Tough Questions for Those at the Helm

Steve Montgomery & Steve Farrell
Sept. 13, 2001

We are reminded of the declaration of Elisha Williams in his 1744 political sermon "The Essential Rights and Liberties of Protestants," that "[a] man should scarce deserve the character of a good member of society who should receive to be silent on all occasions, and never mind, speak or guard against the follies or ignorance or mistakes of those at the helm." (1)

So let´s not hide the truth of a President Bush who is every bit the internationalist that his predecessor was, perhaps more so, and thus, in light of the evidence that follows, perhaps indirectly to blame for the tragedy which affects us this day.

In the May 22, 2001, Los Angeles Times, we read:

Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that 'rogue regime' for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.

Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over bin Laden. (2)

Syndicated columnist Robert Scheer´s prediction: "The Taliban may suddenly be the dream regime of our own war drug war zealots, but in the end this alliance will prove a costly failure. (3)

Commentary from this corner: The Taliban has long been known to be supporting, harboring and protecting bin Laden - further, Mullah Mohammad Omar, Taliban´s equivalent of Iran´s Ayatollah Khomeini, has been closely associated with Osama bin Laden and is reportedly married to bin Laden´s 18-year-old daughter (4) - and we give them $43 million to fight drugs? What's wrong with the thinking here?

We blame Clinton for a weakened state of national security - as we should - but what about Bush, what about the Republicans who had the majority in both houses of Congress and yet failed to mount a credible resistence to each and every step by Clinton to simultaneously weaken us and strengthen our enemies - all because of re-election fears and hypersensitivity to poll data?

Will NWO Republicans Ever Learn?

As devastating as the above tidbit is, yesterday´s confession by Sen. Orrin Hatch that Osama bin Laden has been on the CIA payroll since the early 1980s is equally alarming. Hatch, remarkably, defended the measure, even now, after the fact of bin Laden's long trail of blood and this week's suspected mass terrorism. Hatch said he would support such aid again, for it helped bring down the Soviet Union!

Does Hatch really believe this? Has Russia stopped financing, training and encouraging anti-American "rogue" nations and terrorist organizations since the so-called fall of the Soviet regime? Have Russia´s intelligence activities against this country decreased or increased since the "fall"? Has Russia, as a result of our blind trust, upgraded its technological capabilities, put its hands on our stealth aircraft and so many other high-tech military items and advantages that were solely ours before the "fall," or not? Is Russia really as helpless as some Republicans would lead us to believe, or is it leading us into a trap? Isn't it true that, thanks to our timely aid, Russia leveled entire cities, civilian populations included, in Chechnya, because we really believe they fell and transformed into saints?

In regard to the above questions, why isn´t the Republican Party pointing the finger, not just at the likes of Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Sudan, but at its chief motivator, teacher and supplier, Russia? And what about NATO and U.S. new world order aid to the Maoist drug-running KLA, which is armed, equipped, and trained by bin Laden? (5) What are your answers, Mr. Hatch?
Hatch, however, does not stand alone in his blind and audacious loyalty to party and the new world order.

Writing in the Sept. 12, 2001, Republican standard bearer, The National Review, Aaron Mannes offers this solution to this week's bombing:

"The United States supported dissident groups such as Charter 77 during the Cold War. These groups of intellectuals did not have an immediate impact, but they played a role in crystallizing opposition to the Soviet Union. The United States could begin to sponsor similar groups from the closed regimes of the Middle East, such as Syria, Iran, and Libya." (6)

National Review columnist John Derbyshire also joined the chorus in defense of the internationalist, throw-money-at-the-thugs solution. Incensed is the only word to describe his outrage over what he called "right wing opinion websites," which were in one way or another echoing the common sentiment expressed so to the point by defenders of national neutrality and unilateral policy, like Pat Buchanan.

Said Pat: "On the day after Pearl Harbor, ex-President Herbert Hoover sat down and wrote to friends: ‘You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten.´ A scriptural adage advises, if you have a dispute with somone, handle it "between him and thee alone." It avoids the unneccessary spreading of local conflicts into international feuds.

So, what´s wrong with that? When it comes to the National Review, plenty.

"Now, I don't mind Paleos," writes Derbyshire. "I understand the appeal of their vision: A busy commercial republic, minding her own business, with no troops stationed beyond her shores, the champion of liberty in every land, but never its guarantor. Heck, I used to belong to a Paleo e-mail list. I know all the arguments. ... The strongest one, so far as I am concerned, is the one that says you can't maintain liberty as the Founders understood it when you are practicing Empire. You'll be hearing this a lot, too, over the next few weeks. In calling for their government to better protect them against these horrors, many people won't much mind if, in order to do so, the government closes down some of our liberties. Yes, yes, I know the arguments.

"I dropped off that Paleo list, after much thought, because I just didn't share that vision." (7)
Such is the typical thinking at the National Review. To call the National Review the right wing of the new world order is no exaggeration. When it comes to foreign policy and national defense, they talk tough, but offer solutions which almost always involve the United Nations, NATO, WTO, NAFTA, FTAA, the IMF and the World Bank. To them, CFR/Trilateralist Henry Kissinger is as near unto God as one may get. But as for that, there is no faith to solve "between him and thee alone," as the Lord instructed. That would be far, far too prosaic for them. And as for Bretton Woods? The paper their magazine is printed on, no doubt, comes from trees that fell that day.

Solution

In the coming war against terrorism, we can do better than listen to the dubious voices of the National Review that tell us to lean unto the International Leviathan, and do better than blindly trust the Republican Party and its commander in chief who, like Clinton, have aided the very terrorists who have killed us.

We can do it alone. The internationalists tell us that these kinds of problems are too big for any one nation to solve. What utter nonsense.

Whose troops, aid and technology have defended Europe for 80 years? Who paid for the rebuilding of Europe after WWII and continues to carry the brunt of Europe´s defense budget today? Who has, for a half century, defended Japan and Korea, and thus in essence, propped up their economies? Who was it, in fact, who propped up the whole Communist World with George F. Kennan styled aid? Who financed and built the Kama River truck factory - the very factory that constructed the vehicles that invaded Afganistan - in the first place, thus leading to all its troubles?

We can do it alone. We already have. We, it seems, were the financier of everything good, and so much of that which was bad in this past century. The real solution is to concentrate on ourselves, stop aiding our enemies, and let the rest of the free world grow up. Only then will our enemies be the homeless beggars on the street they deserve to be. Let us begin by saying no to any more internationalist solutions and yes to a firm unilateral response.

NewsMax contributing columnist Steve Farrell is the senior editor of the American Partisan, a widely published research writer, a former Air Force communications manager, and graduate student in constitutional law. Joining him is fellow researcher, historian, constitutional scholar and friend Steve Montgomery. Contact Steve and Steve at StiffRightJab@aol.com.

Footnotes

1. Sandoz, Ellis, Ed. Political Sermons of the Founding Era, 1730-1805, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1998, pg. 60.
2. Scheer, Robert. Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban, the Los Angeles Times, May 22, 2001
3. Ibid.
4. Jasper, William F. American Made Terrorists, The New American, Oct. 12, 1998. Also, The Right Answers, The New American, Jan. 17, 2000.
5. Grigg, William Norman. Diving Into the Kosovo Quagmire, The New American, March 15, 1999
6. Mannes, Aaron. Freedom First: The War Against Terrorism Promises to be a Long One, National Review, September 12, 2001
7. Derbyshire, John. The Surrender Option: The cry of the Paleo, National Review, September 12, 2001