Reply #35: Commented??

[hippywife]

He commented on Bushes and Blairs resolve. HE QUESTIONED the political strategy and its effect on the region.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

He didn't "comment" on their resolve, he praised it. And notice he didn't include himself in his statement regarding their opponents. He fully puts himself outside that group by his choice of words.

<snip>
"As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered."
<snip>


And this first paragraph is the scariest, most delusional, most gleeful "I love the smell of napalm in the morning" statement of all:

<snip>
"Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph."
<snip>

As with the rest of his article, he makes it painfully clear that it's okay to kick little brown ass around the world as long as it is done properly. He also praises it as motivation for other countries to step into line or we're coming for you next. He never calls this action what it was...illegal, illegitmate, imperialistic.

<snip>
"As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn’t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War."
<snip>

WTF??

This article shows him to be every bit as delusional as Bush when it comes to this action.

With regard to his September 2002 testimony he stands with the Bush administration in its ascertains with regards to WMD:

<snip>
"He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities."
<snip>
"In addition, Saddam Hussein’s current retention of chemical and biological weapons and their respective delivery systems violates the UN resolutions themselves, which carry the weight of international law."
<snip>

Granted he does say over again that the case should be made before the U.N. but:

<snip>
"If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear."
<snip>

Which leads to the fact that he still believed, wrongly, this was a matter of defence that should be acted upon unilateraly whether the world at large ultimately agreed with it or not. He believed just as the Bush administration did, just not according to the same time line.

The U.N. said the evidence presented did not support a pre-emptive attack, as did 133 members of the U.S. House (126 Dems and 6 Republicans)led in their dissent by Congressman Kucinich, as did 21 Senators (20 Dems and one Republican) led by Sen. Robert Byrd, as did 15 million protesters around the world. Period. And they were the ones that were right.