WHY WE NEED GENERAL CLARK AS PRESIDENT

“BS, Mutt! Sorry. Americans don't read that much in general when it comes to this stuff...”

“mutt - We had the opportunnity to do a heck of a lot more in rebuilding Afghanistan as a model for the region than we have to date. That's no pipe dream as it was proven by our post-war rebuilding of Europe and Japan.”

“Terrible? How? Saddam was not a legitimate ruler - despots never are. He brutally repressed his people. Given the chance of a decade of economic recovery, he would've become - again - a major power and threat to regional stability.”

“Let me amend that. The sources that most people get their infor from never ventured down that road...”

“That's no pipe dream as it was proven by our post-war rebuilding of Europe and Japan

Poppycock. There's no comparison. Afhganistans are peasants (albeit with an incredibly rich cultural history). Japan/Germany were major modern industrial powers with a literate, educated, and largely secular population.”

“Terrs need financing and sanctuary
provided by certain countries in
order to operate.
We proved that we will make a door
mat out of your country if we even
think your gonna fug with us.
That is the biggest lesson.
Clark was a repub as is most of the officer corps. He turned traitor to ride the clinton glow.
Saber rattling from a monday morning quarterback is just that.”

“The sources that most people get their infor from never ventured down that road

Sure, but the politicians are going to pursue what's politically expedient. It's the population's responsibility to educate themselves.”

“Mutt, you seem to be the one who has a problem understanding MY objections to the unilateral stance the Bush Admin took on invasion.

I've stated, repeatedly, that there were and are good reasons for being there and for having Saddam removed. These are obvious, and need to be moved past in order to debate our methods.

You seem immune to a view that there was an alternative to the method we used.”

“Now you are calling him a traitor? All you have to do is disagree with the status quo and you're a phucking traitor? Unbelievably ignorant, my friend!”

“You seem immune to a view that there was an alternative to the method we used

And you seem immune to the fact that a multi-lateral approach was, in fact, impossible. france and germany would NEVER have sanctioned the war. Bush should've never gone to the UN.”

“Besides, much of the rest of Europe was in fact on America's side.”

“Obviously this is where we disagree, and not in the fact that the rhetoric given by the Bush admin about WMD and an impending threat the the US through Al-qaeda connections were lies. You call them "hyperbole".

Whatever the case, if we had given the world a more politically viable reason for removing Saddam from power that could not be disproven easily, the way the WMD threat was, we could have forced the UN - politically - to take action, while maintaining the US's credibility and obscuring our interests in the region.

There are also a number of trade issues that could have aided the cause that weren't tried.”

“Clark gave an outstanding foreign policy speech before the Netherlands Institute For International Relations at The Hague the other day.

His call for a new Atlantic Charter shows how ill-informed people are who say that he lacks vision or doesn't propose alternatives.

I’d post a link but few would bother reading it. If you want to continue being ignorant of his position after this, it will only prove that you’re being deliberately ignorant.




Thank you for welcoming me here to the Netherlands Institute for International Relations.

As you may know, I have come to the Hague at the request of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to offer testimony in the war crimes trial of Slobodan Milosevic.

But because of the arrangements under which I am testifying, I will not be able to discuss the evidence I gave earlier today and that I am giving tomorrow to that Tribunal.

Nevertheless, I want to give the Netherlands great credit for all the work it has done to host this Tribunal, which the UN Security Council voted to establish in 1993.

In so many ways - from development assistance to peacekeeping - this nation is taking responsibility for building a world that is more peaceful and more just. And its people here have shown us the power of and effectiveness of international cooperation. And I also want to thank the members of Netherlands armed forces - many of who I worked with in NATO and in the Balkans.

Yesterday's capture of Saddam Hussein makes the work done here in the Hague that much more significant.

Important precedents and lessons are being learned everyday here about what happens when a former dictator faces the bar of justice.

It is no secret that the war in Iraq caused great divisions between Europe and America and divisions within America itself.

My own concerns about this issue are well-known. But, as a candidate for President in the United States, I want to avoid replaying our domestic debate while traveling overseas.

Regardless of your views or my views about the war in Iraq, I am pleased that so many agree that the capture of a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein is good news. After all, this is a dictator who was responsible for starting two wars in the Gulf, whose regime brutalized the Iraqi people, who committed massive human rights abuses, and who used chemical weapons against the Kurds and against Iran.

It has been a long time since there has been good news coming from Iraq. We were long overdue.

The capture of this dictator is good news not only for the Iraqi people - but for people around the world. And I wish to congratulate the American forces and the intelligence units involved in this mission.

But a day of good news in Iraq doesn't change the challenge we face there. The war is not over. There were insurgent attacks all this week against American forces.

There was an attack yesterday and there was even an attack this morning.

The entire resistance in Iraq was not run by a pathetic ex-dictator hiding in a hole.

We still do not know how many outsiders have come to Iraq for suicide missions against American forces and the international community.

We still not know how many insurgents are driven by a misguided nationalism.

And we still do not know how many of the guerrilla fighters from Saddam's militias and intelligence service will fight harder or will give up now that he has been captured.

Our purpose of going to Iraq was not to capture Saddam Hussein. But in the chaotic aftermath of war, his capture was necessary to eliminate the fear that he inspired in so many Iraqis.

But it is not sufficient. Iraq is still in danger of becoming a failed state.

A failed state would be a stunning success for Al Qaeda.

And let us be clear on what Al-Qaeda is.

Al-Qaeda does not want to persuade us; they want to destroy us.

They are seeking weapons of mass destruction. And the United States is not their only target.

They are a deadly threat to Europe too.

Javier Solana, who I had the privilege of working with at NATO, has warned that the idea of obtaining weapons of mass destruction is attractive to Al Qaeda, and that Europe is both a target and a base for their activities.

So what does success in Iraq mean? To me, it means that we have brought the insurgency under control.

It means that Iraq is strong enough to sustain itself without substantial outside forces, but not so strong as to threaten its neighbors.

It means that representative government has taken root, so that Iraq is not just free of a dictator but can become a model for democratic change throughout the Middle East.

And finally, success means that Iraq will not become a breeding ground for radical Islamic terrorist organizations.

Capturing Saddam Hussein was important; but it was only one step towards those goals for Iraq. Meeting these goals will take years; it will take tens of billions of dollars; and it will take enormous stamina. And that's why I believe it will take Europe and America coming together again.

But I believe that coming together is essential.

I know first-hand that working through alliances can be hard.

Eight years ago this week, I was in Dayton, Ohio, where America used a careful mix of diplomacy, alliances, and force to end the war in Bosnia.

Three years later, I was the NATO commander when we put the contributions of 19 NATO allies together to wage the war in Kosovo.

Was it more cumbersome to fight that way? Perhaps.

Did it require more persuasion and argument to get things done?

You bet.

But we were far stronger together.

We won the war, in no small measure because Belgrade could not break the will of 19 democracies united in common cause.

And today, the Balkans are at peace and stable. When we use the power of international law and diplomacy, we can achieve decisive results, even without decisive force.

I believe that, even in this age, we can fight and win wars through collective action.

I believe alliances are indispensable, not inconvenient.

And I prefer coalitions of the committed rather than coalitions of convenience.

I would rather have capable European forces with a say in making decisions, than to have Tonga and the Marshall Islands with no strings attached.

But even more importantly, I believe that if America works with its allies, it can engage in diplomacy, developmental assistance, and a full array of legal actions to deal with crises before they erupt into war, and to ameliorate the conditions that might lead to those crises in the first place.

And that's also what I'm here to talk to you about today: the importance for the United States of strengthening the partnerships and alliances that have served us so well over the past five decades.

We should begin with a common understanding of the world in which we live and the threats and challenges we face.

We must recognize:

The need to be tough on al-qaeda and just as tough on the reasons why terrorism draws so much support from the Arab and Islamic world.

We must recognize that globalization brings the benefits of the free flow of communication, information, ideas and capital.

But that it also has a dark side that allows the spread of terror, weapons of mass destruction, crime and drugs to grow with or without state sponsors.

We must recognize that the deficit of democracy in the Middle East has not only deprived hundreds of millions of people their universal rights -- but it also helps create the resentments on which al-Qaeda and others have fed.

We must recognize that the ongoing violence in Israel and the Palestinian territories has not only made Israelis insecure, and increased the suffering of Palestinians, but it has also been a source of anti-Americanism in the region and beyond;

And finally, we must recognize that the threat of environmental catastrophe is nearing and must be addressed.

With a common threat perception along these lines, I believe we can restore the tradition of collective action that the world wants and people deserve.


Recognizing these challenges is only the first step. Working together to tackle them is another.

Sixty two years ago, Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt launched the first Atlantic charter from the deck of the USS Augusta off the Canadian coast.

That agreement was critical in building the relationships that ultimately overcame the Axis Powers in World War II.

It helped form the alliance that later toppled the Berlin Wall.

Now, decades later, the United States should sit down with its European allies to agree upon a new Atlantic Charter - one poised for the trials of the twenty-first century.

This Charter would begin with America declaring its commitment to work with its democratic allies as a first, not last, resort in addressing the security issues it faces.

European nations would make the same commitment to give primacy to NATO.

Such a pledge would renew the sense of solidarity without which the NATO alliance cannot exist.

The Charter would also establish missions for NATO that address pressing international problems, including ethnic cleansing and failed states, and, of course, it would promote the peaceful resolution of international disputes.

Most important of all, the Atlantic Charter would call on NATO to confront the fundamental security challenge of the 21st century:

the possibility that terrorists or rogue states will acquire and use nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.

Together, America and its allies must review and strengthen treaties and norms and recommit themselves to enforce the norms currently in place. We should join and improve the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Biological Weapons Convention.

When it comes to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, America should ask its European allies to confront the reality that states can comply with the Treaty, and when ready, break-out of it to build a nuclear weapon.

Together, we must be prepared to impose sanctions on countries that seek nuclear weapons under the cover of this treaty regime.

We will need to agree to do more, far more, to control weapons of mass destruction.

Not only the demand for such weapons, but also their supply. We must remove nuclear material entirely from the world's most vulnerable sites, to destroy remaining stocks of chemical weapons, and to upgrade public health systems worldwide to deal with the threat of biological weapons.

But sanctions and new controls are not enough. If the West is to maintain the cohesion and solidarity necessary for NATO to thrive in this new century, we have to be able to answer the most difficult question of all: when is it necessary to act preemptively?

Everyone from the Secretary General of the United Nations to the President of France recognizes that a possible nexus between WMDs, rogue states and global terrorists presents the newest and most acute danger to international security.

The West won the Cold War with a strategy based upon the doctrine of collective security and deterrence.

Now, in the new Atlantic Charter I am proposing, we must agree on collective responses - diplomatic, economic and legal -- to this threat, just as we did to the threat of Soviet aggression.

And then only as a matter of last resort in the case of imminent danger NATO should prepare for collective preemption. Of course, unilateral action may be necessary when the threat is imminent, the evidence persuasive, and other options unavailable.

Collective preemption means that we must set conditions and create the capabilities to enable NATO to respond rapidly and decisively to interdict shipments of crucial WMD materials and if necessary to destroy WMD capabilities that have or are about to become operational.

But NATO can be used first for prevention, too. And the Middle East is a perfect example of that.

The United States needs to work with its NATO allies on a political strategy to promote reform, human rights, and the rule of law in the greater Middle East.

So long as people there have no peaceful outlets for expressing dissent, they will seek violent outlets. So long as children in many parts of this region are educated in schools that preach hate, they will continue to grow into adults who practice hate.

We will not succeed in transforming the Middle East by suggesting that regimes will be changed through military force. A better model is offered by the joint approach Europe and America took after the Cold War to transform Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

Together, we successfully promoted stability, security, economic reform and democratic progress throughout that region.

We offered these states the opportunity to work with and participate in Atlantic and European institutions.

They were encouraged to settle historic disputes, integrate their economies and adopt open political systems.

Our emphasis was upon carrots not sticks, inclusion not exclusion, assistance and encouragement not sanctions and coercion.

As NATO commander, I worked with the countries in Eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union.

I saw the salutary effects of these programs on the evolution of these countries first-hand.

I see a similar role for NATO, the European Union and the United States, operating once again in unison, encouraging a similar evolution within the Greater Middle East.

Certainly this will be a labor of a decade or more. And certainly, we won't achieve our goals if the world sees our plan as one of coercion and military occupation. Instead, we should look for inspiration from programs like NATO's Partnership for Peace. Middle East countries, under the right conditions, should be encouraged to join.

Likewise, inclusive arrangements like the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe could also be adapted for and extended to the Greater Middle East.

A commitment by Europe and America to work in partnership along these lines should be another key component of a new Atlantic Charter.

But a new Atlantic Charter is more than simply revitalizing NATO. It is a new appreciation for the perspectives and responsibilities of partners and peoples on both sides of the Atlantic.

That is why the Atlantic Charter must have a second chapter that reflects the new perspectives and concerns of Europeans, too.

Just as Franklin Roosevelt offered a New Deal with the American people, we need to offer a "New Compact" with our European allies and the international community. As part of this compact, the United States must respond to the very real concerns of its allies about the environment.

America should be willing to meet the Europeans half way and negotiate binding reductions on emissions along the lines of the Kyoto agreement.

The United States must also rejoin efforts to establish an International Criminal Court.

I would insist on changes in that agreement to allow America to participate.

But I would work with our allies, especially the governments here in Europe, to improve the court by meeting them halfway, rather than staying out altogether.

And finally, many here in Europe will rightly expect the United States to make a greater effort to deal with the issue of peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, which I know is one of your primary concerns in the region.

In recent weeks, past leaders of Israel's security services and the current Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces have spoken out.

They have concluded that military measures alone will not provide security for Israel. I agree.

I would commit America to real Middle East diplomacy again - starting in the White House, but including at all levels of our government -- to breathe life into the road map for peace that has veered tragically off course.

We must play a leadership role again to encourage both sides to meet their commitments. The Palestinians must start by taking decisive steps to combat terrorists and the infrastructure of terrorists.

But the Israelis have responsibilities, too.

By restoring America to its historic role of peacemaker in the Middle East, we can seek an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and give confidence to our European friends that their concerns are our concerns too.

Each of these steps is wise policy for the United States. But because they also reflect the views of America's European allies, they will help breathe life into Trans-Atlantic relationships. An America committed to international law would be better able to ask allies to help enforce its norms when they are violated.

An America committed to diplomatic peace-making would have an easier time winning European contributions to military peace-keeping.

An America committed to using NATO when it decides to wage war would have greater authority to ask its allies to spend more to build their military capabilities.

The greatest example of this commitment - to international law, to diplomatic peace-keeping, to utilizing NATO -- was the nineteen country alliance in Kosovo.

The war in Kosovo was a time of testing - testing whether we could confront evil, whether we could prevail, whether we could honor the obligations of the alliance and our own values.

It was a time of testing for many of us who were morally appalled at the massacres in Bosnia, in Rwanda - and had asked ourselves what we would have done if we were in a position of responsibility.

It was clear to me that the stability of Southeasten Europe was at stake.

A nation cannot be a world leader unless it is also a moral leader - and you lose your moral leadership if you choose to be a spectator to slaughter. In April of 1999, a few weeks into the Kosovo War, Nobel Peace Prize Winner Elie Wiesel addressed a gathering at the White House on the subject of the 20th century.

He spoke from the experience of a young Jewish boy in a Nazi concentration camp, as he said:

"Our only miserable consolation was that ...the leaders of the free world did not know what was going on behind those black gates and barbed wire...if they knew, we thought, surely those leaders would move heaven and earth to intervene."

He described what it felt like as he later came to learn that the world did know - and did not intervene. Yet, his speech that night was not empty of hope. At the close of his remarks, he spoke of Kosovo, and said: "This time the world was not silent."

It is because of Kosovo that I have come to the Hague today. So let me close by saying that I will never forget the lessons of that crisis and the Balkans: That Europe and America must act in the face of evil; and that we are far better off when we act together.

It is high time for Europeans and Americans to restore that unity and that action.

Thank you.

http://www.clark04.com/speeches/020/”

“If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

-GW Bush, 9-12-01


Saddam was in violation of more resolutions than "just" the WMDs. As Mutt said, the multi-lateral approach would NEVER have worked Phaedrus. Talk about pipe dreams, getting France and Germany to come around was a pipe dream.”

“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

-GW Bush, 2003 State Of The Union Speech”

“if we had given the world a more politically viable reason for removing Saddam from power that could not be disproven easily

And what would that be? U.S. strategic geopolitical goals? You think that would've passed muster? If convincing the EU that a brutal dictator who possibly could be a threat to other nations should be taken out was impossible, then what would've worked?

No matter what, France/Germany would've opposed the war because they did not want America to have an even stronger political/military posture in the world.”

“c-bat, it is becoming more and more apparent that there were indicators that planes could be used to attack us before 9/11. How come he waited then? Would have got in the way of a month long vacation, perhaps?”

“"Saddam was in violation of more resolutions than "just" the WMDs."

What WMDs?”

“That's crap tree. Sure there were indicators but there are indicators of many different threats. If you wanna be pissed at the FBI/CIA/NSA etc for not sharing info I dont disagree with that. But to act like Bush "knew" and did nothing is flat out bullsh*t.”

“I would love to know what was said in that meeting on Aug 6, 2001, c-bat. Maybe a little less than BS, my friend...”

“If Bush and Company didn't know, then they were asleep at the wheel.”

“Do we need to have WMDs in hand to say FOR SURE that there "were" or "werent" WMDs?? At this point you have nothing but specualtion on the historical facts and the current available info. You cant say that there are not WMDs any more than I can tell you that there are. You BELIEVE that there are not, I BELIVE that there are.”

“The U.S. spent 8 billion? on anti
terror funding before 911. I felt that the money just swelled the fat,parochial bureacracies our
agencies have become.”

“But you dont know, do you tree? You are speculating and assuming that Bush knew of the threat and did nothing. I would agree that Bush probably knew that there was serious potential for an attack of this fasion, but you wanted him to do exactly what? More than two years later we know for a fact that this is a terrorism method, and are we any safer from it? Not much. What did you want him to do on this specualted threat?

Or are you implying that Bush knew all the specific details of that specific mission?”

“Conspiracy Theory!”

“And what would that be? U.S. strategic geopolitical goals? You think that would've passed muster? If convincing the EU that a brutal dictator who possibly could be a threat to other nations should be taken out was impossible, then what would've worked?


Okay, here's a scenario that could have worked:

1. Have Saddam indicted for crimes against humanity. Even the "known knowns" without the "unknown knowns" would have been enough for that. This part would have taken a year or more to get done.

2. Allow that all financial obligations of Iraq will be honored, should the dictator be removed from power. The US, making this motion to the UN, should now have the support of Russia and France on financial grounds.

3. Force inspectors back in, and begin a military build up in the Gulf at a less drastic rate.

4. Make a huge show of all evidence of Saddam's war crimes. Call for him to turn himself in to be tried in The Hague (he wouldn't, of course)

5. Since Iraq was using Euros as primary currency for oil trade, we would have to make the EU countries believe that it is possible that Opec may follow this lead. In other words, we would have to show economic weakness in some way. One way might be to have Norway and Britain claim to be reconsidering joining the EU. This would be pretty involved.

If France and Germany believed their debts would be paid back from Iraq, and that they had a chance of converting OPEC to the Euro, along with the voter-friendly noble-cause of bringing freedom to Iraq as a primary, validated goal of military intervention. We could have made the call for military intervention pass the security council.

Granted, all this is a lot more complicated than "you're wid us er again us", but a gifted statesman with a commitment to this agenda could have made it happen in a reasonable timeframe.

And of course, this is not the only scenario.”

“This administration has been careful over the last two years to take no blame for anything and to point the finger elsewhere.”

“No, not implying anythimg. Back in the 70's, we experienced a rash of 'skyjackings'. I remember these well. I don't know if you are an old fart like me, but this was my teens and early 20's years. We put marshals on board all flights, which made a difference. And, as fate would have it, things got lax in the years to come. El Al Airlines experienced terrorism being carried out on its planes also. But, they toughened up their standards and did something about it. No planes are getting hijacked there anymore, if you noticed. I am saying that, if there is even a hint of threat, that there are some measures and precedents laid down that common sense says to take a page from that book. Sorry, but marshals should be on all flights. Cockpit doors should be sealed. Screw arming pilots. Let them fly the damned plane and let law enforcement people worry about what goes on in the main part of the plane. Paying for it? Small price to pay when put in perspective. Simple answers, I know. But, effective? MAYBE!”

“Have you sat in Santa's lap this year c bat?

I mean do you have any proof he isn't for real?”

“Timeframe, tree. Look how long it has taken to train and implement sky marshalls, reinforce doors and tighten security AFTER 9-11. And you feel it should have been done in just over a month? In a pre 9-11 America? Thats just not realistic at all.”

“What does Santa have to do with any of this? Why are you trying to incriminate Santa now? 'Cause he's white?

Seriously though, Im not sure if Im taking your meaning Violin. Are you comparing WMDs to Santa?”

“To be honest, this should have been done years and years ago. The 70's skyjackings should have been enough to teach this lesson. But, that aside. No attempt was even made till after the fact. What is actually being done to reinforce cockpit doors?”

“And, to boot, even after 9/11, it was like pulling teeth just to get approval for marshals...”

“The U.S. airlines have resisted security efforts for years because "we can't afford it".

Even after 9/11 AND a HUGE taxpayer funded bailout, they have dragged their feet.

One problem in the U.S. is that the government takes it marching orders from industry.”

“But the fact that it should have been done and maintained years prior is a burden shared by other administrations as well. Things got pretty damn lax accross the board with Billy on office. Laying 9-11 at Bush's feet is wrong.”

“Maybe Al Qaida was waiting for the slackers(Bush) to take office.

9/11 didn't happen with Willy Jeff in the house.

Like I said before, Bush and Company take no blame, they pass the buck.”

“Fine if you guys disagree with, dislike or hate this administration. But use your noodle when it comes to stuff like this. Bush "knew" about 9-11 and let it happen? That doesnt add up.”

“I'm impressed, Phaedrus - not a bad plan. Of course it's fatally flawed, though. You'd never get anyone to believe that Iraq would repay its debtors. Not only does history strongly suggest that new regimes regularly disown previous debts (what's the financial term for this?), but it would be foolish to demand payments from such a fragile young nation. Why do you think France recently agreed to forgive some of Iraq's debt? Because it knew there was no chance in hell Iraq was going to pay anyway. It was just a cheap way of scoring a few diplomatic points.

And as for Britain pretending to be interested in joining the EU - hah. That wouldn't convince anybody either. Everyone knows Britain is playing the EU and the US off each other for its own benefit. Why would it suddenly decide to abandon such leverage?”

“If they didn't "know" then maybe they were out to lunch.

They were too busy helping Enron loot and plunder.”

“Again, C-man! That meeting should have yielded better results. Some action. Something concrete. That's all I am saying. I am not laying 9/11 at Bush's feet. Although, I have heard a number of people lay it at Clinton's feet. But, then again, he seems to be to blame for most everything, according to some...”

“Maybe Al Qaida was waiting for the slackers(Bush) to take office.

9/11 didn't happen with Willy Jeff in the house.

Tom Terrific
11:29:50 AM
12/18/03

Do you listen to yourself Tom? You think that Al Queda scrambled to plan and execute this attack in the year and a half after Bush took office? That is rediculous. The plan was developed on the weaknesses resulting from Willy Jeff. And you call Bush a slacker. That's rich.”

“Case in point on Clinton!”

“Yes c bat - invisible WMD's, Santa, the tooth fairy...



If Congress hadn't buckled under industry pressure and had implemented the recommendations of the Gore Commission (1997) 9-11 may have been prevented. We’ll have to wait and see what the Kean panel has to say.”

“Treebeard, did you know that Clinton was to blame for tornadoes and floods in the south a few years ago?

That stuff was god's punishment for Clinton's tolerance of homosexuals and abortion.”

“I didnt jump to lay blame on Clinton tree. I was responding to Tom's rediculous comment that "9-11 didnt happen under Willy Jeff".”

“Maybe Al Qaida was waiting for the U.S. to let its guard down.

Republican administrations are known for talking a good game but trying to do policy "on the cheap".”

“Tom, we're talking about flying jet liners into buildings here. How was the airline security better under Clinton? How about immigration? Better or worse under Clinton? The two main factors here. These guys gained entry into the country and hijacked airplanes. This could have easily happened during the Clinton Administration. What you are saying sounds cool to your Democrat buddies that can say "yeah!" but it really doesnt make sense.”

“Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Osama hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?”

“Whitty as usual Violin. That sure would be cool huh? I mean, the whole capture deal with Saddam was obviously set up. They are no doubt in negotiations with Osama about this right now. After all, Bush is only interested in power, not the wellfare of the country. Now Clinton, THAT was a man who cared nothing for power and cared only for the country's wellfare. DAMN the term limits!!”

“You'd never get anyone to believe that Iraq would repay its debtors. Not only does history strongly suggest that new regimes regularly disown previous debts (what's the financial term for this?), but it would be foolish to demand payments from such a fragile young nation.

Agreed. I was thinking that France could be led by the wallet a little on this. If they have forces assigned to multinational peacekeeping force in Iraq, they have better leverage to ensure payment, and demand access to the rebuilding contracts.

And as for Britain pretending to be interested in joining the EU - hah. That wouldn't convince anybody either. Everyone knows Britain is playing the EU and the US off each other for its own benefit. Why would it suddenly decide to abandon such leverage?

Dunno. There would have to be a pretty good (ruse) reason.

I'm an ameteur, no doubt, and this particular plan is probably filled with more holes than you or I could ever begin to point out. I'm only trying to point out that there were (possibly better) alternatives to standing basically alone on this.”