- The Washington Times - Friday, June 6, 2003

WMD, the United States and Canada

In his Op-Ed column concerning international efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction from the former Soviet Union (“Destroying WMD,” May 22), Rep. Duncan Hunter stressed the lead role of the United States. His assertion, however, that the United States “must pay for almost everything” does not accurately reflect the situation.

Less than one year after its launch, the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction has made significant progress toward the $20 billion target set at last year’s Kananaskis Summit. Canada has committed up to $720 million in U.S. dollars for the next 10 years — roughly proportional to the U.S. contribution in gross domestic product terms.

Canada, like all members of the global partnership, is moving quickly to implement its commitments. On May 30, Prime Minister Jean Chretien announced a contribution of nearly $112 million toward new nonproliferation projects in Russia, including an additional $22 million for the construction of the chemical weapons destruction site at Shchuch’ye, just one of seven chemical weapons storage sites in Russia. European partners have also made substantial financial contributions to destruction facilities at the other chemical weapons sites, including Gorny and Kambarka.

We agree wholeheartedly with the California Republican that the global partnership is critically important to the prevention of weapons of mass destruction proliferation and terrorism. Canada remains strongly committed to working with the United States to this end.

MICHAEL KERGIN

Ambassador of Canada

Washington

Hillary’s ‘Lying History’

In her memoirs, “Living History,” Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton writes of how angry she was when her husband, President Clinton, admitted to her his exploitation — using the word “affair” lends it an unwarranted dignity — of a silly young woman named Monica Lewinsky. “Gulping for air,” Mrs. Clinton claims, she could hardly breathe (“Hillary says her husband lied to her about Lewinsky affair,” Nation, Wednesday).

Let’s get this straight. Years after Gennifer Flowers, after warnings from a Clinton staffer about possible “bimbo eruptions,” after the Clinton campaign paid a private detective more than $100,000 for dossiers on other women involved with her husband, Mrs. Clinton was shocked, shocked, to learn again of his wicked ways? Even by the incredibly lax Clintonian standard of truthfulness, this strains credulity.

We can only hope the rest of her new book is more honest. Otherwise, a more accurate title for her book would be “Lying History.”

MICHAEL M. BATES

Tinley Park, Ill.

The abortion ban ‘myth’

The editorial “Neither medical reason nor moral justification,” published on Tuesday, shamelessly perpetuates the myth that the abortion ban the House passed on Wednesday prohibits a single procedure used near viability (when the fetus can survive outside the woman).

The Supreme Court and courts across the country have found otherwise: In reviewing Nebraska’s similarly worded ban, the Supreme Court held that the ban affected more than one procedure, including the procedure used to perform more than 90 percent of abortions between 12 and 20 weeks — well before fetal viability.

The high court also held that the ban was unconstitutional because it had no exception for women’s health.

The current federal legislation suffers from the same two fatal flaws.

LOUISE MELLING

Director

ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project

New York

Powerful truth hits Georgetown

Truth is powerful. Three words of self-evident truth have terrorized Georgetown University and propelled it to frontpage news, above the fold: Nigerian Cardinal Francis Arinze’s graduation address on May 17 enumerated the behaviors that undermine the stability of today’s families, and placed the Cardinal himself under siege by saying that the family is “mocked by homosexuality.”

In an institution once dedicated to truth, the firestorm that has resulted from three isolated words is a surreal phenomenon. The jury is now in. Family breakdown is responsible for the meteoric rise in nearly all the social pathologies that plague our society today. If this is not self-evident, current research by the Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org) is convincing. Pointing this out at a graduation ceremony was a highly appropriate and responsible thing to do.

Does anyone really believe that contraception, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, pornography, fornication, adultery, homosexuality and divorce, all mentioned by the cardinal, are good for families?

If Georgetown had found a suitable substitute for the family, the basic unit of ordinary decent society, it would be front page news. Inclusion of ex-homosexual clubs on its campus would be news also. Intolerance for the truth is not news.

The only important questions are:

• Did the cardinal speak the truth?

• Is Georgetown interested in the truth?

• Which is more offensive: truth or lies?

Georgetown must clarify its theology and find an unbiased faculty that does not fear the truth or discriminate against it.

Meanwhile, apologies are in order, not to those “offended” by Christian values, but to God, St. Ignatius (founder of the Jesuit order) and parents who spend big bucks to educate their children about the endangered truth.

ELIZABETH NOTTRODT

Baltimore

Martha Stewart new anti-corruption ‘poster girl’

Let the persecution begin. In need of a “poster girl” for its campaign against corporate corruption, the federal government has singled out Martha Stewart as a prime target.

Popular, fabulously wealthy, arrogant and condescending, Mrs. Stewart is the most appealing target since Leona Helmsley was destroyed by overzealous prosecutors.

The decorating maven is accused of engaging in an insider trading transaction that netted her a few hundred thousand dollars, this at a time when she had wealth valued in the hundreds of millions.

Mrs. Stewart may have made a mistake in acting on advice to sell stock, technically a violation of the law, but is this a matter that requires a high-profile indictment, disgrace and jail time?

Let Enron, Tyco and other alleged corporate thieves pay their debt to society and live in disgrace, but we should curb the high-powered prosecution in the Stewart case, which is not merited and which would not be occurring were it not for the desire of the government to project a bold front against corporations.

OREN M. SPIEGLER

Upper St. Clair, Pa.

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide