Skip to comments.A REAL WAR ( Sen. Coburn )
Posted on 11/16/2005 6:38:25 AM PST by OXENinFLA
A REAL WAR -- (Senate - November 15, 2005)
[Page: S12775] GPO's PDF
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today because, as I travel around Oklahoma, one of the things I find is a lack of recognition of the war we are in, why we are there, what the problems are associated with it. Every one of us has a heavy heart for the fact that we now have troops committed and dying and sacrificing every day in the war on terrorism.
As I thought about what to say to my constituents in Oklahoma but also to the American people, I found that I could not say it as well as retired MG Vernon Chong of the U.S. Air Force. I wish to read, for a few moments, a commentary he has written, dated October 1, 2005. If you would indulge me to read that, I think it will give us some enlightenment to where we are. He says:
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war, and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer, as far as the United States is concerned, is 1979--22 years prior to September 2001--with the following attacks on us:
Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut, Lebanon, Embassy, 1983; Beirut, Lebanon, Marine Barracks, 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland, Pan-Am flight to New York, 1988; First New York World Trade Center attack, 1993; Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Khobar Towers Military complex, 1996; Nairobi, Kenya, U.S. Embassy, 1998; Dares Salaam, Tanzania, U.S. Embassy, 1998; Aden, Yeman, USS Cole, 2000; New York, World Trade Center, 2001; Pentagon, 2001; and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, Plane Crash, 2001
Why were we attacked: Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administration of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were no provocations by any of the Presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
[Page: S12776] GPO's PDF
Who were the attackers? In each case, the attacks on the U.S. were carried out by Muslins. What is the Muslim population of the World? Twenty-five percent. Isn't the Muslin Religion peaceful? Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominantly Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration, or you were eliminated.
Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews, or of taking over the world--German, Christian, or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the attention of the world on the U.S., but kill all in the way--their own people, or the Spanish, French, or anyone else. The point here, is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslins there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders, and what they are fanatically bent on doing--by their own pronouncements--killing all of us ``infidels.'' I don't blame the peaceful Muslins. What would you do--if the choice was shut up, or die?
So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct, and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win, if you don't clearly recognize, and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions: Can we lost this war? What does losing really mean? If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.
We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question--``What does losing mean?''
It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home, and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is: We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorists to attack us, until we were neutered, and submissive to them.
We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals, and for the reason that they would see that we are impotent, and cannot help them.
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train, and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done.
The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France.
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life will all vanish, as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they are threatened by the Muslims?
If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?
The Muslims [Islamo-fascists] fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore, are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite, and really put 100 percent of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And, it is going to take that 100 percent effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by ``imploding.'' That is, defeating ourselves, by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life-and-death seriousness of this situation.
President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously?
This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily, or we will most certainly lose all of them, permanently.
And, don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory, and in fact, added many more since then.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict, and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying.
We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police.
By the way, all of those have gone to trial or are going to trial, and will be punished.
Again, these are MG Chong's words:
These are the type of prisoners, who just a few months ago, were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues, and otherwise murdering their own people, just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.
And just a few years ago, these same types of prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.
And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was, and is, providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.
Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who, for several days, have thought and talked about nothing else but the ``humiliating'' of some Muslim prisoners--not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but ``humiliating'' them.
Can this be for real?
If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.
To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle, as Rome burned--totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife.
Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in, and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.
Remember, the Muslim terrorists' stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into all non-Muslims--not just in the United States, but throughout the world.
We are the last bastion of defense.
We have been criticized, for many years, as being ``arrogant.'' That charge is valid, in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful, and smart; that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us; and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world.
If we don't recognize this, our Nation as we know it, will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive, if we are defeated.
And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone--let alone everyone, equal status, or any status for women.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war, or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written, or read.
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.
And, they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom, and will not apply it to you, or even to themselves, once they are in power.
They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other, over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the ``peaceful Muslims''?
I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.
After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country, and the World.
Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, and that includes the politicians and media of our country, and the free World!
Those are the words of retired MG Vernon Chong, U.S. Air Force.
I think it brings to mind the very important facts that face us today. We are at war. The war is real. The threats to our country and to our freedom are real. We must come together as a nation and recognize this threat, or we stand to lose the very principles, the very freedom, we each cherish so much.
I yield the floor.
I felt this needed its own thread.
Can this guy run for President??
Senator Coburn is speaking at our Cleveland County GOP Fundraiser this Friday night here in Norman, OK. I am so proud of Dr. Coburn and what he has brought to the Senate -- honesty, integrity, and a strong belief in what is the right thing to do.
Oklahoma Republican grassroots spent hours working to elect Dr. Coburn and I know as a member of that group I couldn't be happier with the job he is doing in the Senate.
Wish we had a lot more like Sen Coburn!
Thanks for posting!
Can we lose this war?
Well, that depends on the meaning of the word "lose".
We didn't lose the Vietnam war, we quit. Shortly thereafter, people were clinging to the landing rails of helicopters as we emptied the Saigon embassy and shortly after that human beings were being sent to re-education camps and communists from the North had completely taken over.
Can we lose this war?
No. Can we quit? Can we allow Iraq to fall to the terrorists? Can we allow the Middle East to be siezed by the worst of the worst?
Ask the Democratic Party who has found a possible political foothold on an "anti-war" platform. The more they pervert the truth and rile the citizenry against the war, the more they please their base. Its a dangerous ploy that has longterm and serious consequences much worse than the killing fields of Cambodia, because those killing fields may end up in the USA.
Funny how the General points out why WE may need to part temorarily with some liberties while McCain is trying to advance the rights of heinous terrorists.
I would love to have him as President! I would also be willing to work the same number of hours to make it happen and maybe squeeze in some more. Oklahoma Conservative Republican grassroots put him in the Senate against all odds. He started late in the race against the establishment candidate and a Clinton backed Dem in the general election. He ignited the grassroots here in Oklahoma, he won the primary handily, and defeated the RAT handily.
Only he attributed it to an AOL member. Snopes says it's a hoax:
Can you clone him please? He is desperately needed in California.
I'll give you two Barbara Boxers, and raise you one Diane Feinstein.
Can you clone him please? He is desperately needed in California.
I'll give you two Barbara Boxers, and raise you one Diane Feinstein.
My mistake, Snopes actually says that he didn't write it ... he forwarded it to friends vai email.
Yes...it does deserve a thread....but if I remember correctly....Coburn gave this speech BEFORE the vote on those stupid amendments...
SO...obviously he wasn't listened to by a majority of his own party members, let alone the dems.
Tom Coburn is EXACTLY the kind of Republican we need in WDC. You 'done' good Oklahoma.*~*
"I wish to read, for a few moments, a commentary he has written
What an impressive speech by Sen. Coburn!! One of the best I've seen in a long while. He makes points that no one else has made, to my knowledge.
If we can't stop the Islamofascists, who can?
I'd quote key passages but must run. Will check in later. Let's spead this speech around as much as possible and maybe send Sen. Coburn a big thank you!
See post 10, Coburn was reading a letter going around the net.
He's the one we need!
In the 2000 Bush campaign, we discovered something right here on Free Republic. The campaign would send out press releases but they wouldn't get published so three of us decided to try getting the word out for the campaign on FR and asked that Freepers email or deliver the press releases to their local papers. Over time, press releases started getting published and letters to the editor in support of Bush/Cheney began appearing.
I have always said that Free Republic was the link in the chain that helped elect the President and then fought for his right to be President in Florida and around the Nation during the Florida fiasco.
It is not often that one person can make a difference but when you combine an army of folks like on FR, we can all make a difference by sending items like this to our local media and writing letters to the editor. If you are consistent and keep it up, sooner or later more will join the effort.
You cannot sit back and say the MSM is not going to report -- you have to take action if it means taking an article like this personally to your local media and asking them why they continue to ignore and then contact sponsors with the same information. It takes time but you never quit fighting and giving into the liberals and their sidekicks in the media.
If the Oklahoman Conservative Republican Grassroots got discouraged at the lies and lack of reporting on the facts of what Dr. Coburn was saying during the campaign, then he wouldn't be in the Senate. We spent every day calling people, talking to people, sending letters to the editor, calling talk shows to get support for Dr. Coburn.
A phoney poll from the Tulsa World before the election said Dr. Coburn was going to lose by a fairly large margin -- that Friday night we had a fundraiser in Norman attended by some Freepers and a lot of others as you could barely move around the room, and he received quite a bit of money. The most important part was that we believed in this man and with the turnout and our words, he felt that belief, left the event in high spirits and went on to clobber the Clinton candidate in the general election.
Out of many campaigns I have been involved with, those two stand out as examples of what happens when we work together as a group even though we come from various states. Conservatives have to stop getting down or saying something cannot be done -- roll up the sleeves and get it done or keep at it until it is changed. Takes time, patience, and understanding of the enemy but in the end we will win because we have the winning message.
My two cents on this cold, sunny Wednesday morning here in the Heartland of the Country and home to the grassroots movement of Dr. Tom!
Dr. Coburn read a letter from a retired Air Force General into the record who to spoke to what he was wanting people to hear.
You didn't tell the whole story from Snopes -- Gen Chong is real and he forwarded this essay which ended up getting his name attached:
The above-quoted essay about the war on terrorism is yet one more example of misattribution through e-mail forwarding. Although USAF Major General Vernon Chong is indeed a real person, according to the Air Force News Agency (AFNEWS) the essay was not written by him; it was something he came across and forwarded to an acquaintance via e-mail, thereby attaching his name to it and inadvertently causing other recipients to erroneously assume he was its author.
When General Chong was contacted by AFNEWS he said that he did not recall who wrote the essay, so for now the identity of its true author is unknown to us.
Last updated: 15 November 2005
I would've included the Black Hawk Down incident along with the Hotel bombing attempt in yemen to get US troops, along with the Space Needle attempt.
Still a good speech. This is ridiculous that this has to be explained over and over and over to portions of idiots in this country--including idiot politicians who we know are lying through their teeth.
Dr. Coburn would make an AWESOME candidate and President.
Dr. Coburn is a good man. He needs to run for president some day. I am proud to have formerly lived in Oklahoma and that its citizens elected this man - he has a real spine!
Make him Majority Leader.
Direct answer to that question is Yes.
As you measure the response to some of his other positions--the effort to take some of the pork out of the spending bill for example; you see his broad electoral appeal.
However the Political Establishment is absolutely against him. The Senate was overwhelmingly critical of his position on the spending bill. And this effort is going to be met with silence also.
Properly organized and funded, he might have a shot at getting the Republican nomination through the normal process.
That said, I also want to cast some realism on General Chong's paper.
Recognition that the Moslems represent a clear direct military threat to Western Civilization and the obvious challenge presented by the need for a response does not mean that we need to endorse the foreign or military policy of the incumbent administration as the basis for defense.
To the contrary, the current effort is failing. In part for reasons identified by General Chong--we need to recognize who the enemy is and it is not terrorism, it is militant Moslems, many of whom are ethnically identified; Congress needs to specifically Declare War; we need to close and control the borders; and we most urgently need to develop and foreign and military policy that will work.
We need to be able to politically separate the issues of illegal immigration from the south from the need to be able to control our national territory. Although I personally would support deporting all illegals; and view the economic cost of supporting them in the US as having a net cost far in excess of any reduced labor cost benefit, we need to debate that issue separately from the fundamental issue of border control.
We don't need to sacrifice American lives and waste our tax dollars trying to civilize Iraq. Iraq is not a real country--it is a collection of at least four and perhaps five separate religious and ethnic groups that have been at each others throats for over a thousand years. It is never going to be a Democratically governable country--face it.
The easy obvious solution is to divide the country. The local Moslem's don't like it? If they were really willing to be part of an effective solution, we might give their views and objectives some consideration but they are not. We need to do it--and control the aftermath in the narrow geographical areas that are important to the US with treaties (oil production and military basing).
Torture is immoral and wrong. If you support it, what are you going to say to Jesus Christ when he asks you about it? It is also unnecessary in a realistic effort to make a practical response to deprive American citizens of their Constitutional rights. The Law is the foundation of our Republic. We don't need to abrogate the Law to mount an effective response to the Moslems--we need to find effective leadership.
If you want on
or off this list
There is no question in my mind that some, not all, national Democrat leaders would trade losing for regaining their personal political power. Howard Dean, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, and Ted Kennedy head the list.
After yesterday's vote...and my two Senators...Cornyn and Hutchison, chose to vote with the democrats...in trying to set a course for a Vietnam ending to Iraq...
Can you adopt me??? I like Coburn!
I think I will see if the Alabama freepers will adopt me also...because I really like Sessions also.
Since there is no one taking credit for writing this speech (MG Vernon Chong just forwarded it and did not know who wrote it), I vote to add one more militant action by the Islamists - Oklahoma City Bombing of the Murrah Federal Building, 1995, and then continue to forward this speech.
..."I would've included the Black Hawk Down incident..."...
It may be better to not refer to the "Black Hawk Down incident", but rather the "Battle of Mogadishu", in which a small unit of US Army Rangers, SOF Detachment Delta, and US Navy SEAL operators, supported by 10th Mountain Division troopers, killed some 1,000 Somali muslim ambushers at a cost of 18 US KIA and around a hundred WIA on October 3-4, 1993. This battle and the high number of US casualties was the result of Clinton Administration mission-creep and the fecklessness of Clinton and his worthless SecDef, Les Aspin, who refused to let the Task Force use armor or AC-130 gunship support. If they had the latter, they would have killed several thousand muslims...
Coburn should be the #1 candidate for President on the GOP side, not McLame. #2 should be Pence!
Tom Coburn for President!
Well, OK, but he still SAID IT and obviously agreed with it!
Coburn/Pence! Or Pence/Coburn works for me! These two guys make George Allen look like Bush 41, and Giluiani look like Jimmy Carter.
Dr. Coburn is one of the few people I have voted for that went to the Congress and is doing what he said he would do -- he would be great as President because his words mean something and are not just political rhetoric.
The Oklahoma establishment was against Dr. Coburn in the Senate race but he rallied folks like me who are part of the Okalahoma Republican grassroots and in a three-man race, Dr. Coburn won without a run-off in the Republican primary. He got in the race late, but his voice ignited the grassroots and the rest is history.
He has a message that is clear, conservative, and from the heart and is not afraid to stand up for what is right. He is just a good man who would make a great President IMHO.
Works for me!
Yeah, I realized that as I read further ... see my post #13
Thanks! I knew there was a General Chong or I probably wouldn't have read further.
we need Coburn to run for Governor, then it would be much easier for him to move up to President.
He would make a great Governor!
Bumping your two cents!
Just sent the speech to two friends of mine who engage in mass emailing!