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.
How about Condoleeza Rice? Or Fred Barnes? Besides which, what the heck have Wolfowitz, Perle and Krauthammer got to do with each other besides the fact that they are all Jewish and conservative? Perle isn't in the Bush administration, and Charles Krauthammer is a columnist. Want to explain that? It's call anti-semitic paranoia. Hollings even brings the Mossad into this. The only thing that remotely relates any of the trash Hollings is spewing is that the people he mentions are Jewish. And he's working on the idiotic assumption that America has no vested interest in eliminating threats in the middle east.
#10 Good one! LOL!
Was she as prominent a proponent of war with Iraq as Wolfowitz, Perle, or Krauthammer?
Or Fred Barnes?
So his failure to name Barnes makes him an anti-Semite? Please.
Besides which, what the heck have Wolfowitz, Perle and Krauthammer got to do with each other besides the fact that they are all Jewish and conservative?
Um, they were prominent proponents of war with Iraq?
Hollings even brings the Mossad into this. [...] And he's working on the idiotic assumption that America has no vested interest in eliminating threats in the middle east.
Nothing anti-Semitic about either of those. Conservatives have never held that to criticize any member of group X at any time for any reason is to be an anti-X bigot; that's liberal crybaby victimology, in which we should not engage simply to take a few shots at a Rat.
You didn't answer any of my questions and you kind of skipped over the bizarre Mossad reference altogether. Unless I see some rational explanation from you about this senile rant from Hollings, I'm planning on assuming you are in fact Pat Buchanan.
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.
There is nothing more blind than a politician. If anything's been proven in the mideast, the only way that terrorists MUST be dealt with is violently and with no mercy. It was only when Israel began negotiating with them that the terrorist attacks really ratched up. Back when Israel's only response was to kill terrorists, attacks were far less common.
Mark
This incident and the next gave huge credibility to Sharon’s claim broadcast by Israel Radio on 3 October 2001.
At the time Sharon was berating Foreign Minister Shimon Peres in Cabinet.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon Said...
“Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”
"America controls the world, and Israel controls America."
Nothing but fun on-line chit-chat...
George Bush, Richard Cheney, Colin Powell, Condie Rice for starters. Or are they just a bunch of saps for the Jews?
Can you show me anything that would support the theory that "Da Jews" were pushing for war in Iraq? Voting records, congressional or otherwise, won't confirm that. There was a great deal of support for the war withing the administration and congress, as well as opposition, and all you and Hollings can point to are the three "Jews". Laughable.
So you think Hollings gets his info from other nuts' webpages? Most likely.
Hollings was not addressing "influence on the President" but leadership of a "school of thought" that has been around "for years."
You didn't answer any of my questions
False. The only question I didn't answer was,"Do you think only Jews are pro-Israel?" The answer is no; in fact, I am fairly pro-Israel myself.
and you kind of skipped over the bizarre Mossad reference altogether.
No, I addressed that one.
George Bush, Richard Cheney, Colin Powell, Condie Rice for starters.
Had they been doing so "for years" as Hollings was discussing?
Can you show me anything that would support the theory that "Da Jews" were pushing for war in Iraq?
I have not stated that theory, nor as far as I can see did Hollings.
Apparently, George Bush came to town with the objective of overthrowing Iraq as the cornerstone of his "Israel" policy. He just couldn't admit it. Paul O'Neill, another Jew pawn I assume, was in charge of laying the groundwork. Clearly he thought of it pre-election
And the same bigoted morons masquerading as Republicans who expound these theories wonder why some Jews worry that the right is racist.
Apparently, George Bush came to town with the objective of overthrowing Iraq as the cornerstone of his "Israel" policy. He just couldn't admit it.
In other words, no.
Paul O'Neill, another Jew pawn I assume, was in charge of laying the groundwork.
You've misread Hollings: "George W. Bush, as stated by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and others, started laying the groundwork to invade Iraq days after inauguration."
In conclusion: Hi, Pat!
I addressed it in post #83.
And Condoleeza has been around for quite a while.
As a leader of a "school of thought"?
But Charles Krauthammer is, once again, still just a columnist.
That in no way disqualifies him from leadership of a "school of thought" that has been around "for years."
The mainstream media of course is silent as usual. Though it would be in a predictable tizzy if the Senator in question had a R in front of his name. Same old tiring but predictable double standard.
Iraq was invaded both in the Gulf War and this time partly so Israel would not have to resort to war to defend itself. That war would be destructive beyond imagination. The article is correct as far as that goes. All the rest of the article is hog slop. No, it's not even hog slop: not even hogs would touch it.
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.