(01/26/2006)
Generally speaking, I try not to speak out “in print” concerning political issues. The first reason is that Jesus virtually ignored the politics of His day (even though His people were under the boot of one of the cruelest conquerors man has ever known) because He knew that “the world” would always be “the world” and that the temporal politics of borders and wars were insignificant compared to securing the eternal destiny of individuals. His kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36).
In addition, I admit to a certain unresolved “double-mindedness” concerning war in general at this point in my spiritual development. I see the clear example of Jesus and His apostles who chose not to defend themselves or their loved ones against violence even if it meant their deaths. However, I also see clear examples where God used war to fulfill His will and even the New Testament states that governments “do not bear the sword for nothing” (Romans 13:4). So should we follow the example of Christ and choose to die at the hands of our enemies even if it means the loss of our country and our children’s future? Or should we kill our enemies when it becomes clear that there is no other way to stop their evil violence from spreading? I have difficulty finding consistent scriptural support for the latter stance in the New Testament but I also have difficulty believing that God wants us to allow evil to conquer the world unopposed.
Having said that, it’s hard to imagine a more clear case for war than we had in Iraq and I can no longer sit idly by and allow the revisionists free reign without speaking out. Those who propagate and repeat these fictions do so for many different reasons. Some know the truth yet twist the facts for political gain. Others knew the truth at one time but have spun it to their advantage for so long that they aren’t even consciously aware when they have crossed the line into outright lies. And most of those who simply repeat what they have heard do so because those in government and the media used to be worthy of our trust so we assume that the fabrications we hear them utter so frequently must be true. But underlying all of these reasons is the “father of all lies” (John 8:44) who is convincing the world to swallow bigger and bigger lies in preparation for the Big Lie of the Antichrist. The world has been sent “strong deception” and the deception is growing (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12).
Let me start off by refreshing your memory concerning the events leading up to the Gulf War and Iraq War. As you may recall, Saddam invaded a little country known as Kuwait and then threatened Saudi Arabia with the same. In response to Saudi Arabia’s request, the United States along with a coalition of other countries drove out the invaders. However, we stopped short of toppling Saddam Hussein at the urging of our Arab coalition partners. Below is what followed and as Kevin Bacon said in “A Few Good Men,” “these are the facts of the case and they are not in dispute.”
From Prime Minister Tony Blair’s address to Parliament on February 26, 2003:
“On 3 April 1991, the UN passed the first UN resolution on Saddam and WMD, giving him 15 days to give an open account of all his weapons and co-operate fully with the UN inspectors in destroying them. 15 days later he submitted a flawed and incomplete declaration denying he had biological weapons and giving little information on chemical weapons. It was only four years later after the defection of Saddam's son-in-law to Jordan, that the offensive biological weapons and the full extent of the nuclear programme were discovered . In all, 17 UN Resolutions were passed. None was obeyed. At no stage did he cooperate. At no stage did he tell the full truth.”
http://www.iconservatives.org.uk/case_for_war.htm
President Bill Clinton on February 17, 1998:
“In 1995 Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities--and weapons stocks. Previously it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.
Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.
Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal… In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/003/236jmcbd.asp?pg=2
A few quotes from other distinguished Democratic politicians at the time:
“Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply militarily.” – Sen. Tom Daschle, February 11, 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, December 16, 1998
At the end of 1998, the Clinton administration responded to all of this by ordering a four day bombing campaign against suspected weapons facilities. Saddam then expelled all UN inspectors resulting in 4 years during which there was essentially no way of knowing what was going on in Iraq.
Then along came September 11, 2001. The fact that a handful of people could cause such destruction necessitated a reevaluation of our defensive policies. If people who wore no uniform were willing to kill themselves in order to kill as many Americans as possible, and these people were receiving support from the governments of other nations, then it became readily apparent that we no longer had the luxury of waiting for a devastating first strike but must seek to preemptively prevent these attacks. This new stance was called the Bush Doctrine.
When we finally traced the perpetrators of 9/11 to Usama Bin Laden and discovered that he was being hidden and support by Afghanistan, we paid them a little visit. All the while, political maneuvering in the UN, sanctions, and enforcement of the No Fly Zone in Iraq sought to convince Saddam to comply with UN resolutions but to no avail. An estimated $3 Billion a year was being siphoned off the “Oil for Food” program by Saddam for his personal use and (as we found out later) for bribing UN officials. So a final resolution was approved by the UN giving Saddam one last chance to comply which he failed to do.
Again, a few quotes from the Democratic side of the aisle during this time:
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” Sen. Barbara Boxer, November 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 , January 23. 2003
So with a smaller international coalition than the one which was used for the Gulf War, the United States with the consent of the Senate and the House invaded Iraq to remove Saddam from power.
As I said, “these are the facts of the case and they are not in dispute.”
Back to current time…now we have all of these Monday Morning Quarterbacks saying that there were no WMD found and, therefore, President Bush lied and we went to war under false pretense. But not satisfied with that they go on to say that we had no reason for going to war in the first place, we can’t win there, and we need to just go ahead and pull our troops out as soon as possible because our boys are dying there for nothing.
OK…let’s take a visit to Bizarro World and let’s say that all these naysayers got their way. Let’s rewind the clock and say we never went into Iraq. Saddam Hussein is still in power. We’re still wrangling with Iraq in the UN. The Oil for Food program is still filling the purses of Saddam and select UN officials. We’re still enforcing the No Fly Zones. There are still no inspectors on the ground in Iraq. And Saddam has had 8 years to do whatever he wants with his weapons programs. Beginning to feel uneasy yet?
Now let’s throw in the fact that despite what you may have heard, there were documented and extensive communication and cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda (http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406170840.asp).
I venture to say that if we had NOT invaded Iraq, the last 3 years would have been very different here in the United States…and not for the better. Want me to draw you a map?
Let’s see…fact number one. Every major event of terrorism in the past decade has had one common factor. They were all committed by Muslim terrorist organizations. These groups have made no secret of their desire to acquire WMD in order to inflict the highest number of casualties on civilian populations. Fact number two…there is only one country in the world that is predominantly Muslim, is known to have WMD, and is known to have used WMD on multiple occasions including on their own people…Iraq. Fact number three…in Bizarro World, the United States has been the primary enemy of Saddam Hussein and has prevented him from fulfilling his dream of becoming the leader of the Arab world for almost two decades. Therefore, he has a serious axe to grind with us. Now that he has all this time with no inspectors, I wonder what he might spend his time and energy doing…perhaps plotting revenge? Why not slip a vial or two of bio-weapons or nerve gas to Al Qaeda? After all, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” goes the old Arab proverb, no?
So I find it extremely probable that sometime in the past 3 years we would have had another major terrorist attack here in the US and this time with biological or chemical weapons. And I’d be willing to bet large money that all of you that are out there calling for Bush’s head for not finding WMD would then be calling for his head for not doing what it took to prevent this entirely predictable tragedy.
So take some time and THINK before you allow the Democrats and the liberal media to pull the ol’ Jedi mind trick on you and get you to start parroting their Alzheimer’s version of history. Yes, Iraq is a mess and no there is no easy or perfect solution. But put yourself in the Commander-in-Chief’s chair and consider what you would have done. Isn’t it obvious that to NOT take out Saddam would have been criminally negligent and resulted in the materialization of a graver threat on our own soil than any that we have yet faced?
And About The Wiretapping…
As a footnote, allow me to address a related matter which should be obvious enough but apparently isn’t. It concerns the listening to of certain phone calls where one end of the conversation is outside the United States by our government. First of all, not all calls are being monitored and analyzed…only ones where one end of the conversation is outside the USA. Secondly, unless you’re doing something illegal, you have nothing to fear and should be grateful for the vigilance of the government in protecting YOUR safety.
Romans 13:3,4 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
Thirdly, those who state that warrants should be required for any kind of “electronic eavesdropping” should take about five minutes and analyze the situation. Consider the fact that al Qaeda and related groups don’t have an official member’s roster with their names and addresses. We simply do not know who MOST of them are. How do you get a warrant for listening to someone when you don’t know exactly who and where they are? If they do use a cell phone, then they use it once or twice and then switch to a new one. How do you use a warrant to address that?
And think about how it is that we get alerted to a potential terrorist phone call in the first place. How do you think that occurs? How would YOU do it if you were in charge of national security? I have no knowledge of how such operations actually take place, but I can make a few common sense observations based on our current technology and the gravity of the threat. First of all, I would have a vast computer system which would analyze (not permanently record and store) ALL phone calls within our technical reach. This would be an automated process and would only flag calls that match a certain criteria. I know that just sent up a red flag for many of you, but if we had Usama or one of his known operatives making a phone call WITHIN the United States wouldn’t you want to know that? The only way to catch that is to have ALL calls analyzed by computer.
Calls that match the criteria would be stored and analyzed by our intelligence services in as close to real time as possible in order to stop any imminent terrorist attack. Now what would the criteria be? Of course, you would look for voice matches on known terrorists. But as I said, we don’t know the names of MOST of al Qaeda’s members. So what else would help you recognize calls that need further investigation? Calls where one end of the conversation is outside of the USA might merit a closer look than your average domestic to domestic call, don’t you think? Calls where one end is in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan or other Arabic countries certainly should be considered. We might also look for certain keywords in English such as “jihad”, “Allah”, or “bomb.” We might also take a closer look at calls where the speakers are using Arabic or perhaps certain dialects of Arabic. We also would probably analyze phone calls that match any of the above criteria which happened immediately before and after a known terrorist event.
Don’t these criteria make sense in view of the fact that we have an enemy who is seeking to kill as many of us as they can any way they can? If another major terrorist attack occurred, would it not be considered criminally negligent to NOT do this when we had the ability to do so? How do you get a warrant to cover this sort of situation? Do you really want our government to reveal the exact criteria and mechanisms we use that make the acquiring of a warrant problematic and meaningless? The government can’t talk about such things publicly because to do so would be to lose what little edge we have in electronic intelligence gathering.
Some will scream in protest that we’re “profiling.” My answer would be, “Yes…and?” According to WordNet a profile is “an analysis representing the extent to which something exhibits various characteristics.” In other words, you do what every detective seeking to solve a criminal case does and you check out the most likely suspects. If it were Spanish-speaking, Christian grandmothers who were performing acts of terrorism then it would be stupid not to focus on them. However, the perpetrators are invariably young Arabic Muslim males. To simply ignore this fact when determining how to prevent future terrorist attacks is to allow political correctness to placed above the lives of our children.
Our laws and our Constitution are designed for our protection but we need to recognize special circumstances where they prevent us from doing just that. Historically, when our country is at war, the requirements of those special circumstances have always been recognized. We are now in a war unlike any other that we have ever been engaged in. We must not allow our enemy to hide behind our good will and the laws which were designed to protect us.
As a final word, let me say that I feel with ironic certainty that the same extreme measures which we are enacting to keep us safe from Muslim terrorism will in the future be used against fundamental Christians. It becomes more apparent everyday that the world is all too happy to entertain a little religion (even if it’s called Christian) as long as it is done in moderation. However, the term religious fundamentalism is applied equally by the media and world leaders to blood-thirsty Muslims blowing themselves up in an attempt to kill as many others as possible and to Christians seeking to spread the uncompromising Gospel of Jesus Christ at the risk of their own lives. We are all being lumped together as intolerant Enemies of the State. The stage is set…now we’re just waiting for the opening curtain.
John 16:2-4 “…an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God. These things they will do because they have not known the Father or Me. But these things I have spoken to you, so that when their hour comes, you may remember that I told you of them…”
2 Thessalonians 2:3-4,6 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.
