Posted on 10/29/2003 6:45:09 AM PST by NYC Republican
If you think U.S. troops are outnumbered in Iraq, you should have seen President Bush fending off the White House press corps Tuesday morning. "You just spoke about the suicide bombers in Iraq as being desperate. But as yesterday's attack show[s], they're also increasingly successful," one reporter told Bush. "There's been a much more somber assessment [of the U.S. predicament] in private," noted another. "Senior U.S. intelligence officials on the ground in Iraq have estimated that we have, at most, six months to restore order there and quell the violence, or else we risk losing the support of the Iraqi populace," said a third. "Do you feel that the attacks that have happened recently will discourage some countries to contribute troops or manpower?" asked a fourth. "Isn't there a limit to American patience, particularly in an election year?" asked a fifth.
Bush did his best to puncture the pessimism. "The foreign terrorists are trying to create conditions of fear and retreat," he argued. "[They] believe that we're soft, that the will of the United States can be shaken. They want countries to say, 'Oh, gosh, well, we better not send anybody there, because somebody might get hurt.' That's precisely what they're trying to do. And that's why it's important for this nation and our other coalition partners to stand our ground." To questions on every aspect of the postwar conflictU.S. troops, Bush's $87 billion appropriation request, donations and reinforcements from other countriesBush responded with the language of intimidation, defiance, and will.
I've seen this struggle for the psychology of a nation at war before. Four years ago, NATO's military commander, Gen. Wesley Clark, faced a similar barrage of pessimism from the press and from members of Congress hostile to President Clinton's war in Kosovo. The skeptics argued that our adversary, Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic, had proven to be too mentally strong for us and that we should back off. Clark turned that argument on its head: By refusing to let Milosevic break our will, we would break his. Milosevic "may have thought that some countries would be afraid of his bluster and intimidation," said Clark. "He was wrong. He thought that taking prisoners and mistreating them and humiliating them publicly would weaken our resolve. Wrong again. We're winning, Milosevic is losing, and he knows it." I never believed Bush's claim that overthrowing Saddam Hussein was essential to the war on terror. I'm angry that Bush continues to invoke that bogus rationale for the invasion. But the assassinations and indiscriminate bombings we're witnessing in post-Saddam Iraq really are part of the war on terror. We can't crumple under this pressure any more than we could have crumpled four years ago in the showdown with Milosevic. Bush is right, just as Clark was right: War is a contest of wills.
That's why it's so troubling today to see Clark join in the same self-fulfilling wave of determined pessimism and obstruction he battled four years ago. "This president didn't know how he wanted [the Iraq war] to end. He doesn't know what he's doing today," Clark charged in Sunday's Democratic presidential debate. "I would not have voted [for the] $87 billion. The best form of welfare for the troops is a winning strategy. And I think we ought to call on our commander in chief to produce it. And I think he ought to produce it before he gets one additional penny for that war."
I don't know whether we'll win the postwar if Congress approves the money Bush asked for. But I know we'll lose it if Congress doesn't. That's what happens when a nation at war starts to think like the Wes Clark of 2003. Just ask the Wes Clark of 1999.
When are you going to stop posting your racist, anti-Christian, Serbophobic lies? You have a wild imagination--of Goebbelsian proportions-- about the Serbian capacity for "genocide" that has no basis in reality whatsoever! And you--along with KLArk, clinton, Ammanpour, the world islamist cabal, and all the rest--glory in the savage mass murders and expulsions of Kosovo Serbs and the destruction of over a hundred precious Christian churches in Kosovo! And you--along with the rest of that smarmy crew--also glory in the reduction of noble Serbia to a small, weak, dependent state, which is about to be absorbed into the New World Order European Union. You should be DEEPLY ASHAMED and repent of your great sin!!!!
As for clinton--he was and is an UNMITIGATED DISASTER--from top to bottom!!!! And his actions in the Balkans are the VERY WORST thing that he did as President!!!!
As for General "Jack D. Ripper" Wesley Clark--his pronouncements about Iraq are nothing but PURE POLITICAL OPPORTUNISM. KLArk is in reality a Third Way imperialist, through and through!!!! And few have done more to advance the cause of world islamism (including some of those who are attacking Americans in Iraq, and those who are attempting to turn post-Saddam Iraq into an islamofascist state) than Wesley Clark!!!!
Find proof of your ridiculous charge. Or RETRACT it.
YOUR CHARGES are Disgraceful!
This is a Clark/Iraq post.
Everyone knew...is an attempt to appeal to emotions, not facts.
Since you addmit you support "The events in Kosovo", you are morally responsible for the consequences: ethnic cleansing of 75% of non-albanian population, mass murder of Serbs and moderate Albanians, destruction of private property and massive scale criminal enterprise poisoning Europe and North America.
Your propagation of brazen lies under "everyone knows" banner is repugnant. "200,000 dead Muslims in Bosnia" lie number was originally used by Bosnian Muslim propagandists. In Bosnian civil war, Bosnian Muslims approximatelly the same percentage of population, 14%.
This is not the picture you want to paint with your post.
You may be Republican, but your post looks as if written by apologist for Clinton crimes.
Not only do you change what I said (I posted 200,000 plus deaths in Bosnia- can anyone dispute that), but you change it to state the I wrote 200,000 MUSLIM deaths, which I didn't.
Stop re-writing my own statements.
Yes, this is Wes KLArk thead concerning US domestic policy. and that's why Balkan angle is relevant.
During Clinton regime The White House, State Department used the services of George Soros black propaganda machine.
Today, the same machine is used to bring democrats back to power. George Soros has invested openly $10M to prevent reelection of W.
Wes Clark sits on the board of Soros' ICG, a private think tank shilling for Soros vested financial interests.
The Soros lies of Bosnia and Kosovo have to be exposed in order to smoke out the skunks plotting to come to power in the U.S.
Unfortunatelly, regrdless of your handle, your posts spread Soros and Muslim lies here on FR. That's why your views are exposed here.
If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen !
I supported the actions in Iraq.
I wish we became involved in Rwanda - we could have helped save some of the over 500,000 deaths.
All of thesse for the same reason, on humanitarian grounds.
What's your problem? You disagree on this one point. Big deal. Face it, we have to agree to disagree. This is a conservative site. On every major political issue (I don't see Kosovo or Iraq on political terms), I'm conservative, and thousands of posts have shown this. There are many here, especially on the Balkans ping list, that add nothing to the conservative boards, except hate of all that's Mus, especially Bosnian, Kosovo, Turk, and Albanian. I find that repugnant.
TOTAL LIE.
The total death toll on all sides in Bosnia was less than 200,000. I have explained where 200,000 number came from. That number was repeated more than 1000 times and became accepted as a fact.
Why you use "200,000+ number if you are not Muslim propagandist? For effect to reinforce your high moral ground for agression on Serbia?
Anyway, what is important here is to expose the trails of Clintonistas in the State Department who use the same tactics and still suppport Al Qaeada allies in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Making news.
Can you define "We"? We like "Clinton Administration"? If you recall, Clinton was in WH during Rwanda genocide.
Clinton administration WAS involved in Rwanda genocide and it's sequel in East Congo.
Clinton Govdernment supported Tutsi rebels against Rwanda government and assisted rebels to assasinate Rwandanese president.
Then, when assasination kick started genocide, not only idly stood back but PREVENTED others to help.
When Tutsi came to power, MPRI was dispatched to Rwanda and assisted in training troops for incusrsion into Congo and mass killing of Hutu refugees fleeing Rwanda.
That's the fact Republicans exposed in Congress.
The target was not Rwanda, but East Congo. Rwanda was deliberately set ablaze in order to set Congo ablaze.
Somehow, I have a feeling that you have read CIA report stating that the risk of assasinting Rwanda president is "anywhere between 500 and 500,000".
The Death toll in Rwanda was 800,000 - 1,000, 000 NOT "over 500,000 deaths"
There were, in aggregate, 200k deaths in Bosnia during the 4 year war. The exact numbers on each side are in dispute, and the blame for the war wasn't even being addressed on any post on this thread, I was just merely stating a fact. 200k were dead in Bosnia, and considering the intense animosity between Serbs and Albanians (far greater than existed bewteen Bosnians and Serbs), the potential for death was great. Note- POTENTIAL.
Which part of that do you dispute? If not 200k, then how many do you think there were?
We, as in America, regardless of who was in charge. For Klinton to act in Kosovo and not act in Rwanda, where the brutality and horrors were far greater, is inexcusable, in my view. He failed to act, and should have borne the blunt of the criticism, but, as always, he got a free ride from the media.
He should have forged a coalition to stop the (indesputable) genocide that was occurring in Rwanda. He would have definitely received international support.
I said it was over 500,000. You said it was 800-1 million- that's higher than any figure I've ever seen. How is saying over 500k deaths wrong?
He has neither. He realizes that the path to nomination (he won't get it, the window of opportunity has passed) is by appealing to the whacko lefties... They vehemently oppose the war, and Dean's received lots of mileage on this... He's read the tea leaves, has seen Dean's successes, and wants to triangulate Dean on this and other issues, by adopting this platform.
If Clark had any chance, he'd be EXTREMELY dangerous. He has no scruples, has no principal, and deserves to go down in flames, taking the Klintons with them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.