"Peacemakers" ungrateful for military rescue of kidnapped colleagues

Pulse24 - Toronto's News

Four members of the so-called "Christian Peacemaker Teams" were kidnapped four months ago by Muslim terrorists. One, an American, was tortured and brutally murdered. Today the three surviving hostages were rescued by British and American troops without casualties.

You'd think that CPT might express some gratitude to the soldiers who risked their lives rescuing these hostages. But no, CPT's statement of early today appears more consumed with anti-military rhetoric than real gratitude for those who selflessly secured the rescue of their friends.

"We pray that Christians throughout the world will, in the same spirit, call for justice and for respect for the human rights of the thousands of Iraqis who are being detained illegally by the U.S. and British forces occupying Iraq... We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq. The occupation must end.

I'm sure CPT is very happy over their friends' return, but not very happy at all that British and American forces were instrumental in freeing them. This rang loud and clear in CPT's public statement.

Evidently CPT heard from more than a few individuals who excoriated them for the ingratitude of their statement which stood throughout most of the day. Tonight CPT posted on its website an "addenda", which acknowledged the soldiers:

"We are grateful to the soldiers who risked their lives to free Jim, Norman and Harmeet. As peacemakers who hold firm to our commitment to nonviolence, we are also deeply grateful that they fired no shots to free our colleagues."

Am I being harsh on CPT, considering these people are still grieving the murder of their colleague, Tom Fox? I don't think so. Their grief did not prevent them from blaming the rescuers for causing the kidnapping and "so much pain and suffering in Iraq" through their "illegal occupation".

CPT's "addenda", published after a day of public outrage at the organization's ingratitude and political exploitation of the kidnapping and rescue, rings hollow.

Patriots accused of xenophobia in stopping ports deal

Port Deal Backlash -- Joe Mariani -- GOPUSA

In "Port Deal Backlash" the American public is scolded for demanding loudly and insistently that Congress stop Dubya from doing the dubious Dubai deal. It's unfortunate that President Bush and some leading Republicans dug in their heals to defend the transaction without giving due consideration to the nature of the public's objections or their tsunamic force. As a result, the President suffered an embarassing spanking.

I'm tempted to criticize some of the more strident Democrats who loudly (and perhaps gleefully) pounded the President while the pounding was good. However, I can hardly blame them. The President, I'm convinced, was backing a deal that was bad for the United States, and much of the public believed this to be the case. Presumably the President and Congress had further information that might have been used to defend the deal, but the public evidently didn't see the President make a convincing case. They felt he just wasn't using common sense. And suddenly the public's trust was undermined when it realized that the mechanism for approving such deals appears to be inadequate and potentially dangerous.

It's too bad, because President Bush has done some great things that have bolstered the security of the U.S. I suppose we shouldn't expect him to be perfect, but we should expect him to be consistently strong where he has shown his greatest strenghts: in protecting the security of the country.

President Bush, we need to see more coherent and comprehensive efforts to secure our borders, defeat terrorist enemies of the U.S., improve the fairness of our international trade, and reduce our federal spending.

This bad deal isn't dead yet... Congress, don't lose Your nerve.

Senator: UAE firm to transfer port operations to U.S. 'entity' - CNN.com

It appears that Congress is not totally deaf to the public, at least when the public reacts with enough unity and outrage.

However, this deal doesn't really sound dead. Dubai Ports World is proposing giving control of the ports to an American "entity". Why does DPW have any say in the matter if the deal is dead?

Let's remain vigilant and work to regain American control of all our American ports. The days are gone when it was acceptable to have our key infrastructure owned or operated by entities aligned with nations whose friendliness toward the United States is dubious at best.

U.S.-India nuclear deal is a threat to world security

India nuclear deal pushed - Washington Times

It's hard to guess how many nations will bare their nuclear arms before this decade is done. Perhaps more disturbing than the number will be the identity of those nations. The world already has been threatened by the nuclear saber-rattling of an Iranian Hitler and a North Korean Stalin. For Iran and North Korea, leveling the playing field with the U.S. and its allies may be a dream close to fulfillment. Other nations in Asia in Africa certainly are dreaming the same powerful dream.

There must be several former Soviet republics which still possess Soviet-era nuclear weapons. How many of them have resisted the temptation to quietly convert uranium to gold: an alchemist's dream, one that requires no science? How can they be expected to resist the temptation when now even the U.S. is openly forging a deal openly to trade nuclear technology for ...for what? Increased access to Indian markets? The U.S. will be perceived as selling nuclear technology in disregard of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This will diminish the authority and value of the NPT. On what basis can the U.S. object to the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea when it rewards India, who has for decades thumbed its nose at the NPT while developing and then testing nuclear weapons? The Indian deal will damage our ability to contain nuclear techonology through diplomacy and law, and will encourage our adversaries to heap contempt upon American non-proliferation rhetoric.

As second- and third-world nations race to achieve military parity with their more menacing neighbors, it will be increasingly difficult or soon impossible for the western powers to contain the genie any longer. Envy and hatred toward the U.S. and its allies will be fueled by the selective and self-serving attitude displayed by the U.S., which apparently is ready to pontificate against nuclear proliferation when it suits American interests, but is ready to subordinate such principles to economic interests at the whim of the administration.

Congress needs to dissect and examine this deal very closely, and consider very carefully whether the percieved benefits of this deal outweigh the very dangerous effects this deal may cause.

Even Republicans can't back President Bush on the ports deal

Lawmaker vows to kill ports deal -The Washington Times

US House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter is on the right track, and I applaud him for courageously applying common sense to this dangerous situation. Our national security is jeopardized by deals to sell assets and technology, or outsource control of critical infrastructure to foreign states, especially states whose loyalties and interests are not those of the United States. Unfortunately in this matter our own President Bush appears to be on the wrong side of the fence. Why is that? I really don't understand, but I feel our national security is threatened by some of his recent actions.

President Bush rewards India with nuclear technology, slaps Pakistan and China

U.S., India reach agreement on nuclear deal -The Washington Times

Let me get this straight... India has always refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and so now we reward them for this by granting them increased access to American nuclear technology. And in exchange for what? This article doesn't really make this clear, but You can bet Your bottom dollar that the answer is measured in dollars.

Turning over nuclear technology to India is likely to destabilize an already unstable region. How will this be perceived by Pakistan and China? Not favorably, who will regard India as an increasing threat to their security.

And this deal is good for the U.S. because... we will gain increased access to Indian markets?

I don't think so. I want to know which companies are behind the lobbying that promoted this plan. The most obvious suspects are those who will directly sell nuclear equipment or know-how to India.

The United States is selling itself to foreign interests, piece by piece, and risking a destabilizing and accelerated nuclear arms race between adversarial nations in Asia.

I hope Congress has the sense to kill this plan.