Time Line - Healing from Unjust War

They wanted war and lied to have it – The Mother Jones Time Line

January 20, 2001  - George W. Bush is Inagurated as President of the United States. We now know he was not legally elected.

February 3, 2001 - National Security Council (NSC) directed NSC staff to cooperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered the “melding” of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy:

“The review of operational policies towards rogue states,” such as Iraq, and “actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields”.

It is confirmed that these oil companies attending the meeting.  Officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. From:  Washingtons Blog and Washington Post.

Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts  Part One – Judicial Watch

Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts Part Two –  Judicial Watch

CNN interviews former Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, who says, "From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told CBS, according to excerpts released Saturday by the network. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

September 11, 2001 – The World Trade Center in NY and the Pentagon are hit, sending shock waves around the Globe.  The world reaches out to American in sympathy. 

Published: Wednesday May 2, 2007

Hours after 9/11 attacks, Rumsfeld allegedly said, 'My interest is to hit Saddam'

RAW STORY

September 28, 2001 – Osama ben Laden catagorically denies having any part of the attack on NY and the Pentagon in an interview published in Ummat, a Pakistani daily published in Karachi on September 28, 2001. The interview was translated into English by the BBC World Monitoring Service and made public on September 29, 2001. 

During the interview ben Laden said, “I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people.  From: Global Research

Such a practice is forbidden ever in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children, and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel.”

October 7, 2001 - The United States and a coalition force launch Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.   which, under Taliban control, had provided a safe haven for Osama bin Laden while he and other al-Qaeda leaders plotted attacks against the Western world. President Bush declares a war on terrorism and vows to hold states responsible for harboring terrorist organizations.4

October 8, 2001 - The Office of Homeland Security, later to become the Department of Homeland Security, is established.

October 9, 2001 - Letters containing anthrax were sent to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. 1   Both senators had been attempting to slow the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act. Just seven days before the incident, Leahy accused the Bush administration of reneging on an agreement on the bill. 2   9/11 Research   

October 26, 2001 – Patriot Act - President Bush signs into law the USA Patriot Act, which greatly expands domestic law enforcement capacity to conduct surveillance and wiretaps, increases presidential powers during a terrorist attack and tightens federal oversight of financial activities. Concerns soon arise over restriction of civil liberties.

November 8, 2001 - The New York Times and the PBS program “Frontline” report that an Iraqi defector, an army general, claims that the Iraqi military trained Arab fighters to hijack airplanes. These claims could not be substantiated and one of the defectors is later exposed by Mother Jones to be using a false identity. 

December 3, 2001 – Bush denounces Saddam Hussein as evil.

December 5, 2001 - Interim government placed in Afghanistan

December 9, 2001 -  The city of Kandaharis surrendered by the Taliban.  Osama ben Laden is traced to the Tora Bora caves. Al-Qaeda leaders continue hiding in the mountains, 

April 4, 2002 - “I made up my mind that Saddam needs to go.” - Bush

April 18, 2002 - Democratically elected Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is removed from power in a military coup. The Bush Administration blames Chavez for his own downfall and recognizes the interim government of businessman Pedro Carmona. Officials from the Organization of American States tell the London Observer that the United States sanctioned the coup and that Carmona and his fellow plotters had been received at the White House by Bush's key Latin America policy maker. Carmona dissolves the Venezuelan congress and suspends the constitution. Governments across the Western Hemisphere condemn the coup. Chavez is reinstalled 48 hours later. Mother Jones Time Line

August 26, 2002 -  Dick Cheney publicly states, “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

September 16, 2002 - Iraq agrees unconditionally to the return of inspectors. CNN

September 19, 2002 - Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri delivers a letter to the United Nations from Saddam Hussein stating that Iraq has no chemical, nuclear or biological weapons. CNN

October 1, 2002 - The United Nations and Iraq agree on terms they say are consistent with existing U.N. resolutions. The United States threatens to veto unless a U.S. resolution is approved that would allow military action for non-compliance by Iraq. CNN

November 1, 2002 - High-level CIA operatives stationed in the Middle East gather in London for a secret meeting. They are told war is inevitable, and just a few months away, according to James Risen's book, "State of War." Lie by Lie: The Mother Jones Iraq War Timeline

November 8, 2002 - The U.N. Security Council passes Resolution 1441. CNN

November 9, 2002 – An ordinary American becomes aware of events which point to a conspiracy for invasion.  “Articles appeared from NBCNews through Associated Press, in the Daily Mail, and Washington Post,  reporting offers from Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq before the invasion began either weeks before the date of the invasion or within days of the beginning of hostilities. This is followed by a demand issued by George Bush that Saddam and his sons leave within 48 hours before the scheduled invasion. A letter to this effect was issued from the White House and remains online today.

If Saddam was willing to leave and be paid to do so we should have let him or just left him alone.  One Billion dollars is much less than we are in the hole for today. 

War is expensive in every way imaginable. Paying Saddam to leave struck me as the better choice. Then no war would be necessary and we could return to focusing on our own country and the many problems confronting us. Then,  I trusted the good judgement of those in government to see this. 

Saddam Hussein would leave, being paid as he exited. But I also expected an announcement which never came. This was an investigation of Bill and Hillary Clinton for entering into a dialog with Saddam the previous November and telling him no invasion was seriously planned. It was clear we were getting ready for war – why would the Clintons lie?

I saw the correspondence between Saddam and the Clintons only partially, but these included one or two of the ongoing emails between traveling from Sidney Blumenthal, to his son Max, and then to Uday Hussein. I was told by the person who had hacked Blumenthal's computer the previous summer that Saddam was negotiating through this backdoor so he could leave Iraq and be paid for doing so. The hacker was my daughter.  I found out when she forwarded me a draft chapter of the book Blumenthal was then writing.  I advised her to stop - but she felt justified because Blumenthal had done the same to her earlier.  To told her to stop sending me his correspondence and the draft chapters of Sidney's book, "Clinton's War."

As for Saddam, leaving sounded like his best option.  But why would the Clintons tell him no invasion was imminent? You could tell it was going to happen.

As soon as I had realized what was happening, that shocking day in November, 2002, I informed someone well known to me at the CIA expecting any necessary action would be taken. The Clintons with Blumenthal, I believed, were acting without the knowledge of the White House.

Now, it appeared I had been very mistaken in trusting anyone within the U.S. Government.

It now appears this unexpected breech in a confidential back door had revealed information already well known to the Bush Administration. The assurances delivered by the Clinton via the Blumenthals, father and son, were orchestrated to lull Saddam into believing a deal had been cut, apparently. The only problem was the existence of a few people who had blundered into the scene playing out. That would be myself, the hacker-daughter, and two other people we had trusted with the information.

Now, we know the Bushes and Clintons were friendly after the end of the Clinton Administration. Hillary was receiving generous donations from Bush's 'Associates,'   If Saddam thought they had the power to negotiate he probably had reasons for believing this was authorized.

The stories about Saddam leaving and being paid were cover to stall any statement by Saddam, inconvenient to the Bush Administration and overwhelm any possible action on his part before the invasion began.

This is why these four additional names are included.  If they helped Bush they are also guilty.” 

November 13, 2002 - Iraq delivers a letter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, accepting the terms set forth in resolution 1441. CNN

November 27, 2002 - Inspections resume in Iraq. CNN

December 7, 2002 - Iraq submits a 12,000 page report on its WMD programs. CNN

January 16, 2003 - Inspectors discover 12 chemical warheads, 11 of them empty, at the Ukhaider ammunition storage area. CNN

January 20, 2003 - After two days of negotiation, Hans Blix, Mohamed ElBaradei, and Iraqi officials reach an agreement about Iraqi cooperation and concessions regarding the inspections. CNN

February 5, 2003 - Secretary of State Colin Powell briefs the U.N. Security Council on inspections. He presents evidence that the United States says proves Iraq has misled inspectors and hid proscribed weapons and equipment. CNN

February 14, 2003 - Blix and ElBaradei brief the U.N. Security Council. Blix reports that the inspectors have not yet found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Blix also reports that Iraq is in violation of U.N. resolutions concerning its al Samoud 2 missile program. CNN

February 19, 2003 - Inspectors visit the Ibn al Haytham factory northwest of Baghdad and tag 32 al Samoud II missiles. CNN

February 27, 2003 - Iraq agrees to destroy the country's al Samoud II missile stock. However, the letter doesn't specify a date that the missile destruction will begin.

March 10, 2003 - It is revealed that Iraq possesses drone aircraft that could have been used to launch a chemical or biological attack against other countries. The plane has a wingspan of 24 feet five inches, which suggests that it could fly further than 150km/93 miles, which is the limit imposed by U.N. resolutions.

March 16, 2003 – Dick Cheney publicly states,  “And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”  Statement made just three days before the invasion.

March 18, 2003 - Inspectors withdraw from Iraq.

March 20, 2003 – Bush announces the start of a war against Iraq. Allied forces begin the campaign with strikes on military targets, including an attempt to kill Saddam Hussein.

April 9, 2003 - Saddam Hussein's rule collapses in a matter of hours as much of Baghdad comes under American control. Across much of the capital, Iraqis take to the streets to topple statues of Mr. Hussein, loot government ministries and interrogation centers, and give a cheering, often tearful welcome to advancing American troops. 

Published: Wednesday May 2, 2007

Hours after 9/11 attacks, Rumsfeld allegedly said, 'My interest is to hit Saddam'

RAW STORY

“According to NBC's chief Pentagon correspondent, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that his "interest is to hit Saddam Hussein" just hours after the attacks on September 11, 2001, "even though all indications pointed at al-Qaida as the guilty party," a Rhode Island newspaper reports.

At the annual Business Expo at the Rhode Island Convention Center Tuesday, NBC's Jim Miklaszewski "advanced a theme garnering attention since former CIA director George J. Tenet made his public revelations last week," writes Tom Mooney for the Providence Journal.

"Some things are right on the mark, when he says the Bush administration appeared predisposed to attack Iraq," Miklaszewski says of Tenet's book At the Center of the Storm.”

Quote from Dick Cheney from RightWeb  - “During the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, for example, he said that there was “no doubt” that the Saddam Hussein regime had “weapons of mass destruction” and predicted that Iraqis would greet U.S. troops as “liberators.” In 2005, Cheney insisted that the Iraqi insurgency was in its final stages. Faced with criticism for his mistaken views, Cheney has been unrepentant, arguing in July 2014: “I look back on it now, [the invasion of Iraq] was absolutely the right thing to do.”[1]”

Letter from Washington   February 16, 2004 Issue

Contract Sport

What did the Vice-President do for Halliburton?

By Jane Mayer

The list of cronies and how they used war for their own benefit is frightening.  The asserted, self-serving meme that America is, according to daughter, Elizabeth Cheney, “We know that America is the exceptional nation, and that there is no substitute for American leadership around the world.”[4]  is a chilling reminder of the  constructed reality these people have built, which allows them to ignore the swimming pools of blood draining from their victims. 

As the Invasion forces from America left, for what proved to be a temporary hiatus, the oil companies who had signed on with Cheney before 9/11 remained to steal the natural resource of this devestated nation.  Aljezeera - Western oil firms remain as US exits Iraq

Huge Win in Senate: Oil and Gas Industry's Attempt to Gut Methane Rules Fails

From:  EcoWatch

by EarthJustice 

In a win Wednesday for oil and gas-patch communities and taxpayers, a procedural vote failed in the Senate, preventing a Congressional Review Act resolution from nullifying the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Methane Waste Rule. The vote to proceed to debate on the resolution failed, 49–51. This rule is a common sense standard to limit wasteful methane pollution from oil and gas operations on public lands.

The Congressional Review Act is a controversial and anti-democratic tactic that anti-environmental extremists in Congress attempted to use to push this pro-polluter agenda item forward.

"Just when we thought all hope was lost, common sense prevailed today in the United States Congress," Jessica Ennis, Earthjustice senior legislative representative, said.

"By preserving this win-win rule that protects public health and saves taxpayers money at the same time, Congress is managing to slowly rebuild its credibility as an institution that can serve as a check against powerful corporate interests."  MORE

Carbon Footprint of Canada's Oil Sands Is Larger Than Thought

From:  Inside Climate News 

John H. Cushman Jr.

BY JOHN H. CUSHMAN JR.

New climate change evidence from recent government studies could affect the coming legal fight over President Trump’s revived permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.

Unused pipe for the Keystone XL pipeline sits in a lot. Recent government studies of a different tar sands pipeline have found that the project's greenhouse gas emissions may be as much as 20 percent higher than previous estimates. Credit: Andrew Burton/Getty Images

The Donald Trump administration approved the Keystone XL pipelineknowing the tar sands crude oil it would deliver from Canada is even more polluting than the Obama administration thought when it turned the project down in 2015.

Recent government studies of a different tar sands pipeline found that the project's greenhouse gas emissions "may be five to 20 percent higher than previously indicated," the State Department noted on March 23 in its decision approving the Keystone XL permit.

Because both projects would carry tar sands crude, that suggests a similar understatement of emissions in the detailed but dated environmental review of the Keystone XL, which the Trump administration does not want to revisit. The final environmental assessment of the TransCanada project was published in January 2014.  MORE

Questions remain after huge hydrofluoric acid leak

From:  Chemistry World 

BY NED STAFFORD - NOVEMBER 2012

Korean residents in the affected zone are still afraid to return home six weeks after the disaster that killed five workers

More than six weeks after eight tonnes of hydrofluoric acid was accidentally released at a chemical plant in South Korea, many of the thousands of local residents who fled the area at the time have reportedly not yet returned to their homes despite assurances from authorities that the area is now safe.

The highly toxic hydrofluoric acid was released on 27 September at the Hube Global chemical plant in Gumi, about 200km from Seoul. The leak killed five workers at the plant and severely injured at least 18 others, including workers and emergency personnel. The  plant is reportedly still idle after the accident with no date yet set for resuming operations.

Hydrofluoric acid is used to produce chemical precursors for the pharmaceutical industry and has other industrial   applications. Highly corrosive and an acute poison, exposure can cause death and serious damage to the skin, lungs, heart, bones and nervous system. MORE

Regulation Freedom Update

By a 2-1 Margin of 27-13 the Kansas Senate on March 30 passed Majority Leader Jim Denning's Resolution, HCR 5003, urging Congress to propose the Regulation Freedom Amendment to require that Congress approve major new federal regulations.

The Resolution's support includes:

Kansas Chamber..United for Business
Kansas Automobile Dealers Association
Kansas Bankers Association
Kansas Building Industry Association
Kansas Farm Bureau (KGFA))
Kansas Grain and Feed Association
Kansas Cooperative Council (KCC)
Kansas Agribusiness Retailers Association (KARA)

The KS House voted 93-29 on Feb. 15 for the same Resolution sponsored by Rep. Steven Johnson.

23 Legislative Chambers have now passed Resolutions urging Congress to propose the Regulation Freedom Amendment.

Just as states helped force Congress to propose the Bill of Rights, pressure from the states could help force Congress to permanently curb federal regulators and preserve the regulatory reforms of the current Administration.

As we search for issues that can unite supporters of limited government, the cause of permanently ending "regulation without representation" could be one of the decisive issues of 2018.

If you or someone you know would like to learn more, please contact me.

Roman Buhler
Director
The Madison Coalition
202 255 5000
www.RegulationFreedom.Org

Toxic acid poses an unnecessary health risk to more than a million in the Greater New Orleans region

From:  The Lens 

By Ariella Cohen, The Lens staff writer |

The accidents unfold with eerie similarity: an unexpected explosion, a stubborn blaze, workers coughing and rubbing damaged eyes, a thick, ash-colored cloud of toxins racing away from the burning refinery.

On July 19, 2009, when a refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas, lit up, a worker was critically hurt and the fire burned for two days. On Nov. 24, 1987, an explosion at an ExxonMobil refinery in Torrance, Calif., shot a fireball 1,500 feet into the air, blasted the windows out of nearby houses and generated allegations of broken eardrums, back pain and lung damage.

The common denominator in both explosions was a toxic chemical many Louisiana residents have never heard of, though more than 3.7 million people across the state are at risk if a similar explosion happens here, according to company filings submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  MORE

In 1959 Dad took me to hear something he thought was important.

He was right.  Dr. Arthur F. Pillsbury, my father, was a life-long Conservative who understood the problems we still face today with pollution, water, air and land.  Dad was named to the first EPA in 1969.

JFK Research Library

This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A copy of the text of this speech exists in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library.

No change in a fast-changing world presents a greater challenge 2– no problem in a world full of problems calls for greater leadership and vision – than the control of nuclear weapons, the utter destruction which would result from their use in war, and the radioactive pollution of our atmosphere by their continued testing in peace-time.

It is not a simple problem with simple answers. The experts disagree – the evidence is in conflict – the obstacles to an international solution are large and many. But the issue of nuclear tests and their effects is one which should be discussed in the coming months – not as a purely partisan matter, but as one of the great issues on the American scene.

It was well, therefore, that this issue was raised last Sunday in a constructive way by the Governor of New York. His statement contributed to the dialogue on this basic issue – it represented the position of a leading figure in the Republican Party – and he did not attempt to evade the question. So I commend Governor Rockefeller for stating his views, and I hope they will be considered and debated by interested citizens everywhere.

But I must also express my own emphatic disagreement with his statement, which called for this country to resume nuclear test explosions. Such a proposal, it seems to me, is unwise when it is suggested just prior to the reopening of negotiations with the British and Russians at Geneva on this very question. It is damaging to the American image abroad at a time when the Russians have unilaterally suspended their testing and the peoples of the world are fearful of continued fall-out.  And, while Mr. Rockefeller did suggest that the testing take place underground to prevent fall-out, he also – according to press reports – “discounted” the harmful effects of fall-out – which I am unwilling to do.

While many competent scientists agree that there has been no great harm done to mankind as a whole from the amount of radiation created by bomb tests so far, it is also true that there is no amount of radiation so small that it has no ill effects at all on anybody. There is actually no such thing as a minimum permissible dose. Perhaps we are talking about only a very small number of individual tragedies – the number of atomic age children with cancer, the new victims of leukemia, the damage to skin tissues here and reproductive systems there – perhaps these are too small to measure with statistics. But they nevertheless loom very large indeed in human and moral terms. Moreover, there is still much that we do not know – and too often in the past we have minimized these perils and shrugged aside these dangers, only to find that our estimates were faulty and the real dangers were worse than we knew.

Let us remember also that our resumption of tests would bring Russian resumption of tests – it would make negotiations even more strained – it would spur other nations seeking entry into the “atomic club”, with their own tests polluting the atmosphere – and, in short, it could precede the kind of long, feverish testing period which all scientists agree would threaten the very existence of man himself.  And, perhaps even more importantly the ability of other nations to test, develop and stockpile atomic weapons will alter drastically the whole balance of power, and put us all at the mercy of inadvertent, irresponsible or deliberate atomic attacks from many corners of the globe. This problem – called the nth country problem, because we do not know how many nations may soon possess these weapons – is at the real heart of the Geneva negotiations. For once China, or France, or Sweden, or half a dozen other nations successfully test an atomic bomb, then the security of both Russians and Americans is dangerously weakened.

The arguments advanced in favor of a test resumption are not unreasonable. The emphasis is on weapons development – the necessity to move ahead “in the advanced techniques of the use of nuclear material.” This reason is not to be dismissed lightly. Our basic posture in world affairs relies on technical military superiority. We need to develop small tactical nuclear weapons and so-called “clean” nuclear weapons, in order to deter their use or other forms of limited aggression by the enemy, and in order to facilitate a decision to respond in good conscience with atomic weapons when necessary. We need to increase the flexibility and range of weapons in our arsenal in order to increase the flexibility and range of diplomatic possibilities. This is not, I might add, justification for cutting back our ground forces and our ability to wage conventional warfare – but it is nevertheless important. Certainly the destruction rained upon us all by a small nuclear battle – and this our weapons development program is intended to deter – would be many times the damage caused by all the test fall-out in the future. But such a weapons development program cannot be suspended indefinitely in a free country without our scientists and technicians scattering to other positions in other laboratories.  In addition, France and other nations on the verge of becoming nuclear powers will resent a ban – and their goodwill is also important.

But it is even more important that we find a way out the present menacing military situation.  And let us remember that our present test suspension is implicitly conditional on a continued Russian test suspension. If we are not developing new weapons in the absence of tests, so, in all probability, will they. And the facts of the matter are that, generally speaking, we are ahead of the Russians in the development of atomic warheads of all sizes but behind in the development of delivery systems. Until this lag can be overcome, there is a lesser value for us in testing and developing further “techniques in the use of nuclear material.” In short, for both sides to resume atomic tests today might well turn out to be more of a disadvantage to the West militarily than a help. The Soviet Union – which apparently made great progress in it 1958 tests – is quite as likely as we in any new tests to score a break-through with some new means of destruction which will make all the more delicate the present balance of terror.

I would suggest, therefore, the following alternative position:

1. First, that the United State announce that it will continue its unilateral suspension of all nuclear tests as long as serious negotiations for a permanent ban with enforceable inspections are proceeding with tangibly demonstrated good faith, provided that the Russians do not meanwhile resume their own tests. The latest extension of our test suspension announcement expires on December 31 – and we cannot take the chance of continuing it indefinitely without an inspection system – or afford the cost of extending a temporary suspension so long that our scientists disperse and our laboratories break down. But neither can we afford to undercut negotiations close to success – to resume polluting the atmosphere while the Russians pose as moral leaders. As long as serious, good faith negotiations continue into the early month of 1960 – and are not prolonged indefinitely beyond that – we must continue our suspension beyond December 31.

2. Secondly, the United States must redouble its efforts to achieve a comprehensive and effective agreement to ban all nuclear tests under international control and inspection – and this means developing a single, clear-cut, well 2– defined, realistic inspection proposal of our own. We do not have this today. We have not made as concentrated and effort on techniques for preserving mankind as we have on techniques of destruction. Nor do we have a clear, concrete policy for the general arms control of disarmament program which must necessarily follow an agreement on testing if it is to be meaningful. But the whole international climate could benefit from this demonstration that East and West can reach significant, enforceable agreements. At least a part of the burdensome arms race would come to a halt. The danger of new nuclear powers emerging would be lessened. For the first time the Russians would have accepted effective international controls operating within their own territory. The hazards of health would be over. Such an agreement, in short even if not perfect – even, for example, if it looks to further modification regarding inspection systems for underground or outer-space tests – would nevertheless be worth far more effort than we are presently exerting. And it would be far more valuable than the military benefits to be gained from test resumption.

3. Third – if our best efforts do not succeed, the negotiations collapse, the Russians resume testing and it becomes necessary for our test to resume, even then they should be confined to underground and outer-space explosions, and to the testing of only certain small weapons in the upper atmosphere, in order to prevent a further increase in the fall-out menace – and in hope, moreover, that the Russians and others will be forced by world opinion to follow our example.

4. Fourth and finally, we must step up our studies of the impact of radioactive fall-out and how to control it, through the Public Health Service here at home and a special United Nations monitoring commission abroad. Let us not discover the precise point of danger after we have passed it. Let us not again reject these warnings peril as “catastrophic nonsense” (to quote Mr. Nixon), as they were rejected in 1956 when put forward by a great Democratic standard-bearer, Adlai E. Stevenson. There is every indication that had a test ban been accomplished then, it would have been far more useful, far more easily accomplished and far more beneficial to our national security than it would today, now that the missile gap had widened so far.

These four policy positions that I have stated are no magic solution – nor can they be achieved overnight without effort. The course which I am suggesting is full or risks. It will require more effort, more leadership, more moral courage than merely “running scared.” But the new and terrible dangers which man has created can only be controlled by man. And if we can master this danger and meet this challenge, we will have earned the deep and lasting gratitude, not only of all men, but of all yet to be born – even to the farthest generation.