Religions > Atheism > Kicking Yang's ***** Snorting Fairy ***** ==> John Kerry Caught Illegally Using SENATE web site for campaign at taxpayer's expense.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
27 Jun 2005 09:57:50 PM |
| Object: |
Kicking Yang's ***** Snorting Fairy ***** ==> John Kerry Caught Illegally Using SENATE web site for campaign at taxpayer's expense. |
John Kerry Caught Illegally Using SENATE web site for campaign at
taxpayer's expense.
Kerry is using the Senate website to campaign against Bush,
criticizing him by name.
http://kerry.senate.gov/text/cfm/record.cfm?id=189831
From the Office of Senator Kerry
Kerry speech on national security -- Georgetown University
Thursday, January 23, 2003
As our government conducts one war and prepares for another, I come
here today to make clear that we can do a better job of making our
country safer and stronger. We need a new approach to national security
- a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to
the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush
Administration. I offer this new course at a critical moment for the
country that we love, and the world in which we live and lead. Thanks
to the work and sacrifice of generations who opposed aggression and
defended freedom, for others as well as ourselves, America now stands
as the world's foremost power. We should be proud: Not since the age of
the Romans have one people achieved such preeminence. But we are not
Romans; we do not seek an empire. We are Americans, trustees of a
vision and a heritage that commit us to the values of democracy and the
universal cause of human rights. So while we can be proud, we must be
purposeful and mindful of our principles: And we must be patient -
aware that there is no such thing as the end of history. With great
power, comes grave responsibility.
We are all of us too aware, since September 11th, of the gravity of the
times and the greatness of the stakes. Having won the Cold War, a brief
season of content has been succeeded by a new war against terrorism
which is an assault on the very progress we have made.
Throughout our history, in peaceful exertion and in armed struggle, we
were steadfast - we were right on the central issue of freedom, and we
prevailed. And because we prevailed the world is a far better place
than it was or would otherwise have been. The world today has a strong
democratic core shaped by American ingenuity, sacrifice, and spirit.
But on the periphery are many unstable and dangerous places, where
terrorists seek to impose a medieval dark age. As we learned so
brutally and so personally, we do face a new threat. But we also face a
renewed choice - between isolation in a perilous world, which I
believe is impossible in any event, and engagement to shape a safer
world which is the urgent imperative of our time. A choice between
those who think you can build walls to keep the world out, and those
who want to tear down the barriers that separate "us" from "them."
Between those who want America to go it alone, and those who want
America to lead the world toward freedom. The debate over how the
United States should conduct itself in the world is not new. After all,
what is today's unilateralism but the right's old isolationist impulse
in modern guise? At its core is a familiar and beguiling illusion: that
America can escape an entangling world...that we can wield our enormous
power without incurring obligations to others...and that we can pursue
our national interests in arrogant ways that make a mockery of our
nation's ideals. I am here today to reject the narrow vision of those
who would build walls to keep the world out, or who would prefer to
strike out on our own instead of forging coalitions and step by step
creating a new world of law and mutual security. I believe the Bush
Administration's blustering unilateralism is wrong,
and even dangerous, for our country. In practice, it has meant
alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes
and spreading anti-Americanism around the world. Too often they've
forgotten that energetic global leadership is a strategic imperative
for America, not a favor we do for other countries. Leading the world's
most advanced democracies isn't mushy multilateralism - it amplifies
America's voice and extends our reach. Working through global
institutions doesn't tie our hands -- it invests US aims with
greater legitimacy and dampens the fear and resentment that our
preponderant power sometimes inspires in others. In a world growing
more, not less interdependent, unilateralism is a formula for isolation
and shrinking influence. As much as some in the White House may desire
it, America can't opt out of a networked world. We can do better than
we are doing today. And those who seek to lead have a duty
to offer a clear vision of how we make Americans safer and make America
more trusted and respected in the world.
That vision is defined by looking to our best traditions -- to the
tough-minded strategy of international engagement and leadership forged
by Wilson and Roosevelt in two world wars and championed by
Truman and Kennedy in the Cold War. These leaders recognized that
America's safety depends on energetic leadership to rally the forces of
freedom And they understood that to make the world safe for
democracy and individual liberty, we needed to build international
institutions dedicated to establishing the rule of law over the law of
the jungle. That's why Roosevelt pushed hard for the United Nations and
the World Bank and IMF. It's why Truman insisted not only on creating
NATO, but also on a Marshall Plan to speed Europe's recovery. It's why
Kennedy not only faced down the Soviets during the Cuban Missile
Crisis, but also signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and launched the
Peace Corps to put American idealism to work in developing countries.
He spoke out for an America strong because of its ideals as well as its
weapons.
For us today, the past truly is prologue. The same principles and
strength of purpose must guide our way. Our task now is to update that
tradition, to forge a bold progressive internationalism for the global
age. As I said last summer in New York, for Democrats to win America's
confidence we must first convince Americans we will keep them safe. You
can't do that by avoiding the subjects of national security, foreign
policy and military preparedness. Nor can we let our national security
agenda be defined by those who reflexively oppose any U.S. military
intervention anywhere...who see U.S. power as mostly a malignant force
in world politics...who place a higher value on achieving multilateral
consensus than necessarily protecting our vital interests. Americans
deserve better than a false choice between force without diplomacy and
diplomacy without force. I believe they deserve a principled
diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened
self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy
that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. A
bold, progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the
immediate and the imminent but insidious dangers that can mount over
the next years and decades, dangers that span the spectrum from the
denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and
epidemic disease. These are, in the truest sense, not just issues of
international order and security, but vital issues of our own national
security. So how would this approach, this bold progressive
internationalism, differ from the Bush Administration's erratic
unilateralism and reluctant engagement? The answer starts by
understanding the nature and source of the threat we face.
While we must remain determined to defeat terrorism, it isn't only
terrorism we are fighting. It's the beliefs that motivate terrorists. A
new ideology of hatred and intolerance has arisen to challenge America
and liberal democracy. It seeks a war of Islam - as defined by
extremists - against the rest of the world and we must be clear its
epicenter is the Greater Middle East.
It's critical that we recognize the conditions that are breeding this
virulent new form of anti-American terrorism. If you look at countries
stretching from Morocco through the Middle East and beyond...broadly
speaking the western Muslim world...what you see is a civilization
under extraordinary stress. The region's political and economic crisis
is vividly captured in a recent report written by Arab scholars for the
United Nations Development Program and the Arab Fund for Social and
Economic Development. Let me quote:
"The wave of democracy that transformed governance in most of the world
has barely reached the Arab states...The freedom deficit undermines
human development and is one of the most painful manifestations of
lagging political development."
According to Freedom House, there are no full-fledged democracies among
the 16 Arab states of the Middle East and North Africa. The Middle East
is not monolithic; there are governments making progress
and struggling effectively with change in Jordan, Morocco and Qatar.
But Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Syria are among the 10 least
free nations in the world. Political and economic participation among
Arab women is the lowest in the world and more than half of Arab women
are still illiterate. And these countries are among the most
economically isolated in the world, with very little trade apart from
the oil royalties which flow to those at the very top. Since 1980, the
share of world trade held by the 57 member countries of the
Organization of the Islamic Conference has fallen from 15 percent to
just four percent. The same countries attracted only $13.6 billion
worth of foreign direct investment in 2001. That is just $600 million -
only about 5 % - more than Sweden, which has only 9 million people
compared to 1.3 billion people. In 1969, the GDP of South Korea and
Egypt were almost identical. Today, South Korea boasts one of the 20
largest economies in the world while Egypt's remains economically
frozen almost exactly where it was thirty years before.
A combination of harsh political repression, economic stagnation, lack
of education and opportunity, and rapid population growth has proven
simply explosive. The streets are full of young people who have no
jobs... no prospects... no voice. State-controlled media encourage a
culture of self-pity, victimhood and blame-shifting. This is the
breeding ground for present and future hostility to the West and our
values. From this perspective, it's clear that we need more than a
one-dimensional war on terror. Of course we need to hunt down and
destroy those who are plotting mass murder against Americans and
innocent people from Africa to Asia to Europe. We must drain the swamps
of terrorists; but you don't have a prayer of doing so if you leave the
poisoned sources to gather and flow again. That means we must help the
vast majority people of the greater Middle East build a better future.
We need to illuminate an alternative path to a futile Jihad against the
world...a path that leads to deeper integration of the greater Middle
East into the modern world order.
The Bush Administration has a plan for waging war but no plan for
winning the peace. It has invested mightily in the tools of destruction
but meagerly in the tools of peaceful construction. It offers the
peoples in the greater Middle East retribution and war but little hope
for liberty and prosperity.
What America needs today is a smarter, more comprehensive and
far-sighted strategy for modernizing the greater Middle East. It should
draw on all of our nation's strengths: military might, the world's
largest economy, the immense moral prestige of freedom and democracy -
and our powerful alliances.
Let me emphasize that last asset in this mission: our alliances. This
isn't a task that we should or need to shoulder alone. If anything, our
transatlantic partners have a greater interest than we do in an
economic and political transformation in the greater Middle East. They
are closer to the front lines. More heavily dependent on oil imports.
Prime magnets for immigrants seeking jobs. Easier to reach with
missiles and just as vulnerable to terrorism. Meanwhile, NATO is
searching for a new mission. What better way to revitalize the most
successful and enduring alliance in history, then to reorient it around
a common threat to the global system that we have built over more than
a half-century of struggle and sacrifice? The administration has tried
to focus NATO on the Middle East, but it's high-handed treatment of our
European allies, on everything from Iraq to the Kyoto climate change
treaty, has strained relations nearly to the breaking point. We can do
better. With creative leadership, the U.S. can enlist our allies in a
sustained multilateral campaign to build bridges between the community
of democracies and the greater Middle East - not just for them, but
for us. Here, in my view, is what this strategy should look like.
First, destroying al Qaeda and other anti-American terror groups must
remain our top priority. While the Administration has largely
prosecuted this war with vigor, it also has made costly mistakes. The
biggest, in my view, was their reluctance to translate their robust
rhetoric into American military engagement in Afghanistan. They relied
too much on local warlords to carry the fight against our enemies and
this permitted many al Qaeda members, and according to evidence,
including Osama bin Laden himself, to slip through our fingers. Now the
Administration must redouble its efforts to track them down. And we
need to pressure Pakistan to get control of its territories along the
Afghanistan border, which have become a haven for terrorists.
Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a
brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know
the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat
because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated
an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait.
He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He
miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated
the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an
American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He
miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he
is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his
consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the
world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one
voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the
Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take
the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago
or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit
with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk
instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it
possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of
war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by
Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's
unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes
of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own,
undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners
which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.
In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now
affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious
consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on
Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make
clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to
possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush
Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the
U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale
for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United
States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States
should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have
exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the
consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat
requiring urgent action.
The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the
time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of
making their case to the American people and to the world.
I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We
will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We
need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted
so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of
Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more
immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be
particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if
we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq
would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's
participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any
institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the
President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy
because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show
the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition.
Mr. President, do not rush to war.
And I say to the United Nations, show respect for your own mandates. Do
not find refuge in excuses and equivocation. Stand up for the rule of
law, not just in words but in deeds. Not just in theory but in
reality. Stand up for our common goal: either bringing about Iraq's
peaceful disarmament or the decisive military victory of a multilateral
coalition.
Third, as we continue our focus on the greater Middle East, the U.S.
must look beyond stability alone as the linchpin of our relationships.
We must place increased focus on the development of democratic values
and human rights as the keys to long-term security. If we learned
anything from our failure in Vietnam it is that regimes removed from
the people cannot permanently endure. They must reform or they will
finally crumble, despite the efforts of the United States. We must side
with and strengthen the aspirations of those seeking positive change.
America needs to be on the side of the people, not the regimes that
keep them down.
In the 1950s, as the sun was setting on European colonialism, a young
Senator named John Kennedy went to the Senate floor and urged the
Eisenhower Administration not to back France against a rebellious
Algeria. He recognized that the United States could only win the Cold
War by staying true to our values, by championing the independence of
those aspiring to be free. What's at issue today is not U.S. support
for colonial powers out of touch with history, but for autocratic
regimes out of touch with their own people.
We as Americans must be agents of hope as well as enemies of terrorism.
We must help bring modernity to the greater Middle East. We must make
significant investments in the education and human infrastructure in
developing countries. The globalization of the last decade taught us
that simple measures like buying books and family planning can expose,
rebut, isolate and defeat the apostles of hate so that children are no
longer brainwashed into becoming suicide bombers and terrorists are
deprived the ideological breeding grounds. I believe we must reform and
increase our global aid to strengthen our focus on the missions of
education and health --of freedom for women -- and economic development
for all.
The U.S. should take a page from our Cold War playbook. No one expected
communism to fall as suddenly as it did. But that didn't prevent us
from expanding society-to-society aid to support human rights groups,
independent media and labor unions and other groups dedicated to
building a democratic culture from the ground up. Democracy won't come
to the greater Middle East overnight, but the U.S. should start by
supporting the region's democrats in their struggles against repressive
regimes or by working with those which take genuine steps towards
change.
We must embark on a major initiative of public diplomacy to bridge the
divide between Islam and the rest of the world. We must make avoidance
of the clash of civilizations the work of our generation: Engaging in
a new effort to bring to the table a new face of the Arab world --
Muslim clerics, mullahs, imams and secular leaders - demonstrating
for the entire world a peaceful religion which can play an enormous
role in isolating and rebutting those practitioners who would pervert
Islam's true message. Fourth, The Middle East isn't on the Bush
Administration's trade agenda. We need to put it there.
The United States and its transatlantic partners should launch a
high-profile Middle East trade initiative designed to stop the economic
regression in the Middle East and spark investment, trade and growth in
the region. It should aim at dismantling trade barriers that are among
the highest in the world, encouraging participation in world trade
policy and ending the deep economic isolation of many of the region's
countries.
I propose the following policy goals: We should build on the success of
Clinton Administration's Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Since the United
States reduced tariffs on goods made in "qualifying industrial
zones," Jordan's exports to the US jumped from $16 to $400 million,
creating about 40,000 jobs. Let's provide similar incentives to other
countries that agree to join the WTO, stop boycotting Israel and
supporting Palestinian violence against Israel, and open up their
economies. We should also create a general duty-free program for the
region, just as we've done in the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the
Andean Trade Preference Act. Again, we should set some conditions: full
cooperation in the war on terror, anti-corruption measures,
non-compliance with the Israel boycott, respect for core labor
standards and progress toward human rights. Let's be clear: Our goal is
not to impose some western free market ideology on the greater Middle
East. It's to open up a region that is now closed to opportunity, an
outpost of economic exclusion and stagnation in a fast-globalizing
world.
These countries suffer from too little globalization, not too much.
Without greater investment, without greater trade within the region and
with the outside world, without the transparency and legal protections
that modern economies need to thrive, how will these countries ever be
able to grow fast enough to provide jobs and better living standards
for their people? But as we extend the benefits of globalization to
people in the greater Middle East and the developing world in general,
we also need to confront globalization's dark side. We should use the
leverage of capital flows and trade to lift, not lower, international
labor and environmental standards. We should strengthen the IMF's
ability to prevent financial panics from turning
into full-scale economic meltdowns such as we've seen in Argentina. And
in the Middle East especially, we need to be sensitive to fears that
globalization will corrupt or completely submerge traditional cultures
and mores. We can do these things.
Fifth, and finally, we must have a new vision and a renewed engagement
to reinvigorate the Mideast peace process. This Administration made a
grave error when it disregarded almost seventy years of American
friendship and leadership in the Middle East and the efforts of every
President of the last 30 years. A great nation like ours should not be
dragged kicking and resisting - should not have to be pressured to the
task of making peace. A great nation like ours should be leading the
effort to make peace or we risk encouraging through our inaction the
worst instincts of an already troubled region.
Israel is our ally, the only true democracy in this troubled region,
and we know that Israel as a partner is fundamental to our security.
From Truman through Clinton, America has always been committed to
Israel's independence and survival - we will never waver.
Israel's security will be best assured over the long term if real and
lasting peace can be brought to the Middle East. I know from my own
trips to Israel that the majority of the Israeli people understand and
expect that one day there will be a Palestinian state. Their
frustration is that they do not see a committed partner in peace on the
Palestinian side. Palestinians must stop the violence - this is the
fundamental building block of the peace process. The Palestinian
leadership must be reformed, not only for the future of the Palestinian
people but also for the sake of peace. I believe Israel would respond
to this new partner after all, Israel has already indicated its
willingness to freeze settlements and to move toward the establishment
of a Palestinian state as part of a comprehensive peace process.
Without demanding unilateral concessions, the United States must
mediate a series of confidence building steps which start down the road
to peace. Both parties must walk this path together - simultaneously.
And the world can help them do it. While maintaining our long term
commitment to Israel's existence and security, the United States must
work to keep both sides focused on the end game of peace. Extremists
must not be allowed to control this process. American engagement and
successful mediation are not only essential to peace in this war-torn
area but also critical to the success of our own efforts in the war
against terrorism. When I visited the region last year, in meetings
with King Abdullah of Jordan, President Mubarak of Egypt, and Crown
Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, it became clear that September 11th
had changed the imperatives of these countries. The Bush Administration
has missed an opportunity to enlist much greater support in the peace
process and needs to focus on this urgent priority- now.
The transformation of the Middle East which can come from these efforts
will determine much of our future - but we must also look to the
challenges on the rest of the planet. We must build a new and more
effective role for the United States in the rest of this complex world.
The central challenge for the United States is to undertake and lead
the most global, comprehensive effort in history to deal with
proliferation generally and nuclear weapons lost or loose in a
dangerous world specifically. It is no secret that there are those
lurking in the shadows eager to capitalize on a deadly market for
nuclear materials held in insecure facilities around the world.
Five years ago, authorities seized a nuclear fuel rod that had been
stolen from the Congo. The security guard entrusted with protecting it
had simply lent out his keys to the storage facility. Two years later,
even after near disaster, the facility was guarded only by a few
underpaid guards, rusty gates, and a simple padlock.
The potential consequences are fearful and undeniable. In October 2001,
we picked up warnings that terrorists had acquired a 10-kiloton nuclear
bomb. If detonated in New York City, hundreds of thousands of
Americans would have died, and most of Manhattan would have been
destroyed. Sam Nunn had an important warning, "This intelligence report
was judged to be false. But it was never judged to be
implausible or impossible."
This Administration's approach to the menace of loose nuclear materials
is strong on rhetoric, but short on execution. It relies primarily and
unwisely on the threat of military preemption against terrorist
organizations, which can be defeated if they are found, but will not be
deterred by our military might.
It is time instead for the most determined, all-out effort ever
initiated to secure the world's nuclear materials and weapons of mass
des. We must offer our own blueprint for the mission of threat
reduction. Comprehensively securing materials and keeping them from
falling into the wrong hands demands a global perspective and
international action. The only answer - the clear imperative - is a
multilateral framework implementing a global consensus that weapons of
mass destruction under the control of terrorists represent the most
serious threat to international security today, and warrants an urgent
and global response. We must marshal a great international effort to
inventory and secure these materials wherever they may be and in
whatever quantity. We must create mechanisms to help those that would
be responsible stewards but lack the financial and technical means to
succeed We must establish worldwide standards for the security and
safekeeping of nuclear material and define a new standard of
international legitimacy, linking the stewardship of nuclear materials
under universally accepted protocols to acceptance in the community of
nations. Nowhere is the need more clear or urgent than in North Korea.
There the Bush Administration has offered only a merry go-round policy.
They got up on their high horse, whooped and hollered, rode around in
circles, and ended right back where they'd started. By suspending talks
initiated by the Clinton Administration, then asking for talks but with
new conditions, then refusing to talk under the threat of nuclear
blackmail, and then reversing that refusal as North Korea's master of
brinkmanship upped the ante, the Administration created confusion and
put the despot Kim Jong Il in the driver's seat. By publicly taking
military force, negotiations, and sanctions all off the table, the
Administration tied its own hands behind its back. Now, finally, the
Administration is rightly working with allies in the region - acting
multilaterally -- to put pressure on Pyongyang. They've gotten off the
merry go round - the question is why you'd ever want to be so committed
to unilateralist dogma that you'd get on it in
the first place.
So too has the Administration missed major opportunities to address the
downside of globalization by creating its upside - relief for nations
around the globe struggling against environmental degradation,
global health crises, debt relief in exchange for better development
policies and improved trade relationships. We need to show the face of
enlightened-not robber barren capitalism-something I will expand on in
the months ahead.
One of the clearest opportunities missed is the environment. America
has not led but fled on the issue of global warming. President Bush's
declaration that the Kyoto Protocol was simply Dead on Arrival spoke
for itself - and it spoke in dozens of languages as his words whipped
instantly around the globe. But what the Administration failed to see
was that Kyoto was not just an agreement - it was a product of 160
nations working together over 10 years. It was a good faith effort -
and the United States just dismissed it. We didn't aim to mend it. We
didn't aim to sit down with our allies and find a compromise. We didn't
aim for a new dialogue. The Administration was simply ready to aim and
fire, and the target they hit was our international reputation. This
country can and should aim higher than preserving its place as the
world's largest unfettered polluter. And we should assert, not abandon
our leadership in addressing global economic degradation and the
warming of the atmosphere we share with the other 90% of humanity.
We should be the world's leader in sustainable developmental policies.
We should be the world's leader in technology transfer and technical
assistance to meet a host of environmental and health challenges. We
should rejoin our allies at the negotiating table - and recognize that
friends in the fight for environmental clean-up are also the friends we
rely on to help clean out the stables of terrorism. And this is a
matter of our national security, too. Let me offer one last example:
The threat of disintegration and chaos rises steadily in Africa as the
continent is increasingly devastated by HIV/AIDS. More than 29 million
people there are afflicted with that disease. Africa has 11% of the
world's population but 70% of all the people in the world living with
HIV/AIDS. Responding is not only morally right, but deeply practical
and fundamentally important to the cause of global stability and
ultimately our own safety. How can countries -- or whole continents --
torn apart by an untreated epidemic successfully resist the call to
violence, terror, and the trade of weapons of mass destruction? There
is much that we can do. We have learned that we can change behavior
through prevention and education programs, and if we make treatment
available for those already sick. We can stop the transmission from
mother to child. And we can reduce the growing number of AIDS
"orphans" if we start adding voluntary counseling, testing and
treatment of parents and care givers to children. Yet the Bush
Administration, intent on appeasing its right wing, assails population
control while it neglects AIDS control even as that disease threatens
to destroy whole populations. We must put our national interests in the
claims of compassion ahead of political calculation and conservative
dogma. The United States must be a leader in assembling an
international coalition with other governments and private sector
partners -- a coalition with the will and resources to confront the
pandemic of HIV/AIDS with the same determination that we bring to the
war on terrorism. I challenge the Bush Administration to develop and
implement a comprehensive strategy to help the countries in Africa win
the war against AIDS in their own backyard -- backed up by substantial
increases in resources, beginning with $2.5 billion for the upcoming
fiscal year.
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
