|APRIL 2000 - Issue #124||PUBLISHED BY AMERICANS FOR A SAFE ISRAEL|
The presidential primary season is over in all but name, the Republican and Democratic party conventions will be held soon, and the election itself is less than seven months away--yet there still has not been any serious discussion by the candidates of foreign policy issues.
The issue that most urgently requires a full debate is the Clinton administration's consistent and abhorrent policy of appeasing totalitarian regimes:
* A State Department delegation recently traveled to Libya in order to demonstrate that travel there is safe, so that the U.S. travel ban on Libya can be lifted.
* The administration has lifted some of its sanctions on Iran, and the entire tone of U.S. policy toward Teheran is one of craven submission, as exemplified by Secretary of State Albright's unwarranted apology for U.S. involvement in Iranian affairs decades ago.
* Clinton's pathetic courtship of Hafez Assad fits right into this pattern of appeasement. The U.S. has offered Assad Israel's Golan Heights as well as a package of aid whose contents and dimensions are the stuff of which nightmares are made.
Governor Bush has said nothing about the administration's appeasement policy. No effort has been made to pressure Vice President Gore to disavow Clinton's appeasement. And even some Congressional leaders have likewise failed to speak out.
On missile deployment, more people know about Elian Gonzalez than about AEGIS --America's ship-based anti-missile system--or THADD, the U.S. Army's high-altitude defense system. While there has been talk of deployment and even agreement between Congress and the administration to do so, it still has not been done.
And what about deployment of U.S. troops around the world? Rep. Floyd Spence (R-SC), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has pointed out that U.S. troops around the world are already spread too thin. Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) noted recently that "Our American troops are already overextended" abroad, and further deployments "would further drain our limited defense budget." Rep. Bob Stump (R-AZ) has warned against sending more GIs abroad "when the U.S. is faced with problems at home and an already overextended military."
In view of this growing Congressional oppositon to deploying additional American troops overseas, the presidential candidates should also be discussing the implications of the administration's plan to station American troops on the Golan Heights. The proposal will cost American taxpayers billions of dollars, place GIs in harm's way, and undermine the independence of our only real ally in the Middle East. How can candidates for the presidency of the United States not discuss an issue that could cost American lives, severely impact American taxpayers, and negatively affect America's strategic interests in the volatile Middle East?
In the months to come, we at Americans for a Safe Israel will be undertaking a nationwide grassroots campaign to bring these issues to the fore so that the candidates and other political figures will address them. All 435 seats in the House of Representatives are up for election, and we hope that AFSI's efforts will make the Golan proposal an issue in some of the key Congressional races as well.
Moreover, these are concerns that will need to be addressed during the term of the next administration, no matter who is elected president. Nobody should
(Continued on p.9)
IN THIS ISSUE:
What Can Be Done to Save Israel? ...3
Kosovo Reconsidered ...5
Golan Surrender: National Suicide ...6
The J-Curve ...8
More Reform Follies ...10
April 2000 - 1 - Outpost