Bush lied, going it alone, unnecessary war...yadda yadda yadda
It seems to me that John Kerry's latest tactic of bashing Bush on the the Iraq war might have helped him a bit more if he'd waited until, say, the last week of the campaign to come out with it. As it is, this last ditch effort of harumphing about the war is already losing its steam. Many who have listened to Kerry carefully are pointing out, with plenty of time to spare before the election, that there isn't anything new here.
Kerry's latest, greatest, magical mystery stance on Iraq can be boiled down to this -- We need France! I think we know how the American people feel about that sentiment by now and once they realize that's basically what's being said here...yet again...Kerry will stumble a little further down his Road to Dukakis.
And just to keep the Iraq situation in perspective, everytime you hear the "Bush lied" or "rush to war" or "blood for oil" silliness being spouted by the left and by Kerry himself, here's a little nugget you can throw back at them. In this letter to the Speaker of the House , dated March 3, 1999, Clinton jusitifies his reason for why he used military force against Iraq.
Key quotes:
As stated in my December 18 report, on December 16, United States and British forces launched military strikes on Iraq (Operation Desert Fox) to degrade Iraq's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to degrade its ability to threaten its neighbors.The decision to use force was made after U.N. Special Commission(UNSCOM) Executive Chairman Richard Butler reported to the U.N. Secretary General on December 14, that Iraq was not cooperating fully with the Commission and that it was "not able to conduct the substantive disarmament work mandated to it by the Security Council."
Gee, I've heard this somewhere before...And then there's this:
This came after the passage on March 3, 1998, of Resolution 1154, warning Iraq that the "severest consequences" (gee this sounds familiar) would result from Iraq's failure to cooperate with the implementation of Resolution 687 (where on earth have I heard this before).
Oh, and there's more:
The threat to the region posed by Iraq's refusal to cooperate unconditionally with UNSCOM, and the consequent inability of UNSCOM to carry out the responsibilities the Security Council entrusted to it, could not be tolerated. These circumstances led the United States and the United Kingdom (you don't say??) to use military force (you don't say?) to degrade Iraq's capacity to threaten its neighbors through the development of WMD (there's that pesky WMD thing yet again) and long-range delivery systems. During Desert Fox, key WMD sites and the facilities of the organizations that conceal them, as well as important missile repair facilities and surface-to-air missile sites, were attacked. Operation Desert Fox degraded Saddam's ability to threaten his neighbors militarily.
And here's the coup de grace:
As long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, he represents a threat to the well-being of his people, the peace of the region, and the security of the world. We will continue to contain the threat he poses, but over the long term the best way to address that threat is through a new government in Baghdad (Did he say what I think he said?).
This letter goes on about "chemical weapons", "biological weapons", "long range missles", shoot it even mentions "nuclear weapons". But if you wish to view all the details, just read the entire letter. It really makes a good case for military force against this Saddam Hussein guy.
Bottom line is the Clinton administration launched strikes against Iraq for all the same reasons put forth by the Bush administration and it never even bothered to notify the U.N. about its little Operation Desert Fox. But Clinton was nice enough to send this little letter over to Congress after it was all said and done, though. Wasn't that nice? Funny...I don't recall John Kerry and the lefties screaming about the Clinton lies and rush to war and blood for oil and unilateral intervention and...Oh, well, I think you get the picture.
Kerry's latest, greatest, magical mystery stance on Iraq can be boiled down to this -- We need France! I think we know how the American people feel about that sentiment by now and once they realize that's basically what's being said here...yet again...Kerry will stumble a little further down his Road to Dukakis.
And just to keep the Iraq situation in perspective, everytime you hear the "Bush lied" or "rush to war" or "blood for oil" silliness being spouted by the left and by Kerry himself, here's a little nugget you can throw back at them. In this letter to the Speaker of the House , dated March 3, 1999, Clinton jusitifies his reason for why he used military force against Iraq.
Key quotes:
As stated in my December 18 report, on December 16, United States and British forces launched military strikes on Iraq (Operation Desert Fox) to degrade Iraq's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to degrade its ability to threaten its neighbors.The decision to use force was made after U.N. Special Commission(UNSCOM) Executive Chairman Richard Butler reported to the U.N. Secretary General on December 14, that Iraq was not cooperating fully with the Commission and that it was "not able to conduct the substantive disarmament work mandated to it by the Security Council."
Gee, I've heard this somewhere before...And then there's this:
This came after the passage on March 3, 1998, of Resolution 1154, warning Iraq that the "severest consequences" (gee this sounds familiar) would result from Iraq's failure to cooperate with the implementation of Resolution 687 (where on earth have I heard this before).
Oh, and there's more:
The threat to the region posed by Iraq's refusal to cooperate unconditionally with UNSCOM, and the consequent inability of UNSCOM to carry out the responsibilities the Security Council entrusted to it, could not be tolerated. These circumstances led the United States and the United Kingdom (you don't say??) to use military force (you don't say?) to degrade Iraq's capacity to threaten its neighbors through the development of WMD (there's that pesky WMD thing yet again) and long-range delivery systems. During Desert Fox, key WMD sites and the facilities of the organizations that conceal them, as well as important missile repair facilities and surface-to-air missile sites, were attacked. Operation Desert Fox degraded Saddam's ability to threaten his neighbors militarily.
And here's the coup de grace:
As long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, he represents a threat to the well-being of his people, the peace of the region, and the security of the world. We will continue to contain the threat he poses, but over the long term the best way to address that threat is through a new government in Baghdad (Did he say what I think he said?).
This letter goes on about "chemical weapons", "biological weapons", "long range missles", shoot it even mentions "nuclear weapons". But if you wish to view all the details, just read the entire letter. It really makes a good case for military force against this Saddam Hussein guy.
Bottom line is the Clinton administration launched strikes against Iraq for all the same reasons put forth by the Bush administration and it never even bothered to notify the U.N. about its little Operation Desert Fox. But Clinton was nice enough to send this little letter over to Congress after it was all said and done, though. Wasn't that nice? Funny...I don't recall John Kerry and the lefties screaming about the Clinton lies and rush to war and blood for oil and unilateral intervention and...Oh, well, I think you get the picture.
posted by Wonderdog | 5:10 PM | Permalink
|
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home