A Historical Perspective

A two sentence "aside" in an item about Baby Boomers observes that Mark Udall's latest Congressional bill repeats a historic mistake.

The war lost support, and in retrospect deserved to lose support, because it was mismanaged by that part of the WWII generation that had moved into leadership positions. Johnson and McNamara were afraid to win the war and didn't understand that a war will inevitably be lost if the enemy is allowed sanctuaries. Johnson and McNamara never disrupted the import of war material, either through Haiphong or by bombing the railroad bridges on the China border. For some time, even the Ho Chi Minh trail was off limits to bombing.

As an aside, the latest bill that Mark Udall has put forward in Congress repeats this EXACT historical mistake. It makes Iran into an untouchable sanctuary.

Protecting Identity Theft Rings In Iran

Tonight, on Dateline, it was announced that a major identity theft ring was moving its operations to Iran so as to be beyond the reach of US authorities.

Iran is at war with us, and Mark Udall, (D) Boulder, wants to make its territory a safe haven for every criminal and terrorist activity that it can direct our way. If Udall wants to aid, abet, and protect this kind of activity from any kind of retaliation, and H.R. 3119 does just that, then he has no business running for a Colorado Senate seat.

If Udall thinks that his bill doesn't create a safe haven for identity theft directed at the US, or that Iranian based identity theft can be stopped once his bill passes, we would like to know how.

Tying The President's Hands

There is little doubt that the Israeli Air Force put Saddam out of the nuclear bomb business in 1981.

Peace Activist Mark Udall (D) Boulder introduced a bill on Thursday which ensures that the US will never be able to take any effective action to prevent the development of nukes by Iran.

The guts of H.R. 3119 read:

(a) Prohibition- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds appropriated or otherwise made available by any Act, including any Act enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act, may be obligated or expended for military operations or activities within or above the territory of Iran, or within the territorial waters of Iran, except pursuant to a specific authorization of Congress enacted in a statute enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Strategically, this is about as dumb a bill as could be conceived. Recall that the perceived threat of invasion, never expressed, caused Lybia to surrender the nuclear weapons plans it acquired from Pakistan. That was a good thing, but would it have happened if Mark Udall had submitted his bill in 2000 and substituted "Lybia" for "Iran?"

It is entirely possible that the bill also prohibits military action by Israel to protect itself, reactively or preemptively.