| Author |
Message |
    
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 711
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 12:36 pm: |     |
First Dean in Bosnia, now Clark justifying Iraq via Kosovo, and even tossing out kudos to Richard Perle and Saddam/Al Qada likely linkage. It's from the House Armed Services Committee testimony April 2002.
http://www.drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm
Unless he lied under oath in that testimony....and let's leave Clinton's backing of Clark out of this, please.
I know this board hates Drudge, but the quotes are true. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 713
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 1:34 pm: | |
The only honest anti-war candidate you lefties have is Kucinich and Sharpton now. The rest backed action absent the blessed UN, and the general believed there were Al Qada connections with Saddam to boot.
I know, I know....it doesn't matter. Beating Bush is all that matters. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 720
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 4:13 pm: | |
Here...let me help you nattering nabobs of negativity:
From Testimony Before U.S. House Armed Services Committee, 9/26/02
Ø “[T]here’s no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense. Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He’s done so without multilateral support if necessary. He’s done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn’t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution.”
Ø “Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001, so people are alert here. Our homeland security is certainly not perfect but we’ve, I think, taken some very significant steps. We’re much more observant than we have been before.”
Ø “There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat.”
Ø “Saddam Hussein is not only malevolent and violent but he is also to some large degree unpredictable at least to us. I’m sure he has a rationale for what he’s doing, but we don’t always know it. He does retain his chemical and biological capabilities to some extend and he is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.”
Ø “The problem of Iraq is not a problem that can be postponed indefinitely, and of course Saddam’s current efforts themselves are violations of international law as expressed in the U.N. resolutions. Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem and in taking this to the United Nations, the president’s clear determination to act if the United States can't -- excuse me, if the United Nations can’t provides strong leverage for under girding ongoing diplomatic efforts.”
Ø “And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that’s longstanding. It’s been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this.”
Ø “I think you have to have an echelon series of inspections. I think you start small and I think you expand the intrusiveness, the scope and the scale of the inspections, and I think you do that until you are either satisfied and the nation which brings the complaint to the United Nations, i.e. the United States, is satisfied, or you cross and trip a red line in which Saddam says no and you move to the next stage.”
Ø “I think there’s no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It’s normal. It’s natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They’re going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That’s inevitable in this region, and I think it’s clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat.”
Ø “I’d like to offer the following observations by way of how we could proceed. First of all, I do believe that the United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing U.S. determination to act if the United Nations cannot act. The use of force must remain a U.S. option under active consideration.”
Ø “I think it’s not time yet to use force against Iraq but it is certainly time to put that card on the table, to turn it face up and to wave it and the president is doing that and I think that the United States Congress has to indicate after due consideration and consulting our people and building our resolve that yes, this is a significant security problem for the United States of America and all options are on the table including the use of force as necessary to solve this problem because I think that’s what’s required to leverage any hope of solving this problem short of war.”
Ø “I agree that there’s a risk that the inspections would fail to provide evidence of the weapons program. They might fail, but I think we can deal with this problem as we move along, and I think the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by the opportunities to gain allies, support, and legitimacy in the campaign against Saddam Hussein.”
Ø “If the efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, then we need to form the broadest possible coalition including our NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if we’re going to have to bring forces to bear.” |
Kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 320
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 4:27 pm: | |
yeah, but Reagan sold weapons to Saddam in the 80's.
...and Cheney worked for Halliburton--an OIL service company!!
The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today..FDR..
Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth...G.W.
Everyone wants a voice in human freedom. There's a fire burning inside of all us...L.W.
Dave Ross is the coolest!!(being banned sucks) |
lumpyhead
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead
Post Number: 618
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 5:10 pm: | |
Because Reagan sold weapons to Saddam twenty years ago means what today? |
Greatest Straw of all time!
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1759
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 5:13 pm: | |
It means we should invade California.
BUSH/CHENEY IN 2004.. |
Addy
Citizen
Username: Addy
Post Number: 25
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 6:01 pm: | |
quote:Ø
Can someone translate this Nordic phrase for me? |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 874
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 7:11 pm: | |
As any fan of Monty Python & the Holy Grain knows, it means: "You know, a moose once bit my sister." but over time it has also come to be used as a bullet - •. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 461
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 9:55 pm: | |
I would suggest anyone interested in this read all of Gen. Clark's testimony here.
|
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10602
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 10:44 pm: | |
Uh OH:!
Seems that Senator Edwards was in hot water with Peace organizations for his pro-war stance...
http://www.ncpeacehub.org/press/archive/030321_release_030323.html
quote:Since September 2002, the presidential hopeful has been calling for war, even without the U.N. approval required by international law, a position critics note is "indistinguishablea' from that of President Bush. Last week, Edwards was booed loudly at a Democratic Party event in California for his embrace of Bush and the war.
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <-
Hey, it also wouldn’t look good coming out of a motel with your wife’s best friend saying you were just planning a surprise birthday party for her husband...- Arturo November '03
|
Kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 321
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 7:55 am: | |
Lumpy,
It means something now because there is no other way to argue against what Bush is doing in the middle east.
also, I heard Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand--so there, the war must be wrong!!!
The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today..FDR..
Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth...G.W.
Everyone wants a voice in human freedom. There's a fire burning inside of all us...L.W.
Dave Ross is the coolest!!(being banned sucks) |
Kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 322
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 8:29 am: | |
Why We Are Safer
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, January 9, 2004; Page A17
"One of the attacks they don't bring up very often anymore is the Saddam Hussein thing, that it's not safer since Saddam Hussein's been captured -- because we now have 23 troops killed and we're having fighter planes escorting passenger jets through American airspace. I noticed that line of attack disappeared fairly quickly."
-- Howard Dean, Newsweek, Jan. 12 issue
Howard Dean may end up as a footnote in history, but he has already earned a place in the dictionary as the illustration accompanying the word smug. He claims that not only was he right that we are not safer with Saddam Hussein captured; not only has he already been vindicated by history, all 21 days of it; but he has been so obviously vindicated that his opponents, bowing to his superior wisdom, have stopped their attacks on this point.
They have not. He has been peppered with questions about this statement, most recently during the Jan. 4 Iowa debate. How could he not? The idea that we are not safer (a) because we are still losing troops and (b) because al Qaeda has not been extinguished, amounts to an open-court confession of cluelessness on foreign policy.
The first is the equivalent of saying that we were not safer after D-Day because we were still losing troops in Europe. In war, a strategic turning point makes you safer because it hastens victory, hastens the ultimate elimination of the hostile power, hastens the return home of the troops. It does not mean there is an immediate cessation, or even a diminution, of casualties (see: Battle of the Bulge).
The other part of the statement -- we cannot be safer because we are still threatened by terrorism -- is even more telling. It rests on the wider notion, shared not just by Dean but by many Democrats, that so long as al Qaeda is active, we are never any safer. This rests on the remarkable assumption that we have a single enemy in the world, al Qaeda, and that it and it alone defines "safety."
It is hard to believe that serious people can have so absurdly narrow a vision of American national security. The fact is that we have other enemies in the world.
Saddam Hussein was one of them, and he is gone. Libya was another, and it has just retired from the field, suing for peace and giving up its weapons of mass destruction. (Gaddafi went so far as to go on television to urge Syria, Iran and North Korea to do the same.) Iran has also gone softer, agreeing to spot inspections, something it never did before it faced 130,000 American troops about 100 miles from its border.
These gains are all a direct result of the Iraq war. A spokesman for Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told the London Daily Telegraph in September that Gaddafi had telephoned Berlusconi and told him: "I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid."
The idea that we are not safer because al Qaeda is not yet stopped is absurd. Of course we have terror alerts. We will continue to have them until al Qaeda is extinguished, and you do not eliminate in two years a menace that was granted eight years of unmolested growth and metastasis when Dean's party was in power.
But look at the region whence al Qaeda came. Not only has the Taliban been overthrown, Afghanistan just this week adopted a new constitution agreed to by a loya jirga (grand council) representing every part of this fractured tribal society. It is an astonishing development in a country with so little experience in representative government and ravaged by more than a quarter-century of civil war. And it came about as a result of American force of arms followed by American diplomacy.
Look at Pakistan. On Sept. 11, 2001, it was supporting the Taliban, ignoring al Qaeda and assisting other Islamic extremists. Force majeure by the Bush administration turned Pakistan. The Musharraf government is now a crucial ally in the war on terror.
And now, just this week, another astonishing development: a summit between India and Pakistan leading to negotiations that, the joint communique said, "will" solve all outstanding issues, including the half-century-old fight over Kashmir. Both Pakistani and Indian observers agree that intense behind-the-scenes mediation by the Bush administration was instrumental in bringing about the rapprochement.
From Libya to India, ice is breaking and the region is changing. In this part of the world, there is no guarantee of success. But if this is not progress -- remarkable, unexpected and hugely significant -- then nothing is.
The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today..FDR..
Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth...G.W.
Everyone wants a voice in human freedom. There's a fire burning inside of all us...L.W.
Dave Ross is the coolest!!(being banned sucks) |
Duncan
Citizen
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 1429
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 8:32 am: | |
quote:It means something now because there is no other way to argue against what Bush is doing in the middle east.
WHAT????
Ok Back to your corners folks and lets look at some simple things. Which is about all I can manage with this frozen brain.
Bush basically said... We have to remove Saddam cause he poses a (pick one) a)imminent b)gathering threat. And cause he is this close to having nuclear weapons, what with him buying those nifty rods from Africa. Not to mention that he and Al Queda are snugglebuddies. So he has to go, now no matter what anyone else says here or abroad.
The quotes referenced above by the "bush camp" are all dated BEFORE THE FACTS CAME OUT THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAD SPUN THE INTELLIGENCE TO SUIT THEIR NEEDS. An ideological rubics cube of data.
So to say that someone in Nov 2002 was for the war is to say that they were for the war BASED ON THE FACTS THAT WERE PRESENTED AS TRUTH. I bet if you ask em now they would have a different take on things and you know what...so do millions of americans.
Lets move beyond the "is the world safer with Saddam gone" rhetoric because I dare say almost everyone will grant that. Thats not what is at issue here. It is the warping and twisting of the truth...the definition of what is is, if you will, that has so many folks (with notable MOL exceptions) in states ranging from political apathy to fear to indignation to righteous rage.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"
Wayne Gretzky |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 462
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 8:43 am: | |
Duncan,
read Clark's entire address (the link is above). as usual, what he said has been selectively edited by Republican opponents, and then a misleading headline is slapped on those edited remarks. his thoughts on Iraq were far more nuanced (and in retrospect, often prescient) than any of the other candidates (or Bush, for that matter). I haven't counted myself as a Clark supporter, but after reading his entire testimony, I'm impressed. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2725
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 8:55 am: | |
Gentlemen: You are missing the larger picture.
The Pro-Administration Attack Dogs have recently realized that by focusing so much on Dr. Dean, that someone else may do better in the upcoming caucuses and primaries. So, they're executing a strategic pirouette, and carrying on about Clark & co. with the same gusto (and attempted smearing) as they did with the good doctor.
As a Democrat, it still means that the nominee will still be Dean or Clark or Kerry or Edwards or Gephardt (outside shot) or Lieberman (probably not, though). Any one of them has a good prospect of, by November, looking like a much better alternative than the current incumbent. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4330
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 9:07 am: | |
I wonder how much of the negativity floating around the Democratic candidates is from the GOP and how much is from other Dem candidates? I suspect a fair amount is intra-party.
|
lumpyhead
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead
Post Number: 620
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 9:38 am: | |
The Pro-Adminstration is waiting to see who they should attack. The established DNC is attacking Dean and now has the NY Times (NOT a Pro-Administration paper) to thank due to Bill Clinton's apparent dislike of Howard Dean.
And my question still stands. There are plenty of reasons to be against the war but what does Reagan selling Sadam arms 20 years ago have to do with it? |
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 922
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 9:40 am: | |
January 16, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Who Gets It?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Earlier this week, Wesley Clark had some strong words about the state of the nation. "I think we're at risk with our democracy," he said. "I think we're dealing with the most closed, imperialistic, nastiest administration in living memory. They even put Richard Nixon to shame."
In other words, the general gets it: he understands that America is facing what Kevin Phillips, in his remarkable new book, "American Dynasty," calls a "Machiavellian moment." Among other things, this tells us that General Clark and Howard Dean, whatever they may say in the heat of the nomination fight, are on the same side of the great Democratic divide.
Most political reporting on the Democratic race, it seems to me, has gotten it wrong. Some journalists do, of course, insist on trivializing the whole thing: what I dread most, in the event of an upset in Iowa, is the return of reporting about the political significance of John Kerry's hair.
But even those who refrain from turning political reporting into gossip have used the wrong categories. Again and again, one reads that it's about the left wing of the Democratic party versus the centrists; but Mr. Dean was a very centrist governor, and his policy proposals are not obviously more liberal than those of his rivals.
The real division in the race for the Democratic nomination is between those who are willing to question not just the policies but also the honesty and the motives of the people running our country, and those who aren't.
What makes Mr. Dean seem radical aren't his policy positions but his willingness — shared, we now know, by General Clark — to take a hard line against the Bush administration. This horrifies some veterans of the Clinton years, who have nostalgic memories of elections that were won by emphasizing the positive. Indeed, George Bush's handlers have already made it clear that they intend to make his "optimism" — as opposed to the negativism of his angry opponents — a campaign theme. (Money-saving suggestion: let's cut directly to the scene where Mr. Bush dresses up as an astronaut, and skip the rest of his expensive, pointless — but optimistic! — Moon-base program.)
But even Bill Clinton couldn't run a successful Clinton-style campaign this year, for several reasons.
One is that the Democratic candidate, no matter how business-friendly, will not be able to get lots of corporate contributions, as Clinton did. In the Clinton era, a Democrat could still raise a lot of money from business, partly because there really are liberal businessmen, partly because donors wanted to hedge their bets. But these days the Republicans control all three branches of government and exercise that control ruthlessly. Even corporate types who have grave misgivings about the Bush administration — a much larger group than you might think — are afraid to give money to Democrats.
Another is that the Bush people really are Nixonian. The bogus security investigation over Ron Suskind's "The Price of Loyalty," like the outing of Valerie Plame, shows the lengths they're willing to go to in intimidating their critics. (In the case of Paul O'Neill, alas, the intimidation seems to be working.) A mild-mannered, upbeat candidate would get eaten alive.
Finally, any Democrat has to expect not just severely slanted coverage from the fair and balanced Republican media, but asymmetric treatment even from the mainstream media. For example, some have said that the intense scrutiny of Mr. Dean's Vermont record is what every governor who runs for president faces. No, it isn't. I've looked at press coverage of questions surrounding Mr. Bush's tenure in Austin, like the investment of state university funds with Republican donors; he got a free pass during the 2000 campaign.
So what's the answer? A Democratic candidate will have a chance of winning only if he has an energized base, willing to contribute money in many small donations, willing to contribute their own time, willing to stand up for the candidate in the face of smear tactics and unfair coverage.
That doesn't mean that the Democratic candidate has to be a radical — which is a good thing for the party, since all of the candidates are actually quite moderate. In fact, what the party needs is a candidate who inspires the base enough to get out the message that he isn't a radical — and that Mr. Bush is.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 722
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 11:01 am: | |
Hey tom....it's not exactly Mother Jones, but here's a non-rightwing rag that takes Clark to task on trying to have it both ways on the war.
From the Washington Post's editorial:
We disagree with Mr. Clark's opposition to the war in Iraq, and he can be faulted for taking shifting and conflicting positions on the wisdom of the enterprise; his self-described "bobbling" of a question about whether he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the war -- "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways" -- is emblematic. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 463
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 11:27 am: | |
the Washington Post has it wrong, as does the Republican smear machine. Read the full testimony. Clark was in favor of the Senate resolution because he did not think the policy of inspections and containment could work without a credible threat of force.
In his testimony though, he clearly states that he didn't think the time was right for an invasion. I don't happen to agree that the Senate resolution was the way to go. Clearly it was a blank check for Bush to launch the invasion, not leverage to allow diplomacy and inspections to work.
But that is not at odds with his position since. Or what he said in his "bobbled" interview.
But if someone wants to spin it that way, it's easy with a bit of selective cutting and pasting. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 723
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 11:42 am: | |
Today Clark says Saddam was "troublesome" and a "threat" but not one that had to be dealt with at that time.
To which I ask -- what was the threat to the US from Milosevich? Was it such that you can -- as he said in his testimony -- and should take military action sans UN approval? Why was it OK in 1999, but not in 2001?
If Saddam had whacked another say couple thousand Iraqis, would that have made him 'troublesome' enough to take the same action we did in The Balkans?
Why did we even have military over there if Saddam was only a long-term threat? Soon as he was toast, we moved out of Saudi for all intents and purposes because those delusional Arabs thought Saddam was a threat to the region. Were they wrong to think that?
You look at his comments, and he's going off of and believes the intelligence on Saddam by the same intelligence community that served Clinton in 1998-2000 and throughout the Balkans.
Bobble indeed. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2078
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 11:44 am: | |
Unfortunately, any well-thought out point of view on any controversial issue can be distorted by spinmeisters. Unless you are speaking in sound bytes, somebody will take a sentence out of context to misrepresent a point of view. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 724
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 12:13 pm: | |
Clark is continuing to spin his opposition to the war which began the first day he announced his run for president.
Clark is well thought out? And what would a poorly thought out position look like. Something like 'I've said it both ways"????
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 464
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 12:38 pm: | |
it's impossible to argue with someone who insists on misrepresenting Gen. Clark's testimony. so I won't do it anymore.
but I would just repeat that anyone who is interested in what the general really said should read the entire text, and not rely on the Washington Post, Matt Drudge, or cjc (or me, for that matter) for interpretation.
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has269000.000/has269000_0.htm |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 727
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 12:57 pm: | |
You can't square what Clark said on Iraq with what he said on The Balkans. It's impossible. His only shred of honesty was "I'm said it both ways." And this was his signature issue.
Add this to Dean wanting to go into Bosnia without UN approval in his letter to Clinton.
Is your hatred of Bush so deep you toss what you really believe and stand for aside just to win the Oval Office? |
Kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 324
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 1:05 pm: | |
They all blew it.
This may have worked....
Hello, my name is XXX and I want to be the democratic nominee for President. I believe our liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan will make the U.S. and world a better place and stand behind Bush completely on this issue. I would not alter our aggressive stance against terror one bit.
However, on domestic issue I believe we can do better and as President here is what I would do......
The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today..FDR..
Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth...G.W.
Everyone wants a voice in human freedom. There's a fire burning inside of all us...L.W.
Dave Ross is the coolest!!(being banned sucks) |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 729
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 1:14 pm: | |
You're right in the general election, Kenney, but that candidate would never clear the caucuses and the frothing at the mouth base. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 113
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 3:51 pm: | |
The infamous Richard Perle testified alongside Clark that day. He had quite a different take on Clark's position than Drudge, Gillespie, the Journal and all of the RNC parrots. From Perle's closing remarks:
"So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait."
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 739
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 11:46 am: | |
So the General said that Iraq had WMD, that we didn't need UN approval for going in because we didn't in The Balkans -- but he just didn't want to do it then.
OK by me. But why would the General 'lie' about Iraq having WMD? Just to give Bill Clinton cover? |
Don Perkins
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 277
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 4:14 pm: | |
Anybody have any idea of when will we learn why Bill Clinton fired General Clark?
Answer: When Bill Clinton wants us to, that's when.
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page