U.N. Nominee Is Accused of Seeking 2nd Dismissal
By Steven R. Weisman, NY Times
As the Dems reload and take another shot at Bolton's nomination for UN Ambassador, the name Fulton T. Armstrong seeps to the surface. Unless Democrats, as a party, are foolhardy enough to believe the terror threat from Latin America is completely irrelevant to the subject of national security, Bolton's attempts to remove Armstrong from his post should be construed as a positive step and should cinch his appointment.
If it doesn't, the Democrats are in serious need of a reality check.
Case in point, Mr. Armstrong has a propensity to be soft on Hugo Chavez (Venezula), as well as Castro and Aristide (Haiti). Per a scathing article by AIM (Accuracy in Media) entitled JOE McCARTHY WAS RIGHT back in July 2003, Wall Street Journal's Mary Anastasia O’Grady had reported in her March 14th column that Armstrong "backed out of a scheduled February 27 public appearance before the House International Relations Committee because he feared being questioned about the CIA’s nonchalance toward adverse political trends in Latin America and the threat to U.S. security posed by the Chavez regime."
Al Santoli, Senior Vice President of the American Foreign Policy Council, told the Free Congress Foundation’s radio news service that Venezuela, an oil exporting nation ruled by a friend of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, is more of a national security problem than Iran. Santoli, who served as a top congressional aide, says Chavez and Castro are helping run guns to the Colombian terrorists. There are currently more than 350 U.S. military advisers in Colombia and the number is growing. He says Chinese special forces are now training Chavez’s military, and that there are reports of al Qaeda members being brought into Venezuela as Chavez’s guests. He is Venezuela’s Allende.
In a new report, the American Defense Council notes that not only does China control ports at each end of the Panama Canal, it dominates seven of the 10 major global shipping chokepoints.
Shane Connor, a Texas businessman who has traveled several times to Venezuela and interviewed military officials who have quit the Chavez regime, tells AIM that Air Force Major Juan Diaz Castillo, a former pilot for Chavez, has revealed his own role in the payment of $1 million from the regime to al Qaeda after 9/11. Connor said this disclosure made headlines in Venezuela but not in any major American newspapers. Connor also said there is evidence that a controversial bioweapons lab reported to be in Cuba has been secretly transferred to Venezuela. The location has been posted at www.MilitaresDemocraticos.com, a Web site in English for opponents of the Chavez regime.
It goes without saying that while most MSM eyes are focused on the Middle East, Latin America has been a growing concern behind the scenes for some time. And the threat has not been limited to Chavez.
Much as the Dems would like to make it seem like a conspiracy theory, Bolton's battle to remove Armstrong has not been a closely guarded secret. Behind Bolton's frustration in his dealings with the Latin American intel officer was Armstrong's reticience to admit intel threats from Cuba's Castro. From NY Times Tim Golden, in a publication from Jan 2003 entitled White House Wary of Cuba's Little Spy Engine that Could, Mr. Armstrong was on record with his skepticism of Cuba's threat to the US. Put in more direct terms, Castro's intention to develop biological weapons, and it's support to states that sponsor terrorism such as Libya and Iran, simply did not register on Armstrong's threat barometer.
During the 90s, most Clinton officials considered Cuba a diminished power. But outraged Cuban-Americans differed in their opinion. Bolton, in full agreement about the potential threat, was quoted as saying "A major reason is Cuba's agresssive intelligence operations against the United States".
Case in point was the Pentagon's own report on Cuba in the 90s, partially drafted by Ana B. Montes. Ms. Montes later admitted to being an unpaid Cuban spy for over 16 years. Woof... Where was the blogworld then?
Skipping beyond all the historical bull, it truly comes down to this. Should Bolton be demonized by the Democrats because he held Cuba, Venezula and Haiti to accounts on national security issures regarding terrorism? And should Armstrong's obvious but quiet allegience to the leaders of these same countries be counted as credible reasons for denying Bolton's appointment?
In today's climate of terror and slithering evils, we need to appoint a strong voice to the UN that doesn't wilt under liberal assaults and stands firm in holding intel officers accountable for their personal views - most especially when they get in the way of national security. If left to the Dems, we'll putz about and find an appointee that the Dems will agree to that continues to ignore the growing terrorist threat from our southern borders.
Frankly I think the answer is a no-brainer.
No comments:
Post a Comment