Sunday, January 02, 2005

An Immediate and Growing Threat

Republicans claim Iraq and Osama weren't worth it (During Clinton's Term)

"Osama bin Laden’s camp in Afghanistan consisted of shacks and tents, hardly a fit target for a missile that costs nearly a million dollars per copy"
If we "succeed", what have we gained? If we don't begin a war, what have we lost?
"Chm.JCS Shelton also said even though it was bomber 7:30pm and 10pm to limit "collateral damage" READ: CIVILIAN CASUALITIES! there would be a "number" of them! These are innocents for Clinton's reign of terror! CLinton is a terrorist!!!"


Blogger Management said...

Here is a story that needs to be told to the world, kick it, nominate it, and/or blast it.

Osama is not worth it, cries the Conservatives

"Osama bin Laden’s camp in Afghanistan consisted of shacks and tents, hardly a fit target for a missile that costs nearly a million dollars per copy"

The Voice of the Freepers

"Last time it was Iraq, Now we are bombing Afghanistan and Sudan"

"Afgahnistan ought to be our ally"

"Low-risk targets with very little chance of retaliation or casualties for US personnel-how coincidental"


"This brash act by a brash child-man is a direct threat to the security of every citizen inside our own borders for the people against whom he acted are non-forgiving and have no fear of death"

"PLEASE GOD HELP US!!!! I AM THE STUPID1 ----- please excuse me for yelling, but now I'm really scared of the lenghts this man is willing to go"

All from

3. Joe Farah's Opinion

"Joe Farah points out in his Between the Lines (12/18/98) that "As president, Bill Clinton has...squandered $5.5 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars on containing the Iraqi threat..." (Bush has spent much more than $5.5 billion)

4. Reasons not to invade Iraq (written by Conservatives)

It is unconstitutional for America to go to war without a Congressional declaration of war.

Given the present set of facts, there is no Constitutional predicate on the basis of which Congress has the authority to initiate war, even with a declaration of war.

In war, there is no substitute for victory. Victory, as commonly understood, with respect to an assault on Iraq, has not been defined, let alone declared to be the objective of any such attack.

The strategic position of the United States in the world may be diminished, rather than enhanced, by an attack on Iraq. Many regimes friendly to the United States will be placed at severe risk if they are seen to assist, or even favor, the U.S. attack.

If we "succeed", what have we gained? If we don't begin a war, what have we lost?

War has consequences which are often unintended and almost always beyond comprehensive anticipation. If we and our "allies" join to attack Iraq, Iraq and its allies may combine to attack us in ways which cannot be fully foreseen. How many planes will crash? How many water supplies will be polluted? How many nuclear weapons will be detonated? How many civilian targets will be made subject to terrorist assault? Will chemical weapons be deployed?

2:57 PM  
Blogger Management said...

The WTC wasn't attacked by Iraq or Iraqis. It was attacked mostly by Saudis with the blessing of Bin Laden. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, contrary to what Cheney etal. would have us believe.
The "9/11 changed everything" bullshit does not apply here. Let us not forget that the real perps of 9/11 are still at large.
The Cons were correct for once. It was a stupid idea to attack Iraq.

3:01 PM  
Blogger Management said...

Here, they are warning Clinton NOT to retaliate against the Cole attacks

Senator to Clinton: Don't Wag the Dog

Wes Vernon
Saturday, Oct. 28, 2000

An influential member of the Senate Armed Services and Select Intelligence Committees has urged President Clinton to consult with military leaders and congressional committees before any possible military action before the election.

Several lawmakers are worried the president might "wag the dog" and create a "crisis" just in time to help Al Gore’s re-election effort.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., says Clinton should touch military and congressional bases before any possible retaliation for the recent attack on the USS Cole that killed 17 American sailors and wounded 39.

Such consultations, says Inhofe, "would help preclude any suspicions that potential military action this close to an election is politically motivated."

The Oklahoma lawmaker recalls the August 1998 cruise missile attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan, one of which hit an aspirin factory. Though Inhofe doesn’t spell it out, the suspicion then was that the president wanted to change the subject away from a focus on the grand jury investigation into questions of perjury and obstruction of justice in the Monica Lewinsky matter.

"It was a case where something was done and nobody knew it was going to happen," declares the GOP senator. "As a result, there are a lot of people who believe this military action might have been politically motivated."

The senator did not mention also that Clinton’s claim that he had to take military action on the day the House was considering impeachment in December 1998 failed the laugh test with many lawmakers.

Noting the election is less than two weeks away, Inhofe adds: "I want to go on record urging the president to work closely on any proposed action that could take place as a result of the USS Cole tragedy, in full consultation with all members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the top service commanders in chief, as well as with the members of both the Senate Armed Services Committee, the House Armed Services Committee, and the Intelligence Committees."

12:43 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home