Re: Bill Clinton: U.S. Likely to Lose in Iraq
- From: Brick Hardmeat <brick_hardmeatnospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 04:30:23 GMT
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 22:03:02 -0500, tabbott@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Found at:
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/6/125103.shtml
>
>
> Thursday, Oct. 6, 2005 12:46 p.m. EDT
>
> Bill Clinton: U.S. Likely to Lose in Iraq
>
> Ex-president Bill Clinton is predicting that the U.S. will lose the
> war in Iraq, saying "the odds are not great of our prevailing there."
>
>
>
> [Former President Clinton continues harming the national security of
> the United States with his defeatist remarks. You can be sure our
> enemies are delighted to hear him talk this way. Clinton will end up
> eating these words as he is proven wrong. The U.S. will win in Iraq
> and will win the war on terror. Who would you rather have for
> president, someone who thinks our enemies cannot be defeated, or
> someone who thinks they can? Clinton failed to pursue our enemies
> while he was in Office and cut and ran from Somalia which caused bin
> Laden to think he could attack the United States with impunity. And
> if Clinton were still president, bin Laden *could* attack the U.S.
> without suffering any consequences. But there is a new sheriff in
> town now who is going to strike back at our enemies and all of
> Clinton's defeatism is not going to change that.]
>
>
>
> In an interview with the Ladies Home Journal due out next month,
> Clinton calls the Iraq war "a quagmire" and warns "it could go wrong."
>
>
>
> [The appeasers have been saying Iraq is a quagmire from day one.
> This is standard operating procedure for them. Clinton and all the
> other partisan critics will be proven wrong in the end because it will
> go right, not wrong, thanks to a determined President of the United
> States. Every day progress is made in Iraq but appeasers like Clinton
> refuse to recognize it, focusing only on the negatives. They want a
> U.S. defeat to give them a new way to try to harm the Bush
> administration and in the hope that a defeat will preclude any more
> military "adventures".]
>
>
>
>
> He reminded: "Since the end of World War II, the only major foreign
> power that succeeded in putting down an insurgency was the British
> putting down the Malay insurgency, but the British stayed 15 years."
>
>
>
>
> [American troops are still in Kosovo, Bill. Is Kosovo a quagmire or
> a failure, too? Kosovo was your baby, wasn't it.]
>
>
>
>
> "So you can say for historical reasons, the odds are not great of our
> prevailing there," he argued.
>
>
>
> [Your odds are based on a very small number of insurgencies, and you
> also fail to take into account that the U.S. had North Vietnam on the
> ropes before U.S. troops withdrew in 1973, and had completely
> destroyed the South Vietnamese communists, the home-grown Viet Cong
> "insurgents" in 1968, five years prior to the U.S. withdrawal from
> South Vietnam. If it had not been for the liberal appeasers in the
> U.S. Congress pulling the rug out from under South Vietnam in 1974,
> not only would the South Vietnamese insurgency have been thoroughly
> defeated, but the North Vietnamese surrogates of communist China and
> Russia would have been defeated, too.]
>
>
>
>
>
> Despite Clinton's prediction of U.S. failure, he said analogies to
> Vietnam were not fair.
>
> "The reason this is not Vietnam is that 58 percent of the eligible
> voters showed up and voted in Iraq," he told the Journal.
>
>
>
>
> [The South Vietnamese voted with their feet. When the North
> Vietnamese military finally won the last battle in South Vietnam, the
> South Vietnamese people did not welcome them with open arm. Instead,
> they ran away as fast as they could. Does that sound like a people
> yearning for "liberation" by the North Vietnamese communists>]
>
>
>
> On the other hand, he said, the South Vietnamese government was "never
> legitimate" in the eyes of the Vietnamese.
>
>
>
>
> [You mean they were never legitimate in the eyes of those in the
> United States who opposed the war. Claiming the South Vietnamese
> government was not legitimate was a device used by the appeasers to
> undermine the war effort. They've made the same kind of claims with
> reference to Iraq, and for the same reason. The South Vietnamese
> government was certainly as legitimate as the North Vietnamese
> government who gained their power at the point of a gun.]
>
>
>
>
> Clinton spokesman Jay Carson immediately sought to tone down the
> ex-president morale-busting remarks, telling the New York Daily News:
>
> "President Clinton has always been clear that there are reasons for
> optimism and that there clearly are reasons for concern with the
> current situation in Iraq. But no one has been clearer than President
> Clinton about the necessity of winning now that we are there."
>
>
>
>
> [Perhaps his spokesman has been clear, but Clinton has not. To hear
> Clinton tell it, we are on the brink of defeat, with no way out.]
>
>
>
>
> Still, Clinton's latest comments come just two weeks after he publicly
> suggested the Iraq war was illegitimate.
>
>
>
> [It was no more illegitimate than Bill Clinton's pseudo-war on
> Saddam in 1998. Saddam refused to comply with UN WMD sanctions and
> inspections so Clinton sent in the bombers for a couple of days. In
> 2003, Saddam refused to comply with UN WMD sanctions and inspections
> and President Bush sent in enough troops to remove Saddam from office.
> The only difference is that Clinton was not serious and about solving
> the problem and President Bush was/is serious. Clinton made war for
> show. President Bush made war to fix a dangerous situation.]
>
>
>
>
> "The administration . . . decided to launch this invasion virtually
> alone and before the U.N. inspections were completed -
>
>
>
> [Which is exactly what Bill Clinton did in 1998.]
>
>
>
> with no real urgency, no evidence that there was any weapons of mass
> destruction there," he complained to ABC's "This Week."
>
>
> [In 1998, Bill Clinton asserted that there were still hundreds of
> tons of WMD unaccounted for in Iraq and used this as the reason for
> his military attacks on Saddam. President Bush used the very same
> intelligence information, assuming it was correct, as did Bill
> Clinton, and used it as one of the reasons for declaring war on
> Saddam. Bill Clinton, as usual, is playing fast and loose with the
> truth.]
>
> end
>
>
> TA
You idiots believe that the War on Terror will be won like WW2 was in the
movies, all John Wayne [chickenhawk]charging up the hills and down the
dales and no blood when anyone is shot, every wound a clean thru and thru.
Damn, how truly ignorant can you people be? This can't be fought as a
conventional war, never could have been, and can't be won without a
paradigm shift in philosophy.
I say we grab all of you good ole boys and your ATVs, send 5 cases of beer
and all the hunting gear they can eat & turn you loose over there. The
results would be about the same and the USA's median IQ raises by several
points...
--
All men are created equal; unfortunately all men are not created with equal
opportunity.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: mmmm
- Next by Date: 'I'm gonna wreck myself inside of ya..'
- Previous by thread: Re: mmmm
- Next by thread: 'I'm gonna wreck myself inside of ya..'
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
