It's not that I don't think we should forcibly remove Saddam Hussein (though I don't think there's evidence of that necessity), it's that I don't trust Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and company to do the job. Way back in 1998, they were pushing for this idea. Nothing has really changed between then and now, except a change in our leadership.
1998 Letter on Iraq Following are excerpts from a 1998 letter to President Bill Clinton from the Project for the New American Century urging the removal of President Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Among the signers were Donald H. Rumsfeld, Paul D. Wolfowitz and R. James Woolsey.. . . it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties of implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater.
Comments (3)
If I remember correctly (and do tell me if I'm wrong), Clinton did have a chance to remove Saddam Hussein, but he didn't. I don't remember why he didn't, can someone tell me? In any case, I think Clinton should have removed Hussein, but how can we know that the person taking his place would have been any better? The new leader could even be worse, you can't ever be sure. At least you know what you're getting with Hussein. I think this is the thinking of the people living under Hussein's rule. They don't like the guy, but they don't know if the next person would be any better. If Mr. Bush and company do succeed in ousting Hussein, the person they support to replace the guy would just be a puppet for America. And shouldn't we be supporting self-sufficient governments who don't depend on the U.S. for everything? All I see is that the Bush administration wants to make America the world's dictator and it's a no wonder why so many other countries hate us.
Posted by lisa | February 6, 2003 7:57 AM
Posted on February 6, 2003 07:57
Saddam was never a threat to us here in the good old US. If he had Waepons, then why didn't he use them? If he was killed, again I ask, why didn't they use the weapons? Why couldn't the Bush Admin. link Saddam to Bin Laden? Because he isn't. Saddam is not the issue, the weapons are not the issue. The issue is the Blueprint for the New American Century actually being put into effect. You think this is a war against Iraq? Guess again. This is a battle against iraq, in a war against the future, the future of another country rising higher than the US. Remember hearing Bush say "this is not a war against Afghanastan, this is a war against terrorism?" That means we will always be at war. Well, to maintain a superpower means you may have to start wars, as the project for the New American Century outlines. Read it, educate yourself, then tell me I'm wrong. You think that PFNAC is not real? Check out thier website, it's real alright. http://www.newamericancentury.org/
So much for homeland security. Think about it, more war means more terrorism, more terrorism means more war, how convenient. No wonder homeland security programs are being shutdown or starving for cash.
Posted by Johhny X | April 14, 2003 1:30 PM
Posted on April 14, 2003 13:30
Like the way you're all thinking - it's nice to see others who can see, and care about what's beeing done in america's name. e-mail me for more information, or to become part of a media-distribution group i'm setting up.
Totally_anonomous@hotmail.com
Posted by disident-P | January 7, 2004 9:29 AM
Posted on January 7, 2004 09:29