| Author | Message | | Guest | | Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2003 6:30 am Post subject: Ariel Sharon's Shakedown (of the US Taxpayers) |
| http://amconmag.com/01_13_03/buchanan7.html
Ariel Sharon's Shakedown
by Pat Buchanan
"Tough Love for United," exclaimed the Wall Street Journal, as it congratulated Uncle Sam for stiffing United Airlines' plea for $1.8 billion in loan guarantees. Rebuffed, the beloved old airline had to declare its bankruptcy.
It's all for the best, the Journal assures us, "maybe this tough love rejection will start a new government precedent, or at least we can dream." Fine. May we now expect the Journal to call on Mr. Bush to reject the $10 billion in loan guarantees demanded by Ariel Sharon?
Don't bet on it.
Yet, Sharon's demand is astonishing in its audacity. California and New York face huge budget shortfalls. The U.S. Treasury is running a deficit nearing $200 billion. Yet, Sharon, who ignored Bush when the president publicly called on him to pull his army out of West Bank cities, is demanding that U.S. taxpayers fork over $4 billion in new military aid and agree to pay off $10 billion Israel intends to borrow should Israel decide to default.
Why should we do this? What does America get out of this? What has all the $100 billion in aid we have shoveled out to Israel bought us, other than ingratitude and the enmity of the Arab world?
While Israel has a first-rate military, it is of no use to us. In Desert Storm, Bush I had to bribe Yitzhak Shamir with $5 billion in aid, $400 million in loan guarantees, and Patriot missiles to stay out of the fighting, lest Israeli intervention dynamite our coalition. Journalists and diplomats alike, returning from the Mideast, attest that our almost-blind support of Israel is a major cause of the anti-Americanism that is sweeping the Islamic world.
When the price of Israel could be paid in dollars alone, $3 billion a year, most members of Congress chose to pony up rather than face the retribution of an Israeli Lobby that has in its trophy case the scalps of two chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, J. William Fulbright and Chuck Percy.
But now the price of the Israeli connection has begun to rise. U.S. weapons technology given to Israel has been sold to China. Only direct U.S. intervention prevented Israel from selling Beijing AWACS technology. The Patriot missile, the Phoenix air-to-air missile, the Lavi fighter, based on the F-16, have all been sold to Beijing.
In the Reagan era, Israel had the loathsome Jonathan Pollard, whom it suborned into treason, loot our innermost national security secrets, some of which are believed to have been traded to Moscow. Israel refuses to return the roomful of documents it stole and has pressured presidents for Pollard's release so he can be brought to Israel where he is a hero.
Now Mr. Sharon has handed us Israel's bill for abstaining from war with Iraq while President Bush is at maximum political risk. Not since 1957, when Dwight Eisenhower ordered Ben-Gurion to get his army out of Sinai, has a U.S. president faced down an Israeli Prime Minister.
To his credit, the president's father tried. In 1991, having driven Iraq out of Kuwait, with his approval at 70 percent, Bush I was asked by Shamir for $10 billion in loan guarantees to bring a million Russian Jews to Israel. Bush assented, on one condition: Shamir must not settle them on the West Bank and must stop expanding settlements.
Shamir rejected the condition, and the Lobby went to work. Bush warned he would veto the guarantees. An Israeli minister called him an anti-Semite. While Shamir was defeated in June of 1992, Bush, his own election in trouble, ! eventually gave in and gave Israel the loan guarantees. Who was the Housing Minister who announced new settlements even as Bush I was denouncing them? Ariel Sharon.
Sharon now wants to repeat Israel's victory over Bush's father by making the son give Israel $4 billion in hardware and $10 billion in new loan guarantees as Sharon's price for permitting us to crush Iraq while he holds America's coat. It is a shakedown: Ariel Sharon's big sting
What should Bush do? Tell Sharon the loan guarantees will not even be taken up until he begins to dismantle all the settlements he has begun to build since George W. took office. And if Sharon attempts to roll him in Congress, he, Bush, will go to the country and roll Sharon.
In short, stand up for U.S. national interests and declare America's independence. Israel may be our ally in the war on terror. We are not Israel's ally in its war on the Palestinians. Our commitment is to Israel's security, not its settlements,! which are the cause of the intifada.
Sharon's opponent in January's election, General Mitzna, has agreed to negotiate with the Palestinians on the basis of Camp David and to begin withdrawals from the West Bank and Gaza. If Israeli politicians can stand up to Sharon, why cannot U.S. presidents? If members of the Knesset can refuse to follow the suicidal path of Sharon & Netanyahu, why is Congress so cowardly? | |  | | Guest | | | | Guest | | Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2003 7:12 am Post subject: BILLIONS to ISRAEL/ISRAEL SELLING US MILITARY TO CHINA |
| The following mentions how Israel is demanding BILLIONS from US Taxpayers when such vast financial aid should be used HERE in the USA for Americans when California is facing a 35 BILLION dollar deficit and out of work Americans are not receiving unemployment benefits (because there supposedly isn't enough funds available federally for such). Also, mention is made about how the US "ally" Israel (which intentionally and brutally attacked the USS Liberty in 1967 murdering 34 American sailors and wounding 171 in the process: http://www.ussliberty.org) has been selling sensitive US military technology to the Chinese (this is incredible):
Buchanan and Press’ for January 3, 2003 on MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com)
Guests: Victor D. Cha, Justin Raimondo, Paul Patton, Craig Crawford, Janine Zacharia, Donna Shalala, Charles Rangel
PAT BUCHANAN, CO-HOST: That’s right it is Buchanan without Press today and we will-he will be back on Monday, folks.
But thousands of United States Marines from the Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton, California are on their way to the Persian Gulf. As the Commander-in-Chief, George W. Bush rallied the troops at Fort Hood, Texas, the largest military base in the United States.
The war drums are pounding louder and louder and we will deal with both issues in the coming hour, but right now let’s go back up to MSNBC’s World Headquarters where Chris Jansing has the latest-Chris.
(NEWSBREAK)
BUCHANAN: Thank you Chris. Folks, we’ve been talking about that gathering crisis in the Persian Gulf where it’s about three and a half weeks now to January 27, when those U.N. inspectors report, which could be a deadline for war.
But there’s that other crisis in North Asia with North Korea and the United States and our guest is Victor Cha who is a professor at the Georgetown School of Foreign Service and an expert on Korea.
Mr. Cha what does Kim Jong Il, the dictator of North Korea want?
PROF. VICTOR D. CHA, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Well it’s a good question. I think there are two sort of theories out there. One is that this is a-an attempt to ratchet up a crisis to try to get the Bush administration’s attention and basically try to blackmail the administration. That’s not a particularly appealing strategy.
The other strategy, which is as bad, is that the-the North Koreans are not really interested in negotiating and that they’re actually trying to break out, and they’re actually trying to get as many nuclear weapons as they can by-by the springtime and then hope to negotiate from a position of strength.
Again, neither of these are very good outcome.
BUCHANAN: Well its-it could very well be trying to do both. They want a non-negotiation pact-or excuse me, a non-aggression-pact with the United States, they claim. The United States’ not going to give it to them. But what leverage do we have to force them to back away from this drive to acquire more nuclear weapons when South Korea and Japan and China do not look like they’re going to join us in this economic diplomatic isolation, which is the basic American strategy.
CHA: Right. Well I think the first thing you have to remember is the most useful leverage that the United States has is making the Chinese, the Japanese and the South Koreans realize that the desired outcome, i.e., non-proliferation on the peninsula, is in the interest of Beijing, Seoul, and Tokyo.
The Chinese in particular have said very clearly they do not want to see nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula. And in fact they were one of the strongest supporters of the 1994 agreement that initially got this whole thing started in terms of non-proliferation on the peninsula.
BUCHANAN: But look-Professor Cha-the-quite clearly, the Japanese and the South Koreans are terribly apprehensive of this crisis developing in a war.
They’ve got those 11,000 artillery tubes on the DMZ, they’ve got about five to seven hundred missiles that can hit Japan. Or Korea. They’ve got maybe two nuclear weapons according to Colin Powell.
And so the military option is out and so the Koreans and the Japanese, if you squeeze and isolate this country, it could collapse and if it collapses they could A) ignite the war or B) send hundreds of thousands of refugees soaring into China and South Korea. They don’t want that.
So they want a policy of appeasement. What can the United States do about it if that’s the way they want to go?
CHA: Well I think what’s very-I mean, I agree with the concerns that you’ve raised on the part of the South Koreans and the Japanese. They have those concerns. But I think one thing that we have to remember is that the alternative outcome, a North Korea with nuclear weapons, is clearly not in the interest of either of these countries. They can be coerced by North Korea if they have these weapons. The other thing I think we have to remember...
BUCHANAN: OK but let me stop you right there. They’ve got two nuclear weapons now and Secretary-I mean; Mr. Powell said in effect well they could get a couple more. But we’re not going to exercise a military option. South Korea’s not going to exercise a military option; Japan’s not going to do it. Probably. So what is-if they want these things by spring, they’re going to get them, aren’t they?
CHA: Well yes. I mean, they’re going to get them by springtime if their strategy is a breakout strategy that’s where they’re headed. I mean, if I could finish the last point.
I mean, I think what we have to remember is that all the people that we see criticizing the administration’s policy-saying they’re being too hard line, are the activists. What we’re missing out on is the silent minority.
There’s a strong group in Korea that sees a real problem with North Korean nuclear weapons. Polls that came out on January 1 showed that nearly 50 percent of the South Korean people see the North Korean nuclear weapons-as a real threat.
BUCHANAN: But you-Mr. Cha, look. I agree with that and I think the administration’s strategy is correct, quite frankly. But looking at South Korea and Japan and China I don’t see them cooperating in this isolation strategy and I don’t see how when you talk about spring we can stop them if it is a breakout strategy and I don’t know why North Korea wouldn’t have a breakout strategy if they got two weapons because look at the respect they’re getting from the United States as opposed to Saddam Hussein.
CHA: Right. Right. Well, I think the other thing we have to remember is that when we talk about a strategy of isolation, this strategy of isolation many people say is not going to be effective. As you said it’s not going to stop them from getting nuclear weapons. But I think what we have to remember about a strategy of isolation is that it’s a strategy of isolation that doesn’t aim to hurt the North Korean people. They’re hurt as it is.
What it’s aiming to do is to cut into the gains that the North Korean regime thinks it has achieved since 1994. And arguably there are gains in it that the North Koreans have gotten. The regime has gotten normalized relations with the European Union, breakthroughs with Japan and Korea, and what the purpose of this coordination that the administration is trying to do, particularly among Seoul and Tokyo is to show them these gains are not going to be there.
BUCHANAN: I know what you’re trying-I know what you’re trying to do. What I’m saying is it doesn’t look like the policy is working and it looks like if North Korea is seeking nuclear weapons they’re going to get them and if they do, we’re not going to go to war.
Now, why does not the United States pull its troops off the Korean peninsula and tell the Chinese and the South Koreans and the Japanese you want to appease you go ahead. But the United States is pulling out. That would leave South Korea and Japan frankly having to go for a nuclear option and that would be China’s problem, wouldn’t it?
CHA: Well it would. I mean you’d be-we’d be then placing the burden of defense completely in the region and withdrawing a U.S. responsibility in the region. There-you know-there are certainly arguments that one could make in that-in that-in that-in that vein.
BUCHANAN: They’re being made.
CHA: Right-yes-well, they are also costs that come with that. To the extent that American influence in the region. If you’re pulling troops out of Korea that naturally is going to affect the alliance relationship with Japan as well. And that naturally means that you could have a region in which if you give the responsibility to China you’re also giving the influence to China in the region. You know, some may see that’s the way to go. Personally, I don’t. I don’t think the United States should give up its influence in the region.
BUCHANAN: You think we ought to keep the troops in Korea?
CHA: I think we ought to keep our influence in the region.
BUCHANAN: OK.
(LAUGHTER)
We’re going to have to let you get away with that, Professor. Thanks very much for coming over; we hope to have you back again.
CHA: My pleasure.
BUCHANAN: Upcoming folks we’re going to talk to a gentleman who heads up the antiwar.com Web site and who doesn’t think a war in the Persian Gulf is inevitable. We’ll be back with more on America’s News Channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The fate of the Iraqi regime is being determined by its own decisions. Saddam Hussein knows precisely what he can and must do to avoid conflict.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BUCHANAN: That’s the President of the United States, folks. He’s at Fort Hood, Texas, the largest military base in the United States and he’s speaking on the same day that Marines from Camp Pendleton are headed for the Persian Gulf.
Our guest is Justin Raimondo who is the Editorial Director of antiwar.com which for this-this broadcasters money-is the best Web site on war and what’s coming of any that’s up there right now.
Justin thanks very much for coming on. Do you think that a war in the Gulf is avoidable?
JUSTIN RAIMONDO, EDITORIAL DIR., ANTIWAR.COM: It is avoidable. I think that the North Korean crisis is going to preoccupy this administration in the coming months and I also think that popular revolt against the-the prospect of war is also happening and you’ll be hearing more about that.
BUCHANAN: Well Justin with due respect we’ve got January 27 coming up which is this deadline for the inspectors. You’ve got all these Marines going over there. We’re going to be up to about 110,000 men by the end of January. You’ve got all those aircraft carriers. Do you really think the president of the United States can turn around and tell the American people that, you know, Hans Blix is done the job and there’s no need for regime change in Baghdad?
RAIMONDO: Well I find it really hard to believe that the President of the United States is going to overlook a real national interest and go to war. You know, we don’t have a dog in this fight at all.
We’re going to war if we go to war for two reasons. Number one, Israel. Those weapons of mass destruction are not aimed at Hoboken, New Jersey, folks. They’re aimed at Tel Aviv. Number one. So if Israel wants to deal with Saddam, let them.
Number two, it doesn’t matter who has the oil there and who sells it to us. OK? Which gang of Arabs has control of the oil fields there. They’re still going to sell it to us; they’re not going to drink it. So, I find it hard to believe that the president really is going to go to war.
BUCHANAN: All right but Justin, look, you know I take your arguments and they were made and had been made and are being made not only on your web site but in politics on-you know-in commentary and all the rest of it.
But it seems quite clear to me if you look at George Bush and you see what he is saying and what he is doing it is-he is almost locked himself in by his rhetoric and by his actions I think to a war and almost everyone now expects a war. I mean set aside the argument to whether it’s wise or not, you just don’t think he’s going to pull the trigger.
RAIMONDO: Well I think that first of all there’s not enough land troops there right now to do the job. There’s not 250,000 that the Pentagon wants. There’s about 100,000 going to be there. So, at the end of January about 100,000 troops it’s not enough. Number one.
Number two; I think that there are political considerations. This whole North Korean thing now the media can hype up a crisis in like 24 hours-less than 24 hours. So I think that the North Korean game is going to play out and that is going to be a big deal so I think that he’s not going to be able to ignore that.
BUCHANAN: All right he’s-I don’t think he’s ignoring it; I think
what they’ve decided to do if you listen to Colin Powell and the president
I mean, butter would not melt in their mouths when they’re discussing North Korea now.
I think they are not going to use the military option with regard to North Korea and they are going to try to get the Chinese and the South Koreans and the Japanese to go along with an isolation strategy which I was talking to Professor Cha about which they’re not going to go along with but I think North Korea is going to go down the road toward nuclear weapons or more of them and we’re not going to do anything so why should there be a war on the Korean Peninsula?
RAIMONDO: Well there shouldn’t be a war. But, how is Bush going to justify not going to war in North Korea yet going to war in Iraq? You know, we’ve had 230 site inspections so far in Iraq. They have found zilch. So we’ve taken this U.N. option-we have to go all the way down that road. You know, Colin Powell one and you know we’ve taken the U.N. road we have to go all the way down that road and that road may extend all the way to March, to April and beyond.
BUCHANAN: OK, Justin hold on right there. When we come back I want to ask you whether you really think the President of the United States can keep all those troops over in the Persian Gulf.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BUCHANAN: We’re talking about the prospects for war or peace in North Asia with North Korea. And in the Persian Gulf with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
Our guest is Justin Raimondo who is the editorial director of antiwar.com, which is the web site which deals with all issues of war and peace whether in North Asia the war on terror or the Gulf.
Justin, can you explain to me this. Tell me how the President of the United States-let’s say it’s February 10 — goes before the American people and says you know Hans Blix is doing a good job, we haven’t found any of these weapons of mass destruction, we’re going to stay going down the U.N. track and the inspections for the foreseeable future.
What is the impact of that on the neo-conservatives, Wolf-
Wolfowitz, Pearl, Rumsfeld-all the group in the administration, which is totally committed to war?
RAIMONDO: Well look they’re already attacking him. You know in the most recent issue of “The New York Sun” which is the neo kind of alternative to “The New York Times,” there’s an attack on the president’s wife. They-you know-they are already going after Bush. Mark Stein has a column in-in-in the “National Post” also attacking Bush for going soft and I think you’re going to see a lot of this.
You’re also going to have the Christian fundamentalists lobby screaming for his head, but you know what? The American people are against this war. They don’t like this war. My mother who is a Republican-she’s against this war. She hopes we don’t go to war. And, so I think that the vast majority of Americans are going to sigh with great relief that there is not going to be a war if he backs down. And, if he doesn’t then I think we’re going to be plunged over the precipice.
BUCHANAN: All right let me ask you make your prediction on how does the crisis in North Asia with North Korea-how do you see that playing out in the next three months and very quickly again how do you see the Gulf playing out in the next three months?
RAIMONDO: Well I think in the next three months you’re going to see a
a new demon appear on the horizon and that’s Kim Jong Il. We know nothing about him-you know-what the American people don’t know anything about Kim Jong Il. They’re going to learn.
And I think that-if you think that Saddam Hussein is a tough character you ain’t seen nothing yet. Those North Koreans are not going to give in. They are just not going to give in. They are facing a crisis. North Korean society is in crisis; they’re in meltdown and they have no choice but to break out or perish and they know it.
BUCHANAN: OK-OK Justin I think we’re almost out of time here. Folks we’ve been talking with Justin Raimondo-again his web site is antiwar.com. Check it out.
Upcoming we’re going to talk about another crisis and that’s the cash crisis of the states and the cash crunch and we’re going to be talking to the governor from Kentucky who heads the National Governor’s Association about how the states are going to resolve this crisis. We’ll be back with more.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BUCHANAN: The market may be down a little bit, folks, but it was a
terrific day yesterday, the first day of the year the market was open. It was up over 250 points on the Dow. Nasdaq was up over 4 percent.
Our guest now knows something about economic crises, because the states of the American Union are in, some say, the worst economic crisis they’ve been in some decades. He is Governor Paul Patton of Kentucky.
And he is the chairman-right, Governor-of the National Governors Association. He is a Democrat, a strong Clinton supporter. His state only went by 17 points for President Bush, correct?
GOV. PAUL PATTON (D), KENTUCKY: Shows how influential I am.
BUCHANAN: Showing a tremendous influence.
But, governor, what I want to talk about is really a nonpartisan issue, starting off. And that is this horrendous crisis, economic crisis, fiscal crisis, that is facing every state in the Union right now, because of the sudden drop-off in tax revenues and I guess the natural spending increase.
PATTON: Natural spending.
BUCHANAN: And so, how bad is it?
PATTON: Well, it’s as bad as it has been since at least World War II.
And I don’t think records go back any more than that.
Last year, for the first time, the overall revenue to states was off 6 percent. In Kentucky, we were only off 2 percent. So, we sort of feel relatively well. But it’s still a great big problem. And I don’t know that that has ever happened before. And state government expenses, by their very nature, are fairly stable,. Prison costs don’t go down when the economy turns down.
You don’t shut down schools. More people enroll in college. So, Medicaid, medical costs go up and yet this revenue has just died. It’s really a crisis.
BUCHANAN: This year, it is really a crisis. Let me give you an example of California. California is going to be $35 billion in debt over the next 18 months. I think their tax base-it’s the top earners pay something like 75 percent to 80 percent of the revenue. They’re leaving the state, these big taxpayers, whereas the folks coming in, coming to California, many of the illegal immigrants and legal, they’re tax consumers.
And I don’t know how California, for example, can solve that problem, really. It almost looks like an insoluble problem. You can’t cut that much, can you?
PATTON: And that’s an example of a whole lot of different things coming together at the same time.
We’re going into our third year of anemic revenue. Medicaid is just going up 11 percent, 12 percent, 14 percent a year. The criminal justice system, more people resort to crime, bigger demands on the criminal justice system. It’s a lot of different things.
BUCHANAN: Did you folks let 500 folks out of the prisons?
PATTON: We did. And yet we have increased spending on the criminal justice system in Kentucky 75 percent, since I have been in office, seven years, 75 percent. We have reduced crime by 10 percent. But we still don’t have enough money in our current budget to incarcerate all of the criminals that the court system is putting in jail.
BUCHANAN: So, you can’t incarcerate them. You turn them back on the population. These 500, what were they, drug offenders?
PATTON: Well, these were people that were going to get out of jail anyway in a week or in a month. They averaged 80 days yet to serve. So, these were nonviolent, nonsexual offenders that were going to go back into the general population in a relatively short time.
We felt like it was better to let them out early to make room for the more serious offenders that are coming into the system every day. But that’s just an example.
BUCHANAN: You couldn’t have saved too much by that if they were getting out anyhow, could you?
PATTON: By keeping our population down by about 500, we’ll save about $3 million for the rest of this year — $3 million for the next six months.
BUCHANAN: Let me ask you, because I have been seeing it in the press. The president is talking about a tax cut for dividend income, making the tax cuts he made permanent, and advancing them somewhat, maybe talking about cuts in Social Security and the rest of it.
But I have seen an idea broached by Democrats, your party, of something like a $75 billion state bailout in revenue sharing from the federal government, which is probably going to run a $200 billion deficit. Were you folks talking about that today with Governor Menino and the others — or, excuse me, Mayor Menino?
PATTON: We did, because the federal government can run a deficit without affecting the economy.
When the states are $60 billion short next year, which they’re going to be, that is going to be $60 billion in spending cuts or it’s going to be $60 billion in increased taxes. Either way, that’s a direct impact on the economy. That’s $60 billion that is going to come out of our economy next year if something is not done.
So, if the federal government does put $60 billion or $70 billion back into the states, that will keep us from impacting the economy. That’s a direct impact on the economy next year. And we think it’s justified.
BUCHANAN: OK, folks, we’re going to take a break now.
When we come back, I’m going to ask the governor what he thinks the chances are of getting George Bush to postpone that tax cut and give $60 billion or $75 billion to the governors of the states, half of whom are good Democrats.
We’ll ask him that question, folks, when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BUCHANAN: Folks, our guest is Governor Paul Patton of Kentucky, who is the head of the National Governors Association. He has made something of a flying trip, literally, to Washington, D.C. to meet with mayors. And the reason is the tremendous fiscal crisis that is facing America’s mayors and America’s governors because of the sudden falloff primarily in tax revenues.
Governor, let me go back to that question.
What do you think are the chances, though, that President Bush is going to go along with taking some of his tax cuts-proposed tax cuts-and shifting that money to the states?
PATTON: Well, I think that depends on our ability to get across to the administration the gravity of the problem and the absolute direct effect it is going to have on the economy.
We have kept the states operating through reserves. Because, about two years ago, states had $50 billion in reserves, because we saved money during the boom times. We cut taxes, about $30 billion during the boom times. But the reserves are gone.
BUCHANAN: But, Governor, isn’t this-look...
PATTON: And the administration needs to understand that.
BUCHANAN: All right, but all of you have got to balance your budgets, you governors do, and mayors do. And isn’t that basically a healthy thing?
PATTON: Absolutely.
BUCHANAN: That you can’t do like these fellows, which is just pile it on. And if you all start mainlining, if you will, out of the federal Treasury, with the deficit already ballooning toward $200 billion, $300 billion, there is no discipline left, is there, in the system?
PATTON: But, keep in mind, states do not have the responsibility of making sure that our national economy works.
The federal government has to make sure the national economy works. They have to balance out these things with deficits and surpluses, if we ever had a surplus. States don’t have that responsibility. But when we cut spending, it’s a direct drag on the economy that will show up just like that.
BUCHANAN: But why do you say that?
PATTON: And the administration needs to understand that.
BUCHANAN: Let me understand that. When you’re saying it helps the economy when you take money from taxpayers here and you give it to somebody else, how does that help the economy?
PATTON: We’re talking about the government running a deficit, like it’s running a deficit. I’m not in favor of the federal government increasing taxes to give the money to the states.
I’m saying, use the power of the federal government to generate money without increasing taxes.
BUCHANAN: Give it to you guys to spend.
PATTON: Well, to prevent us from impacting the economy. This is the most direct stimulus that the federal government can do to keep the economy from going back into recession.
BUCHANAN: Why is it more of a stimulus for you folks to spend the money than for Bush to give it back to those taxpayers, who will say, thanks a lot, Mr. Bush, and they will spend the money?
PATTON: Because, if we don’t spend the money, there will be people laid off. There won’t be projects built. There won’t be roads built.
BUCHANAN: And there will be a bloodbath among the governors in the 2004 election, won’t there?
PATTON: Well, they do get involved in elections, you know.
BUCHANAN: Yes. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but isn’t that a real probability, given the hard times-and there’s not too much you can do about it, unless you get a lot of money-that a lot of governors are going to be wiped out in the 2004 election?
PATTON: But, here in the Beltway, you all are not really connected in to mainstream America. We sort of deal with them every day.
(LAUGHTER)
BUCHANAN: I’ve been outside the Beltway once or twice.
PATTON: And mayors are out there. Mayors are right on the sidewalk with them. So, yes, when mayors and governors can’t deliver the services that the people are demanding, there’s going to be a political fallout from it.
BUCHANAN: Let me ask you a question, moving to another subject.
The president is very popular in your state. I think he’s very popular nationally.
PATTON: Very popular.
BUCHANAN: Is Kentucky pro-war or is it pro-Bush?
PATTON: Pro-Bush.
BUCHANAN: It’s pro-Bush?
PATTON: I think Kentucky will follow the lead and support the lead of the president. If he doesn’t know more about it than we do, we’re in bad shape.
BUCHANAN: But is it more of a vote, that people say, look, we’ve got to take out Iraq and Saddam Hussein and maybe North Korea, or, Bush knows what he is doing; let’s follow him?
PATTON: Well, in this case, I think it’s fairly obvious that Saddam is supporting terrorism. And if we let him off the hook this time, he will really have it in for us. Americans will be safe no place.
So, I think, in this case, we do know enough about this situation to know that we cannot leave him in control of all this oil money, unfettered, and free to support attacks against Americans around the world. That’s obvious to me. And I think Kentuckians want Saddam out and they will support anything the president thinks is necessary to do it.
BUCHANAN: And Governor Paul Patton is a hawk, just like the rest of the good folks in Kentucky, right?
PATTON: That’s right.
(LAUGHTER)
BUCHANAN: Thanks very much, Governor, for coming over. And good luck.
PATTON: Thanks, Pat.
BUCHANAN: Folks, upcoming, we’re going to talk with our military analyst on what is going on in Turkey. Are they going to let American troops in there or not for the war with Iraq?
You are watching MSNBC, America’s News Channel.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BUCHANAN: Only 24 days left until January 27, folks, which is the day the U.N. inspectors report on what they found in Iraq. And that, of course, could be very, very close to a D-Day. We’ll be following that every day right here at MSNBC.
Right now, let’s talk to Colonel Sam Gardiner, MSNBC military analyst.
Colonel, thanks for rejoining us again today. I guess you saw the report on Tom Brokaw on NBC that the Turks may be balking at allowing American forces in that country. We don’t know the exact-where that stands exactly. But tell us, how important are Turkish bases to American ground troops?
RET. COL. SAM GARDINER, NBC MILITARY ANALYST: Pretty important, Pat.
And let me see if I can explain using the map.
And what I am going to do is move Iraq over to the Caspian Sea, if I could. There are two military things that are important in Northern Iraq. One of them is the concentration of Iraqi forces around Mosul. That’s clearly a target. The other is the oil-rich area of Kirkuk, which is roughly here.
If a fight starts, we would want to get forces as quickly as possible into both spots, from Turkey to there, good idea; from Kuwait, passing Baghdad to there, much tougher to do.
BUCHANAN: All right, Colonel, yesterday, we talked a little bit about the Western desert. And I have been reading about the special forces troops in Jordan. Jordan may be balking at really heavying up those special forces troops.
Are these troops who would go into the Western desert in order to prevent the Scud attacks on Israel, which I believe were launched from the Western desert during the Gulf War?
GARDINER: That’s exactly right, Pat.
The launching area of those Scuds was roughly in here. What we know or what we think we know is that Saddam Hussein has somewhere between 24 and 60 Scuds. And there is thought that they’re hidden in this part of Western Iraq. So, the special operations force, the notion was or is that they go in here and search out the Scuds.
The Marines have been practicing with-or the special forces have been practicing with this, where you put eyes on the target. Then you call in fires as fast as possible to destroy them, before they can put up the launchers and send missiles into Israel, which, as you know, is the problem that could lead to a nuclear exchange or a nuclear attack on Baghdad or somewhere.
BUCHANAN: OK.
The Israelis, of course, have got the Patriot and the Arrow missiles, which are missile defenses. That’s an unpopulated area of Iraq, isn’t it? You would not need a great number of American special forces in there, would you?
GARDINER: No. That’s right, Pat.
And, in fact, what you could do is a little bit like what we did in Afghanistan. And that is, we took an airfield-there are a number of airfields out in here. You take an airfield and then you move forces in there and move in out of the airfield. And that could actually even be done from the Red Sea. The special operations troops could come into that airfield and use that as a main supply and then fan out from there.
BUCHANAN: Let me ask you just a quick question for a quick answer, Colonel. And I know it’s a big one.
But, if Saddam Hussein is going to fight, from what we have talked about, dividing the country up and America cutting off parts of it, is he going to try something like a Stalingrad defense, or would he, in Baghdad?
GARDINER: Pat, that is the one thing we do not know, that, when you get to the outskirts of Baghdad, you reach this big question. And that will determine whether the war is easy or hard. We don’t know.
BUCHANAN: OK, Colonel, we’re going to talking with you again, I’m sure, almost every day. And it’s a pleasure talking to you. And thanks very much for the insights.
Upcoming, folks: The Fiesta Bowl tonight is going to decide the No. 1 team in the country, Ohio State or Miami. And we’re going to talk with a lady who has an enormous stake in that game tonight.
That’s upcoming on MSNBC, America’s News Channel.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BUCHANAN: If we’re going to war with Iraq, should we reinstitute the draft and call everyone up in a fair way? In this coming hour, we’re going to talk to the congressman from New York, Charlie Rangel, who has proposed exactly that controversial measure.
(NEWSBREAK)
BUCHANAN: OK, Chris. It is Pat here and Bill Press is not with us. But it is Friday. We got our two journalistic guests here, our two top flight journalists. One is Craig Crawford, who’s the executive publisher of “Hotline,” a familiar figure here and another familiar figure Janine Zacharia of Washington bureau chief of the “Jerusalem Post” and she’s also exit 50 on the Long Island Expressway, exit 50. That’s where I live. Very good Janine. All right, well, let’s start with you and it is a serious matter. The president of the United States is at Fort Hood, the number one military base in the country. He is rallying the troops. We hear the Marines are moving out of San Diego, rather out of Pendleton, north of San Diego for the Gulf. Do you think war is avoidable at this point?
JANINE ZACHARIA, DC BUREAU CHIEF, JERUSALEM POST: It doesn’t seem to be so. If you look to Israel, they’re making the preparations in anticipation of a war sometime next month, as soon as early middle next month, testing their aero (ph) anti-missile system, distributing gas masks, getting ready for the worst case scenarios.
BUCHANAN: OK, Craig, do you think there’s any way to avoid it now? I mean can the president really back down and say old Blix is doing the job, we don’t need a war?
CRAIG CRAWFORD, EXEC PUBLISHER, THE HOTLINE: I don’t see how he gets out and saves face, but the costs, the political costs of this war are really becoming clear when you see these deployments because these are the sons and daughters and husbands and wives of families. It directly touches people. We’re talking up to 200,000, maybe 250,000 troops.
BUCHANAN: That’s interesting because it only-even with these deployments, you only have 110,000 over there. What you hear from Tommy Franks, what we read it’s going to take 250,000 to 300,000.
CRAWFORD: Tommy Franks, his plan, original plan was poo-pooed by the White House for this huge ground force and now it seems they’ve come to the realization an air war can’t do it. They’re going to have to put these people on the ground.
BUCHANAN: Let’s talk now about North Korea, the non-crisis. I do have to agree with (UNINTELLIGIBLE) when the secretary of state goes on five TV shows to say there isn’t a crisis, there is a crisis.
ZACHARIA: Probably a good call.
BUCHANAN: It obviously is a crisis over there, it seems to me. But the way the Americans are going to handle it apparently is we’re ruling out military action and we’re going to do what we can diplomatically. If we can’t resolve it, we’ll just continue down the road.
ZACHARIA: I think the president has a problem. Once he grouped North Korea in the axis of evil with Iran and Iraq, he has a problem now explaining to the American people about why we’re going to deal with one point in the axis but not with the point in the axis that already has nuclear capability and is going to expand that. He needs to make a better case to the American people on television, the president, about why Saddam Hussein poses a greater threat at this moment.
CRAWFORD: I think he got a bit of a bum wrap because diplomatically, anyway, they’re being very tough with North Korea. They’re not talking to them. They cut off fuel and food and rallying the world against them.
Diplomatic -
BUCHANAN: You don’t hear axis of evil, regime change, preemptive strike, preventive war. That’s all out. It’s we want to talk.
ZACHARIA: It’s also not fair to say that because North Korea is doing all these things that we can’t go after Iraq. It also shows, on the other hand, what happens if you leave Iraq alone. North Korea is capitalizing on the fact that we’re focused on Iraq. The same thing would happen if we went after North Korea right now.
BUCHANAN: Isn’t the message here exactly what Saddam Hussein said, if you have nuclear weapons, you get respect from these guys? You don’t got nuclear weapons. You get the 82nd airborne.
CRAWFORD: That’s very true.
BUCHANAN: I mean if I were in Iran right now, I’ll tell you. I have a billion dollars out on the black market and say we got to get nuclear weapons. I don’t care how we get them, because the only way you keep them off our backs is the way North Korea’s done it, which is get the weapons.
ZACHARIA: What Iran is doing right now with the help of the Russians in particular right now building more nuclear reactors and the U.S. isn’t saying very much about it.
CRAWFORD: I think one difference in treating Saddam a little tougher is North Korea didn’t try to assassinate his father.
ZACHARIA: Or invade another country or shoot scud missiles at Israel or anything of that nature.
BUCHANAN: You think it’s personal with the president a little bit?
CRAWFORD: He said it himself at least two or three times.
BUCHANAN: He tried to kill my dad. Exactly. Now let’s talk about Israel, because you got a lot coming up here. One is Bill Gertz (ph) who has covered this story very hard in the “Washington Times,” reports that apparently the Americans went public or they leaked it to Gertz to tell the Israelis to stop selling American top technology and weapons like the falcon radar, the AWACs (ph) radar system, the python missile, the Levy (ph) fighter, stop selling this stuff to communist China.
ZACHARIA: Let’s put it in perspective. The U.S. and Israel are strategic allies but they’re also strategic competitors and Israel has been selling to China for two decades, about $100 million worth of arms. This issue comes up every once in a while. In July 2000, the U.S. threatened all kinds of measures, threatened to stop sending apache helicopters to Israel, threatened to cut $250 million in aid if they did not stop this deal of selling an AWAC system.
BUCHANAN: But the Americans were bluffing.
ZACHARIA: Well, no, in the end Israel canceled the deal. They caved to the pressure. Right now at this moment, Israel is sending this weekend a team of people to ask the United States for $12 billion in loan guarantees and military (UNINTELLIGIBLE). They don’t want to do anything to make the U.S. upset which is why Israel is agreeing to (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
BUCHANAN: Let me ask a political question. How account the United States with a $10 billion loan guarantee to Israel, $4 billion in added military aid plus the $3 billion. Frankly, one of the packages looks like $17 billion. I just talked to the governor of Kentucky and these guys are all bankrupt, begging for money. Can the president give $17 billion or 15 or 13?
ZACHARIA: A lot of it is loan guarantees. They’re not going to have to give anything keep that in mind. Some of it is military systems.
CRAWFORD: In crass political terms, this White House, the political operation of this White House is very determined to win over Jewish voters in this next election. One reason is-this sounds crazy, Pat-but they think they can win the state of New York. They’re talking about putting the convention there. That is one state with a lot of Jewish voters. Don’t forget about Florida as well. I’m not saying that drives the policy, but it certainly drives some people.
BUCHANAN: If you win New York, you’ve won 46 states and they think they can do it, huh?
CRAWFORD: They want to. Karl Rove is determined. It’s part of Karl Rove’s plan to make this a majority party in New York.
BUCHANAN: Whatever Rove wants Rove gets (UNINTELLIGIBLE) you know that. Folks, upcoming, we’re going to talk about the new job Trent Lott may just get. We’ve got news on that in a minute. We’ll be talking with our guests and we’re also going to talk about Mr. Gephardt who may be the latest entry into the Democratic sweepstakes for the nomination for president in 2004. It’s just too exciting.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BUCHANAN: It is Friday and that means hot off the press at 3:00 here on BUCHANAN & PRESS and our guests are Craig Crawford, executive publisher of “Hotline” and Janine Zacharia, from exit 50 who is with us again, the Long Island Expressway.
CRAWFORD: Is that on your birth certificate?
BUCHANAN: Craig, we want to talk a little politics now. We talked war and middle east and north Asia. Gephardt, tell us how Gephardt...
CRAWFORD: You can’t stop laughing every time you say his name.
BUCHANAN: You told me how he got booted into the race for president. I mean some staff aide ought to be held under water until the thrashings stop. Tell us what happened.
CRAWFORD: Poor Dick Gephardt. He’s the classic middle manager who can’t get a promotion. He has been trying for 15 years. He ran for the president. He never could become speaker. I think he always kicked himself he didn’t run in ’92 because he was afraid of George Bush’s high approval ratings, the father, and paved the way for Bill Clinton. He doesn’t want to make that mistake again and he is running. I think you got to give him some credibility though because he’ll be able to raise a lot of money. He’s got the labor unions behind him. His home state practically is Iowa. He won Iowa in 1988 so he’s got some natural advantages.
BUCHANAN: What do you think about Mr. Edwards? He did announce this week and I’ll tell you. I’m astonished at the extensiveness. Every time I turned on television, there was Edwards and to be honest it was all favorable.
CRAWFORD: Until George Bush came out and did his press conference. Same format, standing in front of his house, stepped on that Edwards’ coverage. You got to wonder if they were watching that and wanting to stop it.
BUCHANAN: Maybe he did. But I’ll tell you this. I saw the coverage last night, just happened to be watching TV. Everywhere you turned and I will say this, the coverage was-some of us would envy the kind of coverage he got for that announcement.
ZACHARIA: Kerry got a lot of coverage, too, don’t you think? I mean these dashing new young candidates. Everybody wants to see them. But it’s a one-day story until the real race begins. It’s still a little early, don’t you think?
BUCHANAN: Yes, it’s mighty early but what do you think the real race is going to look — I mean it looks like Daschle is going to get in.
ZACHARIA: Lieberman. Lieberman’s a very interesting story to watch as well.
BUCHANAN: And he’s well positioned. You talk charismatically challenged. I’m serious. He is a very nice guy. He’s a bright guy. But you saw - remember the thing, the “Saturday Night Live” thing where they had the guy imitating him in a hot tub. It was too close I’m afraid. | | | | Guest | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | dangerousdna | | Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2003 4:24 am Post subject: Arik Sharoooooon's Shakedown |
| Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. If
divided by today's population, that is more than $5,700 per person.
GO TO http://capwiz.com/cair/home/ to demand that your tax dollars not be
sent to support Israel's brutal military occupation of the Palestinian people | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
