Fritz Hollings, playwright
Posted on 05/19/2004 1:22:00 PM PDT by aft_lizard
With 760 dead in Iraq and over 3,000 maimed for life, home folks continue to argue why we are in Iraq -- and how to get out.
Now everyone knows what was not the cause. Even President Bush acknowledges that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Listing the 45 countries where al-Qaida was operating on September 11 (70 cells in the U.S.), the State Department did not list Iraq. Richard Clarke, in "Against All Enemies," tells how the United States had not received any threat of terrorism for 10 years from Saddam at the time of our invasion.
On Page 231, John McLaughlin of the CIA verifies this to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. In 1993, President Clinton responded to Saddam's attempt on the life of President George H.W. Bush by putting a missile down on Saddam's intelligence headquarters in Baghdad. Not a big kill, but Saddam got the message -- monkey around with the United States and a missile lands on his head. Of course there were no weapons of mass destruction. Israel's intelligence, Mossad, knows what's going on in Iraq. They are the best. They have to know.
Israel's survival depends on knowing. Israel long since would have taken us to the weapons of mass destruction if there were any or if they had been removed. With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel.
Led by Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there has been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in the area. Wolfowitz wrote: "The United States may not be able to lead countries through the door of democracy, but where that door is locked shut by a totalitarian deadbolt, American power may be the only way to open it up." And on another occasion: Iraq as "the first Arab democracy ... would cast a very large shadow, starting with Syria and Iran but across the whole Arab world." Three weeks before the invasion, President Bush stated: "A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example for freedom for other nations in the region."
Every president since 1947 has made a futile attempt to help Israel negotiate peace. But no leadership has surfaced amongst the Palestinians that can make a binding agreement. President Bush realized his chances at negotiation were no better. He came to office imbued with one thought -- re-election. Bush felt tax cuts would hold his crowd together and spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats. You don't come to town and announce your Israel policy is to invade Iraq. But George W. Bush, as stated by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and others, started laying the groundwork to invade Iraq days after inauguration. And, without any Iraq connection to 9/11, within weeks he had the Pentagon outlining a plan to invade Iraq. He was determined.
President Bush thought taking Iraq would be easy. Wolfowitz said it would take only seven days. Vice President Cheney believed we would be greeted as liberators. But Cheney's man, Chalabi, made a mess of the de-Baathification of Iraq by dismissing Republican Guard leadership and Sunni leaders who soon joined with the insurgents. Worst of all, we tried to secure Iraq with too few troops.
In 1966 in South Vietnam, with a population of 16,543,000, Gen. William C. Westmoreland, with 535,000 U.S. troops was still asking for more. In Iraq with a population of 24,683,000, Gen. John Abizaid with only 135,000 troops can barely secure the troops much less the country. If the troops are there to fight, they are too few. If there to die, they are too many. To secure Iraq we need more troops -- at least 100,000 more. The only way to get the United Nations back in Iraq is to make the country secure. Once back, the French, Germans and others will join with the U.N. to take over.
With President Bush's domino policy in the Mideast gone awry, he keeps shouting, "Terrorism War." Terrorism is a method, not a war. We don't call the Crimean War with the Charge of the Light Brigade the Cavalry War. Or World War II the Blitzkrieg War. There is terrorism in Northern Ireland against the Brits. There is terrorism in India and in Pakistan. In the Mideast, terrorism is a separate problem to be defeated by diplomacy and negotiation, not militarily. Here, might does not make right -- right makes might. Acting militarily, we have created more terrorism than we have eliminated.
It is all about being out of POWER, of course. These people are senile, of course, but would do a 180 in a minute if anybody with a (D) in front of their name was in charge.
Wait - this is a lie -it's afterall BUSHFAULT!
What a stupid, stupid ignoramous Hollings is.
Don't insult Rats. Evil Dums are just plane ole Evil DUMB-ocrats. They are like the Islamofascists, they just can't hide it anymore.
Imagine Robert Byrd in his Grand Dragon robes and old Fritz in his Waffen SS uniform.
I'm sure Saddam found it hysterically funny. The missile didn't land "on his head" but rather "on his intelligence service" in the dead of night with few people around.
"In the Mideast, terrorism is a separate problem to be defeated by diplomacy and negotiation, not militarily."
Pretty much sums up the policy of our democrats (candidates, etc.).
They presume the UN could do a better job, with no evidence.
Negotiating with terrorists never seemed like a good idea, except to democrats.
Oh. My. Is this for real? Or is this really Pat Buchanan's homepage?
Make no mistake, they aim to enslave you, and when you become a detriment to them they will perform the ultimate betrayal.
I have one question of the American Jewish people and the people of Israel: Has a Republican ever hurt you, has a Republican ever spoken like this about you?. Not me, nor any Republican that I support.
Socialist Democrat. I have been asking that question for ages. Only last week, two Jewish people on this site got on my ass because I said the same thing, that Jews vote predominately democrat.
LOL
If I get flamed, I get flamed. One question, isn't Socialist Democrat a redundancy?
When anybody gives us crap about South Carolina having the Confederate Naval Jack flying from our Statehouse for thirty-nine years, I simply remind them that the Governor that signed the bill that put it up there in 1962 was...drumroll please...Governor Ernest "Fritz" "Foghorn" Hollings, Democrat.
We've just got to make sure that a Rat doesn't get that seat. We took reasonably good care of Strom's seat by handing it to Lindsay Graham, now we have to give Fritz's to Demint, or Ravenel, or (d'oh, I hate to say this) Weaseley--er, Beasley--or Condon...anybody but Inez "the educRAT" Tenenbaum.
}:-)4
Probably, but I like the sound of it, socialist democrat, a.k.a. Communist.
What was it he said many years ago about the South, especially AL, not knowing the difference between a nuclear freeze and something at Dairy Queen?
...only after 1966. :))
Thank you for your service to the country. :)
Not to worry, Senator Hollings is retiring from office this year and a conservative WILL be in that seat. There are 6 Republicans vying for the seat and 1 Democrat with virtually no chance of winning in a very conservative state.
Thank God he'll be gone soon.
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.