaceful means of persuasion have been exhausted, it
is incumbent on us to consider, coolly, other means.
Unfortunately, military action is not likely to be as simple as it
was for Israel at Osirak -- not that that operation was in the
least simple. Rehearsed for months by the Israeli air force, it
required up-to-date intelligence, superb airmanship, and total
surprise to succeed. It also had to be done within a narrow window
of time, before the reactor went critical; otherwise, there was a
real possibility of radiological contamination over a large area.
----------------
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/iran-nuclear-analysis.html
Bushehr [in Iran was] a light water, nuclear electricity reactor,
is specified for 1000 megawatts.
Bushehr is a Russian redesign of the original German reactor, which
was nearly finished, before Iraq bombed it 7 times, to smithereens,
during the Iraq-Iran war (1981-1988).
The U.S. military was stationed in Baghdad at the time, assisting
Saddam, as a co-belligerent with Iraq, in Iraq’s criminal war of
aggression against Iran. This, in violation of the U.S.
Constitution, without a vote in Congress to declare war on Iran.
Ronald Reagan, and his complicit U.S. military command, frequently
violated the U.S. Constitution in this way, an enemy within, a
silent coup d'état, against the U.S. Constitution. Donald Rumsfeld
(special Presidential envoy), George H.W. Bush (U.S. Vice
President), and others personally conveyed offers and advise to
Saddam, including what targets in Iran the Iraqi air force should
attack, provided Saddam with tactical intelligence, arms,
munitions, and such. See, e.g., Howard Teicher (U.S. National
Security Council staff, responsible for the Middle East and for
Political-Military Affairs 1982-1987), affidavit dated January 31
1995, United States v. Carlos Cardoen, et al. (S.D. Florida, No.
93-241-CR), and see, Derek Mitchell, Michael Bevin, timeline, US-
Iraq 1980s (Cooperative Research).
Did Iraq bomb Bushehr on U.S. orders, or just advise?
Bushehr --then and now-- is a “civilian object.” Bombing it, is a
textbook violent war crime, by the Iraqi chain of command AND by
EACH U.S. OFFICIAL who may have incited, aided and abetted,
conspired, or facilitated such attacks.
-----------------
A SHORT QUIZ FOR GEORGE W. BUSH
http://onesimplequestion.blogspot.com/2004/08/just-one-question.html
1. Mr. President, on June 7, 1981, Israel sent a strike force of
eight F-16's which destroyed Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor in
Osirik just before it came online and started enriching the
plutonium necessary for Iraq to manufacture nuclear bombs. (I'm
not going to ask you to pronounce the word "nuclear," so you can
relax.) When President Ronald Reagan --whom you recently declared
is one of the greatest presidents in history-- learned of Israel's
pre-emptive strike on a country which was determined to wipe Israel
off the map, did he:
(a) Praise Israel's courage and initiative in removing an imminent
nuclear threat from the arsenal of a genocidal madman who would
assuredly have instigated a nuclear war in the Middle East.
or
(b) Angrily condemn the Israeli raid and cut off American arms
sales to Israel because it had used American built jet fighters on
the raid.
2. Mr. President, on December 20, 1983, Ronald Reagan sent special
envoy Donald Rumsfeld, who is now your Secretary of Defense, to
Baghdad to meet with Saddam Hussein. When Mr. Rumsfeld met with
Saddam, did he:
(a) Inform him of the United States' displeasure with Iraq's
starting a war against Iran to seize its oil fields and then
condemn Saddam's horrible human rights record, including Iraq's use
of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers in violation of
international law.
or
(b) Shake hands with Saddam, renew U.S. ties with Iraq, and ask
Saddam what assistance in addition to military satellite
intelligence and other support the United States could secretly
provide to Iraq.
3. Mr. President, in 1990, four days before Iraq's invasion of
Kuwait, after Saddam had gassed tens of thousands of Iranians and
Kurds, did your father, President George H. W. Bush, and his
Secretary of State, James Baker, send the U.S. ambassador to Iraq,
April Glaspie, to tell Saddam:
(a) "Kuwait is a sovereign nation and our country will not allow
Iraq to wage aggressive war to invade Kuwait's territory or seize
its oil wells."
or
(b) "I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our
relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest
for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation
with Kuwait. As you know, I lived here for years and admire your
extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country.... We have no
opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with
Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to
emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that
the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."
See what's free at AOL.com.
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
