NATIONAL SECURITY

NATIONAL SECURITY

We are all in radical Islam’s crosshairs; we must vote with the security of our family held foremost, not blind loyalty to some political party. Anything less is irresponsible.

March 2006: We highlighted the threat posed to US security by Saddam. The US intelligence community by then had convincing evidence of a connection between this regime and international terror, specifically confirmation that Saddam had for years provided support by the way of finance, shelter and training to various terrorist groups, including al Qaeda.. Thus, the Iraqi war which followed was not about democracy, women’s rights or oil. It was about seeing to the physical security of the United States.

January 2008: No presidential candidate has argued that someone did something right, " to have prevented another 9/11-like attack for over six years, removed two dictatorships, fostered the continued, stubborn presence of democratic governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, helped change the Middle East dynamic from Lebanon to Libya, and at present won friendship and support from key countries as diverse as France, Germany, and India," according to one registered Democrat, Vic Hansen.

The Founders gave the president powers that are situational to events they knew they could not predict; key among these are powers which are crisis-driven: in the case of war he commands the military; to prevent war he negotiates always treacherous shoals. With the exception of McCain all other candidates have shown that they are in a profound way out of this league. Unfortunately, this is the only league that counts; domestic considerations pale by comparison.

From the rest? Clinton highlighting the Pakistani "presidential election" when in fact it is for an entirely different office, the pm; Huckabee blissfully unaware of any of it, sounding more like Kucinich than Cheney, and finally Obama "ludicrously associating the death of Bhutto with the Iraqi war," as Hansen put it. On national security and foreign policy issues Obama is a novice; he has repeatedly made mistakes during the campaign, including his support for pre-emptive action in our ally Pakistan, the very thing he opposed in Iraq, and his misstatement in the debate Saturday night on why the violence was down in Anbar Province.

Both Lieberman and Kissinger have endorsed McCain. Kissinger has been non-partisan in recent decades and it is significant that he realizes as I do that national security eclipses all other concerns and that no one comes close to McCain’s credentials. We all know McCain’s history in the military. He’s now the ranking Rep on the Senate Armed Services Comm. His grasp of military and defense issues from 25 years in Congress blows the others away. This guy has character and valor and principles and none but the willfully blind can deny that.

Can we say the same about any of the others? Throw a dart --- Clinton. One must wonder for example what exactly is the rationale that supports Clinton's candidacy, the individual Bill Saffire of the NYT’s called a "congenital liar". Her claims to "experience" crumble at anything more than a cursory inquiry. The myth that she served as co-president is transparently bogus. On December 26 the New York Times published a lengthy article that gave the lie to her claims. In her time as first lady Clinton didn't hold a security clearance. She didn't attend National Security Council meetings. According to the Times's, "She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda." Naturally one wonders if anyone would have cared if she had. Her time in the Senate has been either undistinguished or ignominious, depending on your viewpoint.

Vote the party line if you must locally; vote for the security of your family when you vote for President of the United States.

Robert Craven