1 posted on
08/15/2002 7:30:56 PM PDT by
Pokey78
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-37 last
To: Pokey78
Senator Hagel, who was among the earliest voices to question Mr. Bush's approach to Iraq, said today that the Central Intelligence Agency had "absolutely no evidence" that Iraq possesses or will soon possess nuclear weapons. I hope we don't wait until we decide that they will be operational a week from Sunday. I doubt our intelligence is that good. If there is substantive evidence that Saddam is really pursuing developing operational nukes, then we should go in now. If not, we shouldn't. It is really quite simple.
50 posted on
08/15/2002 8:30:02 PM PDT by
Torie
To: Pokey78
Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf came out against attacking Iraq today. The whole US military top brass is, in fact, against attacking Iraq and letting it be known publicly. Sen. Hagel's line about letting Mr. Perle be on the first attack wave into Baghdad was precious. What is Mr. Perle doing now in France, of all places, anyway instead of on the front lines? Luckily for America, some Americans (Kissinger, Scowcroft, the US Joint Chiefs, etc.) can still distinguish what are America's own interests and keep America's interests first. American young soldiers' lives are at stake, after all, and there's no proof that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11. If Saddam ever did develop nukes, he couldn't use them anyway without getting himself nuked himself. Warren Buffett also warned about America's increasingly self-defeating Mideast policy. As an insurance man, he knows the probability of America's being attacked with nukes increases as America continues to needlessly antagonize the whole Arab world. Do war hawks really want New York or Washington, D.C. to be eventually nuked? America needs a lower probability of another 9-11, not a higher probability. America is not making itself very popular or liked these days, which is a shame because the best thing about America -- its good image -- is being thoughtlessly destroyed overnight by certain irresponsible Americans themselves.
51 posted on
08/15/2002 8:30:07 PM PDT by
AIG
To: Pokey78
WAY past time to cut Powell loose. Get rid of him. "Either your with us or against us". PERIOD.
I've had it with all these UN boot licking one worlders trying to force us to bow down to an international authoirty that will give us permission to defend ourselves.
Go BUSH, GO!
56 posted on
08/15/2002 8:32:31 PM PDT by
griffin
To: Pokey78
"...Mr. Scowcroft wrote that if the United States "were seen to be turning our backs" on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute "in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us." On September 11th we lived through "an explosion of outrage against us"....and I for one am grateful the Bush administration is not waiting for another "explosion" before acting.
It may be time to up Scrowcroft's meds.
To: Pokey78
Kissinger and Scowcroft are "top Republicans"? Seems like the NYT is beating the bush for a Republican who will beat on Bush.
To: Pokey78
This is a good thing actually. A
little second guessing by trusted political allies is not all bad. It promotes caution, alertness, and resolve in our commander in chief. After all we are asking men to go in harm's way to achieve this goal. Many could die. The fog of war is never clear. It is allways best to be George McClelland before the battle instead of during.
That being said, I'm sure Bush has resolved his commanders to be bold in their planning and execution. This article is crap in that it is not intended for Bush but for us to have little faith in Bush and his motives. We love the NYT: not!
97 posted on
08/15/2002 9:02:21 PM PDT by
Pharmer
To: Pokey78
That title had me worried.
Top Republicans my a$$.
To: Pokey78
Henry Kissinger a "top Republican"??
Kissinger is NOT only even a mere RINO, but a One-World Government/New World Order hack, and always has been.
This phony over the years has constantly proven to put international interests ahead of the sovereign principle of the Republic of the United States of America. We know what that makes Mr. Kissinger...
To: Pokey78; Miss Marple
I'll bet this figures into their decision about what to do with Iraq and when--
Ailing Saudi King
123 posted on
08/15/2002 9:16:08 PM PDT by
Ken H
To: Pokey78
The President will be held personally accountable if he attacks Iraq and it goes wrong. He is willing to accept that responsibility. For these "top Republicans" to have any credibility what are they willing to put on the line if we do not attack and the next 911 is laid at Saddam's feet? They have all acknowledged that Saddam is, if not a present danger, a clear future danger to the United States and yet they want to wait until that future danger materializes to act. They are not leaders, they are pontificators that, if they have their way, pontificate all of us into a century of terrorist actions and reduced security and freedom here at home.
To: Pokey78
Yew lissen ta yer daddy George. Nobody ... I mean NOBODY knows more bout snatchin defeat from the jaws of victory then he does!
195 posted on
08/15/2002 9:55:22 PM PDT by
mercy
To: Pokey78
The
New York Times remains one of the premier trash liners, having so many sections, pages, "All The News That Smells of Sh!t".
Top Republicans are Bush and Cheney. Headline should read "Rinos and Dinos Push Appeasement".
Kissinger recently counselled to not thwart China's ambitions--now he suggests the same for Iraq.
Eagleburger? A two-seater on any remaining airline, but not a heavyweight for current foreign policy strategy.
And as for Hagel's cheap shot--that's all it is.
Armey? Haven't you left for Pensionville yet?
What was in the sixty trucks?
Oh, Scott Ritter said Saddam's collection of Elvis regalia.
As for the world's opinion? It's the same as Mugabe's "war veterans" for the white farmers:
"Get your white asses out of here--and fix the irrigation pump on your way out!"
With acknowledgements to the author of that phrase last night, dighton, I believe, if not clive.
As for the babel about CIA having no evidence:
Haven't we fed Tenet to starving Sudanese children in sealed tins yet?
Oh, and delay while we solve the intractable Israeli-Palestinian situation?
Right, stop and let the glacier pass--then address national security.
It's a time for leadership, and Bush has it, while Schumer's busy banning guns, and his colleague the Butch of Buchenvald is dreaming of smooching Suha again.
Someone brought up Schwarzkopf: he wanted to go on to Baghdad and was publicly humiliated for it. That was the Schwarzkopf I admire.
The fact remains that Atta met with the Iraqi agent in Prague before 911. The Czech prime minister, interior minister and ambassador to the U.S. affirm this.
The Iraqi agent was expelled for surveilling Czech landmarks for terror attacks.
No doubt he met with Atta for drinks at a sidewalk cafe to ogle the local talent.
Clinton with the lens caps on sees no proof.
"China will do a fine job running the Canal. Look how good a job they did on Saddam's air defense fiber optics."
To: Pokey78
How about Gerald (make Puerto Rico a state) Ford?...What did that mental giant have to say about it?
To: Pokey78
This is why the Democrats make absolutely sure that they all speak the same story. We joke about talking points being faxed every day, but you see what happens when people on the other side go out and say their own opinions? The press pounces on it in order to create the impression of disunity and weakness.
The next step for the Times is to use this as a weapon to try to force Bush to abandon furthering the war on terrorism because his "advisors" are split on what to do.
-PJ
To: Pokey78
These senior Republicans include former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft, the first President Bush's national security adviser. All say they favor the eventual removal of Saddam Hussein, but some say they are concerned that Mr. Bush is proceeding in a way that risks alienating allies, creating greater instability in the Middle East, and harming long-term American interests.they are concerned that Mr. Bush is proceeding in a way that risks alienating allies
That really means "Mr. (notice how they call him Mr. Bush and not President Bush, f-ing scumbags) is going to screw up all our money making ventures with our Eurotrash patrons.
To: Pokey78
I guess they want GW to sit back & ignore saddam, just like billyboy ignored bin laden!!
To: Pokey78
ROFLOL....what Iraq policy? I'd like to point out to the NY Times that no one really knows what the administration's policy on Iraq will turn out to be. And though I can probably hazard a guess which stands a very good chance of being right...I am not going to be guilty of giving this leftist rag a clue.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-37 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson