Friday, March 14, 2003
READ THIS AND SEE IF YOU TOO AREN'T LEFT SCRATCHING YOUR HEAD:
Bill Clinton last night in New York.
"On the issue of Iraq, Clinton said he supports booting dictator Saddam Hussein out of Baghdad and destroying his weapons, but he said Bush has made it more difficult to line up international cooperation for a possible war.
Right after winning UN Security Council support in November for weapons inspections, the White House "sent 150,000 troops to the gulf, which convinced everybody we weren't serious about UN inspections. That's how we got into this political mess."
Huh ? How exactly did the UNMOVIC inspectors get readmitted to Iraq with far greater access if not by holding a gun to the head of Saddam ( literally) and the French ( figuratively) ? By " political mess " did Clinton mean actually forcing the issue of Iraqi disarmament instead of passively resisting the French-led erosion of UN controls over Saddam's WMD programs until the point becomes moot ? How does one paragraph square with the other in any logical way ?
Can you tell the difference when Clinton speaks before a solidly liberal audience and when he speaks on policy anywhere else ? Is he an enabler of their systemic evasion of reality on Iraq or does he believe these things himself, at least momentarily ?
¶ 10:19 AM
Bill Clinton last night in New York.
"On the issue of Iraq, Clinton said he supports booting dictator Saddam Hussein out of Baghdad and destroying his weapons, but he said Bush has made it more difficult to line up international cooperation for a possible war.
Right after winning UN Security Council support in November for weapons inspections, the White House "sent 150,000 troops to the gulf, which convinced everybody we weren't serious about UN inspections. That's how we got into this political mess."
Huh ? How exactly did the UNMOVIC inspectors get readmitted to Iraq with far greater access if not by holding a gun to the head of Saddam ( literally) and the French ( figuratively) ? By " political mess " did Clinton mean actually forcing the issue of Iraqi disarmament instead of passively resisting the French-led erosion of UN controls over Saddam's WMD programs until the point becomes moot ? How does one paragraph square with the other in any logical way ?
Can you tell the difference when Clinton speaks before a solidly liberal audience and when he speaks on policy anywhere else ? Is he an enabler of their systemic evasion of reality on Iraq or does he believe these things himself, at least momentarily ?
¶ 10:19 AM
