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.
With the mounting pressure of the possibility of war on Iraq, one or more of Saddam's Generals just might take matters into their own hands and kill him and all of his closest advisors and family and invite the UN and America in to any kind of inspections neccessary to lift the sanctions placed on them.
The other thought is... President Bush will tell the U.N. on Sept 12th that we plan to use military force (if neccessary) to enforce the U.N. Resolutions he agreed upon and conduct highly intrusive weapons inspections or we will use whatever force it takes to remove Saddam and liberate Iraq from his oppressive regime and after his removal, call on the U.N. and NATO to help with rebuilding and becoming a productive member of the peaceful nations of the world.
It takes enormous care and skill--or psychosis.
Well, even a stopped clock... But no matter, his record is near perfect (starting from and including the Vietnam War)
President Bush will release chilling proof that Saddam is very close to having the capability of launching nuclear arms and announce we are going to use every tool at our disposal to eliminate the threat Saddam represents. He will ask the world to join us and explain why we must go forward without them if they decide not to.
The second is more plausible but we need to try to work within the nonproliferation treaties. These work well because there are big carrots and reasonable sticks for countries that follow them. If we change that to all stick and no carrot we can lose the incentives for other countries (e.g. N. Korea) to follow.
AID AND COMFORT: Jane Fonda in North Vietnam, Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer, MacFarland & Co., 2002, page 46.
Ramsey Clark travelled to the enemy to volunteer his broadcast message to be used to demoralize United States Prisoners of War in North Vietnamese prison camps.
Ramsey Clark may rightly be dropped on Saddam's bunker, duct-taped to the Mother of All BLU-118s with the notation on his forehead in magic marker:
Not Fonda you either, m------f------
Not only Milosevic, who may or may not have been falsely accused, but the surviving Branch Davidians - who we know were given neither mercy nor justice by the Klintoon courts and Dept. of Injustice.
From an AP story in WACO JURY: GOVERNMENT NOT GUILTY!!!!!, posted here 7/14/00:
''This was one of the most terrible and horrible events in our history and they want to come into court and ask you to award them a judgment,'' U.S. Attorney Michael Bradford, who defended the government, said in closing arguments. ''That would be wrong. It would not be supported by anything that would be just and right.''Plaintiffs' lawyers, including Ramsey Clark, who was attorney general during Lyndon Johnson's administration, said the deaths of the cult members ''didn't have to happen and called the siege ''the greatest domestic law enforcement tragedy in the history of the United States.''
''If the conduct of the ATF and the FBI was performed without excessive force and without negligence, then how in the world did it end up with such unmitigated, disastrous effects?'' Clark said.
Yep, the visceral reaction some have on the mention of Ransey Clark is predictable, just as many of us who didn't know better thought the Branch Davidians were out to slaughter good, solid BATF agents in February, 1993.
With a little learning, and a skeptical mind, we are all capable of overcoming our prejudices.
My last point is this...
Saddam has completely ignored the terms he agreed to after he was allowed to remain in power. After all... He made war with his nieghbor Kuwait, And America and the world responded by expelling him from Kuwait. In most cases he would not be allowed to continue as the leader, in this case he was allowed but with restrictions. The U.N. resolutions and restrictions were clear and he was given a path to become a productive member of the world community. Yet he decided to ignore his promises and thwart every effort to make him accountable. These reasons alone are enough to justify his removal, Clinton just didn't have the b@lls to confront him. Now we have a mess on our hands and I too hope this can be handled without sending our troops into Baghdad.
But if we have to use military force to reign in Saddam, I'm glad we have the Commander-in-Chief we do right now, because I don't think he is up to anything that would disgrace the office he holds or disgrace our nation.
The problem with looking only at results and assigning unconditional blame is that is the way marxism works. E.g. if people are poor it must be the rich people's fault. Ramsey Clark's mind seems to work this way. Doesn't mean he isn't right sometimes, it just means he doesn't always explore all possibilties and examine the evidence without preconceptions.
Hey, dont lump all us libertarians in that group. With the knowledge I have on hand, I fully support ousting Saddam.
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.