Posted on 09/04/2002 6:58:10 PM PDT by kattracks
WASHINGTON, Sept 4 (Reuters) - Pressing his case against an assault on Baghdad, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark said on Wednesday the United States had no legitimate reason to attack Iraq and that it would be a grave mistake to do so.
"The claim that Iraq is a threat is a complete fraud. I don't think they believe it for a minute," Clark said, referring to the Bush administration's stated grounds for seeking to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Clark, who served in the Johnson administration at the height of the Vietnam war, said it would be "the gravest mistake" of any president in his lifetime if President George W. Bush launches a war against Iraq.
The U.S. government has accused Iraq of amassing weapons of mass destruction, a charge Baghdad denies.
"What business is it of the United States to engage in regime change?," Clark asked at a news conference called to announce anti-war demonstrations expected to take place on Oct. 26 in Washington, San Francisco, London, Paris, Berlin and Rome.
Bush said on Wednesday that at the appropriate time he would ask Congress to approve any action on Iraq "necessary to deal with the threat."
Clark has been a vocal opponent of U.S. policy on Iraq and the U.N. sanctions imposed on Baghdad for its 1990 invasion of Kuwait. In Baghdad last week, he urged the United Nations to act to prevent a U.S. assault on Iraq, saying it would breed more violence.
Other American critics of a possible war against Iraq shared their opinions on Wednesday at a Capitol Hill forum chaired by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat.
Some participants warned that a U.S. strike without legitimate reason, could destabilize the Middle East.
"A U.S. invasion would likely be met with fury across the region" American University professor Edmund Ghareeb said.
"Most Arab states view Iraq as a country on its knees, a victim of trigger-happy U.S. policies. An invasion would only serve to galvanize anti-American feelings, and help fulfill the dreams of extremists," Ghareeb said.
© Reuters Limited.
Should we ignore the fact that Saddam Hussain has been thwarting every sanction placed on him since 1991?,
Should we ignore the fact that he has NEVER stopped his Nuclear program?,
Should we ignore the fact that he is still producing chemical and biological weapons?
After 4 years of no weapons inspectors in Iraq and several of his top nuclear scientist testifying that Saddam is working on a nuclear program and is close to having a nuclear weapon, Should we ignore this also and focus on shodow cells operating in ths country ONLY?
Or should we deal with a clear and present danger that very well could exist. We're not privy to the intel the President has, I feel if the people in the loop feel we should go after Saddam now, I will support them, In case you havn't noticed, we have not been attacked again since 9/11 and I credit this administration for this. President Bush and this administration have earned my respect, and I expect they will lay out the case for attacking Saddam pre-emptively in the near future.
Be patient... The case will be made in a few short weeks!
NOW! did I trash you or bash you for making your point?
Thanks. That's all I needed to know. Ramsey Clark is a perfectly functioning reverse barometer for all that is good and right. Any lingering doubts I had about the wisdom of attacking Iraq have been utterly resolved. Let's drop the bomb on Saddam!
Anyway, regarding your points, I realize that Saddam didn't spend the oil-for-food money on food, but I don't really care that he spent it on new palaces either. His nuclear program was destroyed and there is almost no chance of him restarting it (requires large, easily detected facilities). He can produce chem and bio weapons more easily, especially bio. But his means of delivery are limited and detectable. We have vigorously embargoed all materials that could possibly be used for any of these purposes and the rest of the world has joined us.
I trust our satellites and radiation sensors, if there's no facilties, there's no weapons. As for information that has not yet been made public, I'm waiting to hear it. I will make up my mind then.
No Mr.Clark, you're the fraud!
Ramsey Clark:
"-- Flew to Hanoi to give aid and comfort to the North Vietnamese while American POWs were being beaten, tortured, and killed;
"-- Flew to Tehran to condemn the "Crimes of America" while his fellow citizens were being held hostage by Iranian militants;
"-- Flew to Tripoli to cheer up Colonel Mohamar Qaddafi after the U.S. bombed Libya terrorist training facilities;
"-- Flew to France to kneel at the feet of the late Ayatollah Khomeini;
"-- Flew to Baghdad to consult with Saddam Hussein;
"-- Flew to the defense of PLO leaders sued by the family of Leon Klinghoffer, the wheelchair-bound American tourist who was shot and tossed overboard from the cruise ship Achille Lauro by Palestinian commandos in 1986;
"-- Flew to Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's side, in a show of solidarity against American imperialism, to defend him against charges of genocide, rape, and torture against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo;
"-- Flew to the aid of indicted Rwanda genocide conspirator Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, a Hutu pastor accused of luring hundreds of Tutsi men, women, and children into his church and hospital compound -- where they were massacred by gunmen and grenade-throwers; and
"-- Flew to support the 1993 World Trade Center bombers (he played the race card for sympathetic minority jurors by decrying our racist judicial system), and continues to represent Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman, the scheming Muslim cleric now in federal prison for his role in planning New York City terrorist attacks."
* * * * * *
Unless you're one of this country's most bitter and foul enemies, there just isn't much about old Ramsey Clark to like, let alone applaud.
I suspect some of the info on him is currently classified, but Bush will make his case before Congress and the committees and they will mostly all jump on board, I would think. We dont "have all the facts" right now, but that doesent necessarily make this case weak... Oh, and no matter what, Ramsey Clark wont be "with us". Thats for sure,too.
Not neccessarily, When the former Soviet Union crumbled there were reports of massive amounts of weapons grade nuclear materials un-accounted for. Therefore the facilitied to produce would not be needed if the materials could be purchased on the black market.
None of us have the intel on these matters and I wouldn't expect this administration to explain how the obtained it if it meant exposing our sources. I would expect them to explain if it's a case of Saddam producing the material by showing sattelite photos of the facilities and I would expect them to explain how we know Saddam is attempting to purchase the material. If he is attempting either producing or purchasing these materials he needs to be removed.
Until Saddam can ussure us he doesn't have WMD and he isn't trying to abtain them, The NO Fly Zones and sanctions should stay in place. IMHO Saddam is the one who needs to make the case NOT the United States of America
And that clarifies what? Nevermind. Look, this is a Republic not a democracy, for good reason. We need leadership, not polls. Whether it's 'most of' your friends, your coworkers, your neighbors, your local gas station attendants, whatever, matters not a whit and persuades me of nothing.
I strongly urge you to brush up on your history of the 30's in Europe. Of course it's apples and oranges, but important parallels do exist that are critically relevant today. There is a gathering storm, and Sadaam is only one of the thunderheads on the horizon. The question isn't whether we start a war with Sadaam, it's whether we stop with Sadaam. I say no, on to Tehran, Damascus, Riyadh and whoever else is exporting radical Islam. We must defeat it, or it will eventually defeat us
We cannot talk our way out of the fundamental conflict between radical Islam and the West. Haven't you heard, we are collectively the Great Satan, our entire polity. Answer me one question: what other religions beside Islam, large or small, have as central theological tenet the universal and forcible conquest and conversion of those who don't accept that religion, with death for all who refuse? I'll wait (in vain) for a list.
The real solution is to figure out how to stop creating the petrodollar wealth that is being turned against us all over the globe. We are financing our enemies. It was Saudi money the hijackers spent. Where do you suppose the Saudis get so much money??? Forgive the length, but I'm now quite exasperated with those who have so quickly forgotten we are under attack of unprecedented nature. Osama is not a person, he's a movement, a cause.
"Ramsey Clark, the war criminal's best friend
The former U.S. attorney general has become the tool of left-wing cultists who defend Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein and Rwandan torturers as anti-imperialist heroes"
BY IAN WILLIAMS June 21, 1999
Perhaps. But is it not telling that 95 % of the Democraps in Congress are not raising a fuss like that nitwit Clark? Perchance they know something the rest of us don't?
Sometimes you can use the positions of others as a compass. Clark is one such person, IMO ( a negative reading, so to speak).
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.