- The Washington Times - Saturday, April 19, 2008


War funding for terrorists?

Arnaud de Borchgrave’s Commentary “Visionary vicissitudes” on Thursday is a timely reminder of how wrong we are in our approach to the war on terror, specifically in backing democracy as a counterforce to Islamism in Muslim nations.

If one were to believe that Islam is less a religion and more an ideology of conquest — as research seems to indicate — the aspiration of Muslims becomes one of supporting jihad, a multifront war of conquest directed at unbelievers.

In this context, aid given to Muslim nations such as Pakistan, Egypt or the Palestinian territories is used to build up jihadist infrastructure rather than nation-building. Indeed, all the available evidence points to that direction.

The Democrats led by Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware are compounding this error by tripling aid to the newly democratized Pakistan to the tune of $7 billion dollars, according to the news reports. Sensible Democrats and Republicans shouldn’t allow this ill-informed Democratic leader to get away with this sort of policy blunder.


Coram, N.Y.

Keep trading with Colombia

I very much enjoyed the letter “On the front lines” (Wednesday) written by Frank Walsh. I agree 100 percent with his view that Congress should approve the free-trade agreement with Colombia because it has been our best ally in Latin America in fighting our war on terror.



Examining the science of global warming

Tony Blankley’s article “Bush raises temp on global warming” (Op-Ed, Wednesday) mentions challenges to key elements that blame mankind for increasing global warming. The general public seems unaware that those key elements (trapped heat in carbon emissions, greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect) are refuted by the temperature trail.

Temperature is a measurement of heat, as most people know. It also shows what heat is doing: becoming hotter, colder or holding steady. Steady temperature does not mean heat is “trapped.” It cannot be; the temperature trail explains why it can’t.

Heat (energy, really) in warmer things must be shared immediately with colder things be they animal, mineral or vegetable; gas, solid or liquid until all of them reach the same temperature. It’s a law of physics.

That’s why hot coffee must cool down to match the temperature of the air around it. That’s also why ice in a cold drink melts as it receives heat from its surroundings.

Heat travels in one direction only, from hot places to colder places. We experience the effect every time we open a window on a cold day. Heat cannot be created or destroyed.

The alarmists twist aspects of heating. For instance, we hear of the “greenhouse effect.” It is not a scientific term; it’s a description. So, when we hear about the greenhouse effect in Earth’s atmosphere, it should set off a caution signal in our minds. A greenhouse is a closed structure; our atmosphere is open to outer space. Earth’s heat can and does escape into it.

“Greenhouse gases” is also a description. The air (gases) in a greenhouse is the same as the air in our homes and places where we work and visit. However, there are those who try to make greenhouse gases sound different and scientific.

History and geologic studies show that global warming and cooling occurred many times before now. This demonstrates that something else not man is responsible for climate changes.

If mankind did or did not exist, it would not slow or halt the warming. More worrisome is that some day date unknown mankind will be confronted by global cooling.


Daytona Beach, Fla.

GOP youth: Beam us up

I am writingin response to Beverly K. Eakman who stated in her letter “Educational indoctrination” (Monday) that “Republicans think that because a few Young Republican clubs are scattered around, conservatives will win out. Here’s a reality check: ‘The Star Trek Enterprise’ series was canceled because just 2.8 million people watched.”

She seems to be missing quite a bit of it in her limited observations of the Young Republicans and their effect upon others, as well as the continuing appeal of “Star Trek.”

Here’s the reality: “Star Trek” is more than a single series. It is a real phenomenon, and several “Star Trek” movies and series have been spawned from the original series that was also canceled do to poor ratings in the 1960s.

Even though the original series was canceled, it continued to resonate with millions, and even billions, of people since it was first made. It is still a popular genre today.

By comparing the multiple chapters of Young Republicans on the various campuses with a single “Star Trek” series, the writer has ignored the complexity and diversity the Young Republicans have among their members and chapters. It’s a poor analogy.

Just as with the “Star Trek” analogy, the failure of one chapter of the Young Republicans would not indicate that the others will fail as well, nor does it indicate that the Young Republican message will not prosper and grow among people over time, similar to “Star Trek.”



No wishing away nuclear threat

The article, “Nuclear attack on D.C. a hypothetical disaster” (Page 1, Wednesday) regarding a hypothetical nuclear terrorists attack, should serve as an eye opener for people on both sides of the Atlantic. In order to raise awareness in the United Kingdom, I have spoken on and written about nuclear terrorism on several occasions.

Put simply, nuclear terrorism is a problem that is not going away. I am afraid that many decision-makers in the West wish to ignore the issue, hoping that by doing so the threat will simply disappear or at least not happen on “their watch.” This is both naive and dangerous.

The struggle against nuclear terrorism can only be won outright by taking preventive and proactive measures. We will have lost the battle if terrorists are able to detonate a nuclear device in one of our cities or major shipping lanes. Regardless of our response after the attack, the physical, psychological and economical damage would have already been done.

The fight in preventing nuclear terrorism is just an extension of the fight we currently face against Islamic extremists. On both sides of the Atlantic, we face many foreign policy and security challenges in the post-Sept. 11 world: international terrorism, Iraq and Afghanistan; energy security; and the need for NATO reform and its future place in trans-Atlantic security, to name just a few. These problems have to be addressed in conjunction with nuclear terrorism.

Sometimes, the threats that seem the most distant are the threats that are the most deadly.

The questions we would ask the day after an attack are the questions we must answer today. A nuclear attack as an act of terrorist aggression would make Sept. 11 look like the most innocent of dress rehearsals. The danger is clear and present and potentially cataclysmic. We have been warned. It is time to wake up.


Member of Parliament

Shadow secretary of state

for defense

House of Commons


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide