Ernest Hollings.........american?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by grimer11, May 8, 2004.

  1. Bush's Failed Mideast Policy is Creating More Terrorism

    2004-05-08

    Even establishment figures now acknowledge much of what the National Alliance was saying in 2002: The Iraq war was for Israel.

    by U.S. Senator Ernest F. Hollings (pictured)

    WITH 760 DEAD in Iraq and over 3,000 maimed for life, home folks continue to argue why we are in Iraq -- and how to get out.

    Now everyone knows what was not the cause. Even President Bush acknowledges that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Listing the 45 countries where al-Qaida was operating on September 11 (70 cells in the U.S.), the State Department did not list Iraq. Richard Clarke, in "Against All Enemies," tells how the United States had not received any threat of terrorism for 10 years from Saddam at the time of our invasion.

    On Page 231, John McLaughlin of the CIA verifies this to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. In 1993, President Clinton responded to Saddam's attempt on the life of President George H.W. Bush by putting a missile down on Saddam's intelligence headquarters in Baghdad. Not a big kill, but Saddam got the message -- monkey around with the United States and a missile lands on his head. Of course there were no weapons of mass destruction. Israel's intelligence, Mossad, knows what's going on in Iraq. They are the best. They have to know.

    Israel's survival depends on knowing. Israel long since would have taken us to the weapons of mass destruction if there were any or if they had been removed. With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel.

    Led by Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there has been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in the area. Wolfowitz wrote: "The United States may not be able to lead countries through the door of democracy, but where that door is locked shut by a totalitarian deadbolt, American power may be the only way to open it up." And on another occasion: Iraq as "the first Arab democracy ... would cast a very large shadow, starting with Syria and Iran but across the whole Arab world." Three weeks before the invasion, President Bush stated: "A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example for freedom for other nations in the region."

    Every president since 1947 has made a futile attempt to help Israel negotiate peace. But no leadership has surfaced amongst the Palestinians that can make a binding agreement. President Bush realized his chances at negotiation were no better. He came to office imbued with one thought -- re-election. Bush felt tax cuts would hold his crowd together and spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats. You don't come to town and announce your Israel policy is to invade Iraq. But George W. Bush, as stated by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and others, started laying the groundwork to invade Iraq days after inauguration. And, without any Iraq connection to 9/11, within weeks he had the Pentagon outlining a plan to invade Iraq. He was determined.

    President Bush thought taking Iraq would be easy. Wolfowitz said it would take only seven days. Vice President Cheney believed we would be greeted as liberators. But Cheney's man, Chalabi, made a mess of the de-Baathification of Iraq by dismissing Republican Guard leadership and Sunni leaders who soon joined with the insurgents. Worst of all, we tried to secure Iraq with too few troops.

    In 1966 in South Vietnam, with a population of 16,543,000, Gen. William C. Westmoreland, with 535,000 U.S. troops was still asking for more. In Iraq with a population of 24,683,000, Gen. John Abizaid with only 135,000 troops can barely secure the troops much less the country. If the troops are there to fight, they are too few. If there to die, they are too many. To secure Iraq we need more troops -- at least 100,000 more. The only way to get the United Nations back in Iraq is to make the country secure. Once back, the French, Germans and others will join with the U.N. to take over.

    With President Bush's domino policy in the Mideast gone awry, he keeps shouting, "Terrorism War." Terrorism is a method, not a war. We don't call the Crimean War with the Charge of the Light Brigade the Cavalry War. Or World War II the Blitzkrieg War. There is terrorism in Northern Ireland against the Brits. There is terrorism in India and in Pakistan. In the Mideast, terrorism is a separate problem to be defeated by diplomacy and negotiation, not militarily. Here, might does not make right -- right makes might. Acting militarily, we have created more terrorism than we have eliminated.


    http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=2827
     
  2. Could you reduce that down a little to say, one line? :)

    Whatzah matter, MTC, don't have a come back? *snicker*

     
  3. Pabst

    Pabst

    If Pabst were President he'd have taken out Saddam and Castro within days of taking office. Life is the GoodFella's and Casino not Finding Nemo.

    I doubt Bush's motive was to secure Jewish votes this fall. First of all most American Reform Jews are virtually agnostic. They oppose Isreal as a Zionist state. Secondly as a voting bloc Jews are so insignificant in numbers that they couldn't secure the election anyway. As many Gays voted in 2000 as did Jews, and I don't see Bush pandering to Gays. The Christian Right though is historically pro Isreal. Christ was a Jew and the Pat Robertson's and Jerry Falwell's believe that the defense of Isreal is a paramount virtue of American foreign policy. It has nothing to do with votes.

    Also to assert that Iraq was merely a State that used terror is ridiculously erroneous. Iraq was a War machine. She killed one million Iranian's, invaded Kuwait, fired Scuds at Isreal, murdered hundreds of thousands of Kurds and plotted to assassinate a former U.S. President. Even after all that the U.S. allowed Saddam to rule a nation. He should've kissed our ass. Instead he acted like he was being victimized every time the U.N. wanted to inspect him for arms. He figured that Europe was too weak to stomach removing him and he knew Clinton/Gore wouldn't wage war without ally troops. Instead America elected Bush who could give a fuck about appeasing a Europe that's so intimidated by the Islamic presence in their own countries that they can't fathom awakening the threat to their security that lurks within. Europeans are mostly jaggoffs. To argue that Milosovich was a worse guy than Saddam is cynical and parochial. The more we're hated the more I KNOW we're on the right side of this issue.
     
  4. hmmmm.....so you say.

    grimer11