Posted on 08/19/2002 10:59:30 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
You know (he said, thinkin' out loud), I see the possibility that we might go in there Kick some A, take some names and set up a temporary government. Kind
of like what we did in Afghanistan. Let the people elect their own leader and set
up a model of a freely elected system to be used for the next terrorist supporting
ME country where we can do the same. Just a thought, anyway ! 
It's about time they came out of the 12th century I'd say !
True, a handful of Republicans have heartburn over Bush's intentions in Iraq--but only a handful. The list grows thin after Nebraska's Chuck Hagel in the Senate, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, and former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft. The placement of the Times story, though, suggests a mass repudiation is taking place. It's not--far from it.
That's the distortion part of the story. The inaccurate part involves former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, whom the Times names as a critic of military action against Iraq. Not so. He's an ally of Bush. Kissinger laid out much of the case for invading Iraq to achieve regime change in an August 11 op-ed in the Washington Post. He explicitly endorsed Bush's policy of preemption: removing a threat before it strikes. The inviolability of the nation-state is no longer the rule, he wrote: "The terrorist threat transcends the nation-state; it derives in large part from transnational groups that, if they acquire weapons of mass destruction, could inflict catastrophic, even irretrievable, damage."
That's not all Kissinger wrote. He insisted "the case for removing Iraq's capacity for mass destruction is extremely strong." He said containment and deterrence worked against the Soviet Union but "are unlikely to work against Iraq's capacity to cooperate with terrorist groups." And he said wiping out Iraq's weapons of mass destruction "would have potentially beneficent political consequences." He concluded: "The imminence of proliferation of WMDs, the huge dangers it involves, the rejection of a viable inspection system and the demonstrated hostility of Hussein combine to produce an imperative for preemptive action." Kissinger's only qualm was how Bush sells his strategy to allies.
Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to former President George H.W. Bush, made the case for containing, rather than routing the Iraqi dictator and his suspected stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, Scowcroft said, "(Saddam) is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists who would use them for their own purposes and leave Baghdad as the return address. While Saddam is thoroughly evil, he is above all a power-hungry survivor."
"I think Scowcroft has done us all a great favor by his article saying don't do it," former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger said Friday. "My own personal view is that basically Gen. Scowcroft is correct. Unless the president can make a very compelling case that Saddam Hussein has his finger on a weapon of mass destruction and is about ready to use it, I do not think that now is the time to go to war against Saddam Hussein."
Our advice to the Times: Take a break from trying to manipulate American foreign policy, and concentrate on Who, What, When, Where, and Why.
Exactly, the maggots at the NY Slimes have been manipulating American domestic and foreign policy for close to a Century. It is time to turn out the lights on these DNC pro Islamakazi Clowns pretending to be a news paper.
I have a hard time trying to tell if they control the DNC or the DNC controls them.
Many days I believe that the owners of the NY Slimes, the Compost and CNNCBSNBCABCMSNBC really control the DNC rather than the DNC controlling them.
You posted, Is there any connection between this group and Scott Ritter?
Ritter is such an obvious plant and putz on stage working so hard for Saddam.
Saddam either has pictures of Ritter involved in group sex with several randy camels and maybe Saddam himself, or he has threatened Ritter's family with death if he doesn't defend Saddam, or he has been bought out. What a terrible and rotten smelling POS for Saddam, that Ritter has become.
Thanks, Grampa !
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.