Ritter says crisis was orchestrated
Ritter knows what he's talking about here. Clinton's policy changed from ignoring the inspectors to asking them to give justification for a military strike.
Great summary of recent events! This topic has several threads running concurrently today and should be consolidated in one location by someone with more expertise than yours truly.
Strange, but while reading this article, I began thinking about the Gulf of Tonkin.
------
Sure thing....but what are the odds we'll see this happen!
Do you realize, given the nature of the bombing campaign, that Clinton ordered an attack designed to oust Saddam from power in violation of international law (not that any sort of law would stop him)?
He wants to look like a hero and he's placing America in jeapordy to do it!
From: motsar (reality@america.com) * 12/20/98 20:28:58 PST
All of the elements are in place for a military strike today or Thursday and the probablilty is high that a attack will be launched which will include heavy civilian casualties. This is what Saddham is counting on to give him the propaganda coup he desires to get the sanctions lifted.
Saddham's story line will be: "Clinton is in danger of impeachment at home ergo he has launched the attack to save his job. Saddham has fully cooperated with the UN inspectors who have falsely manufactured Iraq's non-cooperation as an excuse to attack. That no weapons were destroyed because none exist and innocent civilians were killed. Clinton is an international criminal and should be tried for war crimes, etc."
No one has advanced any rationale for why the attack has to come now rather than any other time in the last 6 months other than it is the eve of impeachment. This will be picked up and noted by the world press and used to support a "wag the dog" story line against the US. Thus, Saddham will have once again played Clinton's domestic problems to his own advantage.
In the short term Clinton will achieve delaying the impeachment vote. Long term, it will boomerang on him and the public opinion backlash would carry him to conviction in the Senate and removal from office (unless he has some other card up his sleeve). This leaves open the obvious conclusion that another shoe will drop if we attack Iraq. Speculation as to terrorist attacks on the US or Israel are the most obvious retaliation avenues. A large scale terrorist attack on the US could cause Clinton to invoke "martial law" under various Executive Orders issued since the Koren War (including FEMA). Alternatively, a large scale attack on Isreal could start a real war in the middle east..
Very interesting scenario to contemplate. I guess we will know the "real story" by this weekend. Until then our battle cry should be: "even paranoids have enemies"! From: res ipsa loquitur () * 12/16/98 12:32:48 PST -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Spirit_Of_Truth_Page If Clinton is foolish enough to light the fuse, then God help us.
Does anybody really expect the Arab World to just sit back and take it?
There will be anti American riots everywhere, and possibly attacks on bases and service personnel in places like Saudi Arabia.
Clinton will be responsible for the deaths, not just of Iraqis but for, who knows how many, other lives.
From: MrDaddyLongLegs (Stopthismadness@once) * 12/16/98 12:43:51 PST
IRAQNOPHOBIA
1998
If you attempt any military action, you need a clear entry strategy, a clear objective, and a clear exit strategy. McCain knows about things military and this action is unequivocally a Wag The Dog Action on the part of this President. This is the same President who was "being serviced" while on the telephone with a congressman discussing whether or not to use military force. This is the President who is going to send your sons and grandsons to die as a distraction for Americans on the Impeachment and election issues. This is the man (?) who will do anything to save his own sorry butt no matter the cost to others. He'll let YOUR family members get killed, but wouldn't serve when it was his turn. When did so many Americans get so stupid?
Posted by: M� () * 10/11/98 11:11:40 PDT
The President's Speech, a few comments.
Clinton speech1998
I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses. So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction, and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.
I hope? What a leader!
Long Term Strategy? I thought the object of a war would be to accomplish your goals as quickly as possible and get out of there. So, our men and women are going to be tied up in the Iraqi mess long term? As usual, Clinton is good at getting us tangled up in these messes but never has a clear exit strategy.
First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq, or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force and, when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.
Use Force Again? In other words, we aren't going in there with the goal of finishing the job? We are going to be tied up with Iraq as long as Clinton remains president.
Topic: Bosnia
U.S.'s Bosnian SNAFU
Irish Times
September 6, 1997 AFP
But don't worry, the troops will be home in no time! Or HOW I STOPPED WORRYING AND LEARNED TO LOVE NEVER-ENDING POLICE ACTIONS.
Posted by: Bob Ireland
09/05/97 21:22:32 PDT
To: September 6, 1997!!
" HOW I STOPPED WORRYING AND LEARNED TO LOVE NEVER-ENDING POLICE ACTIONS."
Are you- psychic?
From: mrsmith
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Republic opposed Clinton bombing and going into Iraq over unproven accusations that Saddam was developing WMDs. Free Republic opposed military actions that Clinton took in Europe and Africa and Iraq...even while our pilots and soldiers were engaged in operations. Comments were made that it was patriotic to condemn a war that we got involved in under false pretenses. And that to bring our soldiers home from such debacles was "supporting our troops". Opposition to nation building wars was the standard opinion here...before a Republican came to office.