Thanks! #36.....
 |
Or, given the time of the day.........
Posted on 09/07/2002 2:40:29 PM PDT by MadIvan
Tony Blair and George Bush today face mounting opposition to the war on Iraq from both sides of the Atlantic.
In Britain, a survey of Labour MPs showed almost zero backing for military attacks on Saddam Hussein's regime.
And in the States, former president Bill Clinton led a growing chorus of demands to postpone action until Osama bin Laden, the terrorist godfather thought to be behind the 11 September atrocities, is caught.
In another blow, the head of the intelligence committee in Congress, Bob Graham, also called for war to be postponed until Afghanistan was dealt with.
Mr Blair, who flies to Camp David tomorrow for a war summit with President Bush, came under pressure from Robin Cook, the leading "dove" in the Cabinet who pressed for MPs to be given a Commons vote on the issue.
Number 10 has so far refused to promise a vote and has rejected an early recall of Parliament to debate the crisis.
But Mr Cook said that before the original Gulf War in 1990, Labour and the Conservatives agreed to hold a vote.
"I am sure that this Labour government will be aware of that precedent," he said in an interview with the Financial Times.
Mr Cook, the Leader of the Commons, also demanded that military action be conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. "If we are to succeed in curbing Saddam's military ambitions, we have a better chance of success if we have the world with us and Saddam isolated," he said.
The scale of opposition among backbenchers was revealed in a survey of 100 Labour MPs carried out by the BBC. Only four said they thought there were currently sufficient grounds to declare war on Iraq, compared with 88 who did not.
Almost nine in 10 - 86 per cent - said there should be a Commons vote before the Cabinet takes a decision on military action. That was a direct challenge to ministers who have only offered a debate, without a vote, after the Cabinet has made up its mind.
Tensions were also growing in America, where Mr Clinton used a fundraising gala in California to attack President Bush for targeting Saddam Hussein before "finishing the job" in Afghanistan.
"Saddam Hussein didn't kill 3,100 people on 11 September," declared Mr Clinton. "Osama bin Laden did, and as far as we know he is still alive. Before we give up the effort in Afghanistan we need to finish the job. Bin Laden is still our biggest security threat."
Mr Clinton also warned that a strike against Saddam would strip the Iraqi leader of any incentive to hold off using chemical and biological weapons. He said: "Saddam Hussein is not a good man by our definition. There is no question that he has significant stocks of chemical and biological agents.
"I think we have to assume that if he knows we're coming, he'll do everything he can to use them. He has maximum incentive not to use the stuff. If we go in, he has maximum incentive to use it because he knows he's going to lose. That's a risk and it's an issue the President-has to address." The former president-said America should be trying to "lead the world" not "run the world". And he warned that Saddam was "admired" by many ordinary Arabs.
Labour MPs were furious today that Mr Blair decalred in a television documentary that he was prepared to pay the "blood price" needed to preserve the special relationship with the US.
He insisted that the UK must be there "when the shooting starts" to maintain its most important alliance.
Mr Blair will fly to Russia on Monday for talks with Vladimir Putin, his first piece of shuttle diplomacy on behalf of the fledgling coalition.
Russian backing is vital because Mr Putin has the power to veto any UN resolution as a permanent member of the UN security council.
Jack Straw will today insist it would be "wildly irresponsible" to rule out military action against Saddam. In a speech at Birmingham University, the Foreign Secretary will say: "Until Saddam co-operates fully with UN weapons inspectors, we have no guarantees that a dictator who has previously shown no restraint in using weapons of mass destruction will not use them again."
Guess Saddam has something on clinton and maybe he's being blackmailed. Hmmmmmmmmm?
Please elaborate. Are you suggesting that Clinton is making statements to get Conservatives behind the war effort? Do you have ANY idea how that sounds?
You should have said ex-president. He was a poor excuse for a president.
Fortunately for us, ex-presidents have no say in gov't. Current presidents do extend some courtesies to their predecessors, but they're not required to do so.
I have a feeling that carter and clintoon are going to have a very hard time getting any phone calls returned from this WH. And that will just make them nastier.
Thanks! #36.....
|
Thus, this is the reasoning. While this is projecting and not grounded in stone, it seems this is what is going on.
While Clinton is anti-American to you and I, and though I agree with it completely, he was simply used to degenerate the white house, deplore morals, as well as contribute to an ever-increasing globalist front. This is exactly what is going on today, and W appears to be leading the way in a "Globalist" coaltion to "bring the world together" for "peace". It's about the makings of a world government, and Saddam represents a threat to them. However, this is all speculation. Flame-Away.
What if OBL is dead?
klinton is a traitor to this country, as well as jimmy carter is.
I have also wondered why concern all of a sudden shifted to Iraq. To me, it's like there was no word of him, and now it is 24-7.
It was only a matter of time before clinton would try undermine the current administration. If he doesn't take extreme positions, nobody pays any attention to him.Guess Saddam has something on clinton and maybe he's being blackmailed. Hmmmmmmmmm?
I imagine he's just building upon his Legacy.......
The Legacy..........
Does anyone really expect Clinton to support America? I mean, the guy is just showing his true colors.
BTW, will America attack Iraq if Saddam should demonstrate to the world that he has nukes by openly testing one?
"I don't believe 9-11 happened because of an intelligence breach," Quayle told Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes.""I think it was really a policy breach. It was the inaction of the previous administration, by and large, that al Qaeda -- and bin Laden in particular -- thought that they could hit the United States, and there would be a retaliation maybe of a cruise missile but nothing more than that," he explained.
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.