Clinton: NATO should intervene in Iraq

"The conference aimed to give a boost to the "third way" that informed the politics of the centre-left in the 1990s."

We know about Monica and others, but tell me more about this third way thing.

My first inclination is to move on when I see an atricle quoting Clinton. That's probably a mistake. As you say, he is a horrible person.

Thank you for the nice comments.

+

The only thing Clinton accomplishes by playing Foreign Policy Sage at some European gathering is that he diminishes the candidates the Democrats are grooming for 2004.

The Democratic faithful look at him, and then they look at the pathetic collection of minor-league players they have to field next year, and it must knock the air out of them.

He's too smart to not know this, so this is an item of strategy between the Clintons. He is either trying to mow "the nine" down early so that Hillary can come rushing to save the party in 2004 (she may have a struggle with Al Gore if such a slot opens up), or he's weakening them so as to make sure there's no incumbent Democrat in the White House come 2008.

In either case, the Clintons are now openly operating at cross-purposes with the rest of the party. That might be lost on a lot of the faithful, but the party's elected officials understand it very well. There's a rift there, and maybe even a "struggle for the soul of the party" if the wiser heads over there decide they'd better have it out now, than have it blow open with an election on the horizon.

We'll know how it's going by whether Terry McAuliffe discovers that he needs to spend more time with his family. Dean is already calling for his head... a move like this from Clinton could leave Gephardt and Lieberman thinking the same thing: these two have got to go. And their little Gore, too.

suitable comment?

I'll save you the trouble.
There are simply no words that could adequately describe the total contempt I have for this man, his wife and those who enable them.

That explains our enemy press grilling our honorable SOD last week:

Q: Mr. Secretary, can you clarify, just help us understand the question of whether NATO has been called or not? This would seem to be something you'd know and perhaps make that phone call yourself. Can you clarify for us what is the Administration's position as far as reaching out to NATO and NATO to provide troops for --

Rumsfeld: I don't know what else I can add. The Department of State has been the instrument through which the United States of America has been consulting with many, many dozens and dozens of nations and organizations around the world. They deal with NATO, they deal with the UN, they have been doing it.

I do know for a fact that NATO is involved. They have been doing the force generation and assistance for Poland. I also know they are currently under discussions as to additional ways they might help.

I tend to be very precise when I answer a question and I answer what I know and I don't answer what I don't know. Can I say precisely what the request was made or requests plural were made by the United States of NATO? No. You may think it's something I ought to know, but I happen not to. That's life and that's a very honest answer.

Q: As a former Ambassador to NATO, is there a formal procedure, a formal request that must be made?

Rumsfeld: No, in answer to your question. It can be self-generated with the Secretary General; it can come from another country other than ours; it can come from another nation that's not part of NATO. There are any number of ways that things can get started within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Clinton urged to head NATO ^ , soss (same old socialist ~~s*it~~ silliness from OLD Europe)

Hillary: "New Political Icon" Clinton's European Triumph[Benedict Rodham dissing CIC in Old Europe]
International News Analysis Today ^ | July 8, 2003 | Toby Westerman

The TRUE Capitol Hill Blue story the PRESS IGNORED:'Dems plan to undermine America to beat Bush'

Character counts:
Rice Says France, Germany Took NATO 'Hostage' ^

The only difference is the U.S. can succeed where nato has failed. We have never lost a war, only to ourselves. What has the U.N. ever done that would suggest they have the ability to take over Iraq. Last time I checked every single country they have been to is worse off now then before the U.N. decided to "help out". I think the democrats are suggesting that we internationalize this so Iraq will turn out badly and it will look like they were right...either that or they are even more stupid then we originally thought they were. I don't think we need to be reminded of france's ability to overcome or the lack thereof their record speaks for themselves, so why are they so vocal about what we need to be doing. The UN did not support the war they were not willing to fail at yet another attempt to make the world a better place, I for one am glad we were fortunate enough to not have their assistance. Although it would be nice for additional funding resources, the price we would have to pay would be too great, and that price my friends is failure.