Is President Bush going to Destroy the Republican Party?
Is President Bush going to Destroy the Republican Party?
Insider Robert Novak said a prominent Republican Party strategist says "Iraq is a black hole for the Republican Party.What makes his comments so important is that he is not a maverick Republican in Congress but one of Bush's principal political advisers."
Another "nationally prominent Republican pollster reported confidentially on Capitol Hill after the president's speech that if U.S. boots are still on the ground in Iraq and U.S. blood is still being spilled there at the end of the year, the GOP disaster in 2008 will eclipse 2006' according to Novak.
President Bush if he is not careful may single handedly destroy the Republican Party. We need to pray for the President that God give him the wisdom to listen to the American people and to understand the end result the some of his decisions.
Fred
The GOP's Black Hole
By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, January 18, 2007
WASHINGTON -- The sense of impending political doom that clutches Republican hearts, one week after President George W. Bush presented to the nation his new strategy on Iraq, is stoked by the alarming intelligence brought back from Baghdad by Republican Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota and passed around Capitol Hill.
In a pre-Christmas visit to Iraq, Coleman and Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida met with Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi government's national security adviser. Coleman described their astounding encounter in a Dec. 19 blog: "Dr. Rubaie maintains that the major challenge facing Iraq is not a sectarian conflict but rather al Qaeda and disgruntled Baathists seeking to regain power. Both Sen. Nelson and I react with incredulity to that assessment. Rubaie cautions against more troops in Baghdad."
Rubaie denied the overriding reality of sectarian violence in Baghdad because his government is tied to the Shiite belligerents in that conflict. While Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki gives Bush lip service about cracking down on Mahdi Army commander Moqtada al-Sadr, U.S. officials recognize Maliki's political support depends on the Shiite militia leader. Thus, Maliki's government is in denial about sectarian conflict. Maliki did not show up for a press conference in which he was scheduled to comment on Bush's new strategy, and he personally remains silent at this writing.
This hastens the desire of Republicans, who once cheered the Bush Doctrine in the Middle East, to remove U.S. forces from a politically deteriorating condition as soon as possible. "Iraq is a black hole for the Republican Party," a prominent party strategist told me this week. What makes his comments so important is that he is not a maverick Republican in Congress but one of Bush's principal political advisers.
As they adjust to the 2006 election returns, Republicans recognize that this was no isolated bump in the road. The loss of 323 state legislative seats across the country to the Democrats classifies last year's election as a midrange electoral disaster.
The internal Republican debate concerns how much Iraq contributed to this outcome. The White House and Republican members of Congress who voted for intervention in Iraq contend many issues led to their defeat: incompetent management of the Hurricane Katrina crisis, widespread cases of corruption and abandonment of spending restraint. But at the grass roots, Republicans tell me that Iraq was the central problem and must be erased.
Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich, a popular and effective Republican who had nothing to do with Iraq policy, believes his defeat was wholly caused by the war. The defeats, down to the local level, in a variety of states -- such as Maryland, New Hampshire, Oregon and Missouri -- are blamed by Republicans there on Iraq.
One nationally prominent Republican pollster reported confidentially on Capitol Hill after the president's speech that if U.S. boots are still on the ground in Iraq and U.S. blood is still being spilled there at the end of the year, the GOP disaster in 2008 will eclipse 2006. Thus, many Republican congressmembers have tied their hopes to Bush's pledge that Iraqi forces will take over local security by September.
But Republican opposition has intensified rather than diminished since the president's speech. What was whispered privately is now declared publicly. At last week's hearing, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's second-ranking Republican -- Sen. Chuck Hagel -- called Bush's new strategy "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam."
The conservative elite of the House of Representatives, members who had 100 percent positive voting records as measured by the American Conservative Union (ACU), gathered Wednesday morning for an ACU breakfast on Capitol Hill. They still talked about "winning" in Iraq and deplored the consequences of "surrendering."
But they do not know how that victory can be achieved if the Iraqi government is tied to the Shiite militia, a political dilemma in Iraq that no increase in U.S. troops can solve. Republicans can only hope that Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her sidekick, Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, overplay their hands by cutting off funds to U.S. troops in the field. It is a slim hope for now.
Robert Novak is a syndicated columnist and editor of the Evans-Novak Political [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2007/01/18/the_gops_black_hole]
Click here for Credit Card and Amazon Order of Fred Martinez's book "Hidden Axis":
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1410746186/qid=1099936755/sr=11-1/ref
For your FREE copy of Hidden Axis click here:
http://hiddenaxisofevil.blogspot.com/
To see other articles go to:
http://fredmartinez.blogspot.com/
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/
http://thefredmartinezreport.blogspot.com/
http://themeaningofloveandlife.blogspot.com/
Enemies: How America's Foes Steal Our Vital Secrets--and How We Let It Happen
Are we Safe from Islamic and Communist Agents in the US?
Defense and national security reporter Bill Gertz’s book “Enemies: How America's Foes Steal Our Vital Secrets--and How We Let It Happen” shows that our moral decline has disabled the USA intelligence agencies.
The book details how two senior FBI agents had a long term sexual affair with a Chinese agent. The agents thinking she was a double agent for the US and allowed her to have America's most classified secret and received from her Chinese misinformation.
Meanwhile CIA top agents betrayed follow agents in Russia and give away secrets for cash and the excitement of being a double agent against the US.
In both cases the FBI and CIA had numerous red flags pointing to the double agents, but ignored them in part because agents have an old boy culture that protected the traitors for decades.
Gertz’s says that Clinton as president seriously damaged real intelligence operations. Also China “managed to... [Someone came into my blog dashboard and replaced the rest of the article with the following. Please pray for the protection of this blog.] iou'd probably see that anywhere.
I was behind a huge fat lady in the cafeteria who bought 4 gorditas (there's a Taco Bell too), 3 chocolate chip cookies, and a large Pepsi. There's no helping some people. I'm not exactly a model of perfect health, but at least I get a 6 inch turkey on wheat at Subway with a diet Coke.
Hospitals are weird places. There's alot more variation of care and luck involved than you might think. Get in good with the nurses, and you get food after hours. Ask certain doctors too many questions, and they shut off your information.
My Dad's room has a beautiful western view. We watch the sunset every night. On the night of the children's parade, a pirate ship "invaded" Tampa Bay and shot off its cannons (they invade again tomorrow). Then there were fireworks, right out the window.
I haven't seen sunsets this colorful since I lived in West Virginia. That's some good pollution they got here.
Some poor guy fell into the engine room on the fireworks barge and lost his foot. You learn things in the hospital elevator.
My Dad's room is right next to the nurses' station, which is both good and bad. It's good because you can get their attention easily. But there are downsides.
Today we heard the unmistakable sound of a flatline and the subsequent commotion. Alerts and announcements went over the sound system while the staff ran about. Someone isn't having a good evening tonight.
On the way home there was an accident blocking all traffic on Bayshore, my way "home". I was kinda pissed until I saw the crotch rocket crumpled up against the back of an SUV. I'd be surprised if he lived. I wonder if he was an organ donor?
I think I'll have to change my status to being a donor. It would be pretty damn hypocritical not to.
You never know how you're going to react to situations like these until they happen. The effects trickle down in ways you can't anticipate. I saw that motorcycle (or "donorcycle") and my eyes immediately welled up. Ordinarily I wouldn't give a shit, let alone for a suicidal guy on a rocket.
Someone died and my Dad lived. Was he/she a father/mother? They won't tell us anything other than the age, but someone's Dad or sister or son didn't make it. Someone else's family is grieving while mine rejoices.
He was in a coma for a few days and the doctors were preparing us. It's hard to even think about it. My Dad looks better now than he did before the transplant -- and believe me, elation is the overriding emotion -- but it will always be with me, when we weren't sure.
Not to get negative though. Everything is coming up roses, so it's not good to look back.
I hope everyone else is doing well. I'll be sure to report back on the party and Spamalot, which is in town.
tion -- but it will always be with me, when we weren't sure.
Not to get negative though. Everything is coming up roses, so it's not good to look back.
I hope everyone else is doing well. I'll be sure to report back on the party and Spamalot, which is in town.
Is Bush’s “Surge” a Plan or a Tactic?
Is Bush’s "Surge" a Plan or a Tactic?
Sending a few thousand more troops so that we can "clear" and "hold" areas, where militias happen to be, is a new tactic.
The problem is that the country is in a power struggle between the Sunni and Shiite, which even Bush now recognizes by asking the ruling government to bring Sunni into the governing of the country.
If the Shiite government is not made to show that it is willing to treat all Iraqi by the same rule of law then a major new plan needs to be brought forward because the new tactic won't solve the problem.
Democrat Joe Biden’s plan, which he got from talk show host Michael Savage "would maintain a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis breathing room in their own regions - as provided for in the Iraqi constitution." (Please read Biden's plan and David Broder's article below on these ideas.)
BIDEN-GELB PLAN FOR IRAQ
President Bush does not have a strategy for victory in Iraq. His strategy is to prevent defeat and to hand the problem off to his successor. As a result, more and more Americans want to bring our troops home immediately, even at the risk of trading a dictator for chaos and a civil war that could become a regional war. Both are bad alternatives.
There is a third way. Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, and I have proposed a five-point plan to keep Iraq together, protect America's interests and bring our troops home.
Sectarian violence among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds is now the major impediment to stability and progress in Iraq. No number of troops can solve that problem. The only way to hold Iraq together and create the conditions for our armed forces to responsibly withdraw is to give Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds incentives to pursue their interests peacefully. That requires a sustainable political settlement, which is the primary objective of our plan.
The plan would maintain a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis breathing room in their own regions - as provided for in the Iraqi constitution. The central government would be responsible for common interests, like border security and the distribution of oil revenues. We would secure support from the Sunnis - who have no oil -- by guaranteeing them a proportionate share (about 20 percent) of oil revenues. We would increase economic aid, ask the oil-rich Arab Gulf states to fund it and tie all assistance to the protection of minority rights and the creation of a jobs program. We would convene a regional conference to enlist the support of Iraq's neighbors and create a Contact Group of the major powers to enforce their commitments. And we would ask our military to draw up plans to responsibly withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2007 - enough time for the political settlement to take hold.
The course we're on has no end in sight. This plan can allow us to achieve the two objectives most American share: to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind. I hope you will take the time to read the plan and endorse it by adding your email address to our list of supporters.
Thank you,
Joe Biden, U.S. Senator
(D-DE)Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee[http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:VTqponINtYMJ:planforiraq.com/+biden+iraq+plan+the+Shiite,+Sunni,+and+Kurd&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&ie=UTF-8]
Bush administration proud of its guts, but what's needed to win a war is brains
By David S. Broder
WASHINGTON - The third or fourth time I heard Vice President Dick Cheney tell Fox News' Chris Wallace on Sunday that Al-Qaida was gambling that the United States ``doesn't have the stomach'' to keep up the fight in Iraq, it crossed my mind that Cheney may be staring at the wrong part of the national anatomy.
The question, really, is not whether we have the stomach for the fight but the brains to figure out what to do in Iraq.
The vice president's effort to reduce it to a question of courage -- to suggest that those who want to expand the war are braver than those urging steps to limit it -- is a standard rhetorical trick. Whenever any Bush policy is questioned, someone from the administration almost automatically charges that its critics are soft on terror.
Iraq requires thought, not just gut instinct, because we are struggling with a situation we've never faced before. What does America really know about how to deal with a Shiite-Sunni civil war in a land devastated by years of dictatorship, damaged by invasion, infiltrated by terrorists and surrounded by countries with their own territorial ambitions? Not much, which is why it behooves us to move with caution.
The most serious thinking, inside and outside the administration, has concluded that it is fundamentally up to the government in Baghdad to curb the militias controlled by rival Sunni and Shiite clans. President Bush says the Iraqis can't do it alone, so he is sending more soldiers, 20,000 of them, to help Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his forces.
Trouble is, no one knows if those Iraqi forces will show up to fight, and if they do, whether they will target anyone other than their Sunni enemies.
The Iraq Study Group and a good many others urged Bush to demand action from Maliki before offering any further help. They said, let him show an effort to take control of the corrupt and sect-filled ministries, launch serious constitutional reform, divide up the oil revenues, start delivering services.
Bush instead bought Maliki's argument that none of that is possible until Baghdad is more secure, and securing Baghdad means sending more troops into its high-risk urban warfare.
Given the decision that Bush has made, is there anything Congress can do to protect U.S. interests and as many American lives as possible? Yes, there is. The lawmakers should hold Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates strictly to account for monitoring the action -- or inaction -- of the Maliki government.
There is a lot of talk on Capitol Hill about non-binding resolutions opposing the ``surge'' of troops, or some sort of measure to limit or cut off the funds for that deployment. No such action is likely to have any real impact on the president. The deployment has begun, and Bush is adamant about his authority as commander in chief to continue it.
What Congress can demand is regular, frequent -- even weekly -- updates from the Pentagon, relayed from the able Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander in Iraq, about what the Iraqis are doing. The State Department should be delivering similar reports from the embassy in Baghdad on the operations of Maliki's government. Members of Congress ought to be traveling to Iraq themselves, checking out the reports with the troops who are carrying the brunt of the fighting.
The administration may complain about this intense monitoring and call it micro-management. But after the blunders of the past three years, neither the president nor our allies in Baghdad have earned the right to operate with a free hand.
If Petraeus and his staff can provide specific measures of Iraqi military cooperation and progress, good. If the U.S. Embassy sees signs that the Maliki government is getting its act together, better yet. And if members of Congress can confirm these impressions on the ground in Baghdad, then take it to the bank.
If not, then Congress should call on the president to ``show some stomach'' and tell Maliki that the game is coming to an end.
Without a credible threat to walk away, there is every reason to believe that Maliki will attempt to use this expanded U.S. force as a shield for the Shiite effort to drive the Sunni minority out of their homes and far from any share of power.
That is not a goal worth one American life. And if it turns out that's what all this amounts to, then we will have no choice.
DAVID S. BRODER is a columnist for the Washington Post. [http://www.thestate.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/16487683.htm]
Is Bush going to Give our Social Security to Non-Citizens?
Is Bush going to give our social security to non-citizens? Read below and find out.
Fred
Bush's Plan To Bankrupt Social Security
Jan. 17, 2007 by Phyllis Schlafly
President Bush's secret plan for Social Security has just been released to the public in response to a Freedom of Information lawsuit filed by TREA Senior Citizens League, a million-member seniors advocacy group. For four years, the President carried on an energetic public relations campaign to promote his plan to privatize part of Social Security, but he kept under White House lock and key the "Totalization" agreement his administration secretly made with Mexico in June 2004.
Is that any way to run the government, or to commit billions of taxpayer dollars? Maybe we've been needing Nancy Pelosi to demand "the most honest, most open" government in history.
If and when President Bush personally signs this agreement, it will automatically become law without any congressional action. The law that would have allowed one House of Congress to reject it by a vote within 60 days is generally thought to violate the Supreme Court's 1983 decision in INS v. Chadha, which declared unconstitutional a one-House veto of a President's action.
Senator John Ensign (R-NV) has introduced S.43 to require Totalization agreements to be treated like bilateral trade agreements. His bill would permit a Totalization agreement to go into effect only if affirmatively passed by both Houses of Congress.
Unless we live in some sort of Bush dictatorship, that's the very least of what Totalization should require. It ought to be considered a treaty and require approval by two-thirds of the Senate.
Totalization is the bureaucratic buzz word for the plan to put millions of illegal Mexican workers into the U.S. Social Security system. They would collect U.S. benefits based on their U.S earnings under false or stolen Social Security numbers plus alleged earnings in Mexico.
American citizens must work ten years to be eligible for Social Security benefits, but the Totalization agreement would allow Mexicans to qualify with only 18 months of work in the United States, and pretend to make up the difference by assuming work in Mexico. It is highly doubtful that the illegal aliens ever paid into a Mexican system for eight and a half years.
It could be "virtual" work or "virtual" payments (just like the "virtual" fence we may have on our southern border, or the "virtual" law that promised to build one). A 2003 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report tactfully refused to comment on "the integrity of Mexico's social security data" and warned that the cost to U.S. taxpayers is "highly uncertain."
The United States has totalization agreements with 21 other countries in order to assure a pension to those few individuals who work in two countries (legally, of course) by "totalizing" their payments into the pension systems of both countries. All existing totalization agreements are with industrialized nations whose retirement systems are on a parity with ours.
Mexican retirement benefits are not remotely equal to U.S. benefits. Americans receive benefits after working for 10 years, but Mexicans have to work 24 years before receiving any benefits.
Mexican workers receive back in retirement only what they actually paid in plus interest, whereas the U.S. Social Security system is skewed to give lower-wage earners benefits greatly in excess of what they and their employers contributed.
Mexico has two different retirement programs, one for public-sector employees, which is draining the national treasury, and one for private-sector workers, which covers only 40 percent of the workforce. Most of the Mexicans who illegally entered the United States previously lived in poverty, where they were unemployed, or worked in the off-the-record economy, or worked for employers who did not pay taxes into a retirement system.
The Bush Totalization plan would put millions of Mexicans onto the rolls of the U.S. Social Security system just as our baby-boom generation retires. The White House won't deny that imposing higher taxes on American workers is "on the table" to deal with the expected shortfall.
The Bush totalization plan would lure even more Mexicans into the United States illegally in the hope of amnesty and eligibility for Social Security benefits for themselves, as well as for their spouses and dependents who may never have lived in the United States.
Totalization is part and parcel of the Council on Foreign Relations five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter." The 59-page CFR document (which can claim Bush Administration approval because it is posted on a U.S. State Department website) demands that we "implement the Social Security Totalization Agreement negotiated between the United States and Mexico."
Americans should raise a mighty clamor to demand that President Bush NOT sign this billion-dollar ripoff of American taxpayers and senior citizens. Meanwhile, tell your Members of Congress to hurry up and pass the Ensign bill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further reading: Social Security Benefits for Noncitizens: Current Policy and Legislation, CRS Report RL32004, updated 7-22-04 and 5-11-05.
Read this column online.
Eagle Forum
www.eagleforum.org
PO Box 618
Alton, IL 62002
Phone: 618-462-5415
Fax: 618-462-8909
E-mail: eagle@eagleforum.org
-- The following information is a reminder of your current mailing list subscription:
You are subscribed to the following list: Eagle E-Mail
Using the following email: mrtnzfred@aol.com
You may automatically unsubscribe from this list at any time by visiting the following URL:
If the above URL is inoperable, make sure that you have copied the entire address. Some mail readers will wrap a long URL and thus break this automatic unsubscribe mechanism.
You may also change your subscription by visiting this list's main screen:
If you're still having trouble, please contact the list owner at:
The following physical address is associated with this mailing list:
Eagle Forum
PO Box 618
Alton, IL 62002
618-462-5415
Are the Republicans the New Whigs?
It seems only Robert Novak and Pat Buchanan are brave enough to accept the Baker-Hamilton Report among top conservatives. I'm sorry to say it, but the warmongers in the Republican party seem to be willing to destroy the party of Lincoln for their foreign policy ideology.
If the Republicans spend as much effort and money on saving the tradional family as on the ideology of using war to spead democracy then homosexual marriage would already be defeated.
If the party of Lincoln doesn't put the great moral issues as its top priorities, it may soon join long dead Whig Party in the dustbin of history. The Whigs died because they considered ending slavery a low priority.
Fred
Bush: "I do, too"
WASHINGTON -- Meeting privately with the Baker-Hamilton commission before its report on Iraq was released, George W. Bush did not seem pleased. So, when a Republican member said he believed it was imperative to get moving on the stalled Israel-Palestine peace process, a negative response from the president was expected. Instead, he replied: "I do, too."
Those three little words posed questions. Was Bush merely indulging James Baker and the Iraq Study Group's other wise men? Or, after not pursuing Middle East peace the past six years, had he concluded the necessity of stabilizing the region, including Israel? The consensus of commission members was that the president was sincere, assessing linkage between Iraq and Israel.
President Bush, right, and outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld take part in an Armed Forces Full Honor Review in Honor of Rumsfeld. Friday, Dec. 15, 2006 at the Pentagon. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais) The intense criticism of the Baker-Hamilton group from neo-conservatives stems from that linkage, clearly set out in the report. Commission members feel the urgency of progress on the Israeli front more deeply than is reflected in the formal language. They are not Israel-bashers. One commission member with a long record of support for Israel feels the country's very existence is at stake. He reported to me warnings from experts friendly to Israel that staying on the present track will threaten the Jewish state within 40 years.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert coolly dismissed the commission's report, writing it off as an internal American matter and instructing his cabinet members not to talk about it. Critics in Jerusalem assailed recommended talks with Iran and Syria as detrimental to Israeli security, but the biggest immediate concern was tying a Palestinian peace process to an Iraqi solution.
In 2002, a healthy and forceful Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was an early advocate of U.S. military intervention in Iraq, in private sessions predicting therapeutic qualities throughout the region from deposing Saddam Hussein. More than four years later, the relationship has been reversed by the commission's report. Instead of the Iraqi intervention solving the Israeli question, stabilizing the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation is described as essential to an Iraqi solution.
Nothing in the report raised hackles in Jerusalem more than these words: "The United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict. There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts." The panel, in effect, urged Bush to abandon allowing a free hand for Olmert to continue Sharon's policy of unilateral imposition of borders for a desiccated Palestinian state.
The day after the Baker-Hamilton report was issued, Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel delivered a more robust version of the commission's position in a speech to SAIS (the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University). What makes Hagel unique is his fearlessness in enunciating views other American politicians of both parties keep to themselves.
"In the Middle East, the core of instability and conflict is the underlying Arab-Israeli problem," said Hagel, adding, "Until the United States helps lead a renewed Israeli-Palestinian peace process, there will be no prospect for broader Middle East peace and stability." He went further by warning of a "Judeo-Christian/Muslim split" that "would inflame the world."
Colin Powell's departure as secretary of state two years ago eliminated the administration's last major figure who was at all serious about the peace process. Bush has been seen by his Arab allies as letting the junior partner in the U.S.-Israeli alliance dominate the senior partner. One Middle Eastern diplomat says Bush, in dealing with Israel, acts as though he represents Luxembourg rather than the United States.
Consequently, if Bush really meant it when he said, "I do, too," it would entail a radical change in policy that would engender severe opposition. The Baker-Hamilton report and Hagel's speech each reiterated the truth that there is no chance whatsoever for essential Israeli-Palestinian peace without American brokerage. The Israeli ruling class and its U.S. outriders do not want that to happen, which explains the bitter opposition to the commission's recommendations. It would be an act of courage for George W. Bush to risk an assault from these forces, and it is a central decision of his last two years. [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2006/12/18/bush_i_do,_too]
Robert Novak is syndicated columnists and editor of the Evans-Novak Political Report
Who Ended the Cold War?
James Carroll in House of War claims Pope John Paul II helped Gorbachev end the Cold War, but Ronald Reagan had little to do with ending it.
Carroll’s liberal bias blinded him to the historical facts that even the New York Times admits. Pope John Paul II, Reagan and Gorbachev each had an important part in ending the nuclear mutual destruction standoff.
Larry Schweikart in America's Victories shows how Star Wars bankrupted the USSR and helped to end the Cold War. Schweikart quotes Reagan saying SDI "was not a trade-off for arms control, it was arms control."
Even the liberal Carroll admits that Reagan and the first Bush made dramatic [nuclear] arsenal reductions. He admits that Clinton ended "the era of real reductions" of the nuclear arms and started the build up again.
So the so-called war monger Reagan started nuclear arsenal reductions and the peace-loving Clinton restarted the nuclear arms build up. Somehow I don’t think the US or European media are going to let the public know about this.
I’m sure the media won’t present whom Pope John Paul II thought ended the Cold War. He believed that the one who ended the Cold war was Jesus Christ who showed the world mercy because of the prayers of many especially those who loved His mother and the teachings of Fatima.
We still need to pray for the conversion of Russia as well as the US. But, we mustn’t forget that the Christian martyrs in Islam and China also need our prayer.
Click here for Credit Card and Amazon Order of Fred Martinez's book "Hidden Axis":
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1410746186/qid=1099936755/sr=11-1/ref
For your FREE copy of Hidden Axis click here:
http://hiddenaxisofevil.blogspot.com/
To see other articles go to:
http://fredmartinez.blogspot.com/
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/
http://thefredmartinezreport.blogspot.com/
http://themeaningofloveandlife.blogspot.com/
http://fred-martinezsthoughtsverses.blogspot.com/
