September 18, 2003
Max Cleland compares Iraq to Vietnam (and hates America)
Former U.S. Senator Max Cleland must hate America. Why else would a highly decorated soldier, who was awarded a Bronze Star and a Silver Star, compare the current Iraq War to Vietnam, of which he was a part? Could Mr. Cleland be suffering delirium as he looks at the empty space where his legs and right arm used to be? Did recent reminiscing about his tenure as head of Veterans Administration, aiding war-scarred veterans, convince him that Saddam Hussein’s iron rule was so magnanimous, that he would rather see him with the reins of Iraq and mistreating his people, rather than send our own troops to depose of such a worthless tyrant who had access to such terrible weapons of mass destruction? How could Cleland, justify not sending our military in to secure the imminent threat of Saddam’s arsenal of weapons and scientists that could have been transferred to Al Qaeda?
Tell us Max Cleland, why do you hate America?!?
Posted by Stephen VanDyke at September 18, 2003 08:50 PMI can’t wait until they start to insult the patriotism of Wesley Clark
Posted by: Jake of 8bitjoystick.com at September 18, 2003 10:00 PMJake of 8bitjoystick.com: Actually, I’ll be doing that.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at September 18, 2003 10:04 PMU.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell must love America blindly.
Why else would a highly decorated soldier, who was awarded numerous U.S. military decorations, including the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Bronze Star Medal, Soldiers Medal, Purple Heart, Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Congressional Gold Medal, and an honorary knighthood from the Queen of England refuse to compare the current Iraq War to Vietnam, of which he was a part?
Could Mr. Powell be suffering delirium?
Did recent reminiscing about his tenure as a member of the Board of Directors of the United Negro College Fund and serving on the Board of Governors of The Boys & Girls Clubs of America and being a member of the Advisory Board of the Children’s Health Fund, convince him that Saddam Hussein’s iron rule was so magnanimous, that he would like to see him in a plastic bag with his murderous sons?
How could Powell, justify sending our military in to secure the police state that tortures and imprisons children and housed Al Qaeda training camps (salam pax) and terrorists such as Abu Abbas, architect of the 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the alleged designer of the radio-bomb that demolished Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground.”
You would think that a man who commanded the 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division (Air Asssault) and V Corps would know better than to try to push our will onto a brutal dictator.
This man should know that international terrorists and a nation full of tortured people does not justify action! This is an outrage!
Mr. Powell, why do you love America blindly? Weren’t you the son of Jamaican immigrants? How can you not say this war is Vietnam?
Isn’t this the exact same war as Vietnam? Why can’t you see that? I mean you were there…… Right?
Powell would never say it while holding office, but I think actions speak louder than words. Powell won’t be returning for the second term and I can only wonder if it has something to do with his own moderate tendencies conflicting with a neo-conservative White House (affirmative action comes to mind).
—Joe
Posted by: joestump at September 19, 2003 09:40 AMPete, I would have been all for invading Iraq if they had made the same justification that you did. Unfortunately, they didn’t. I know that to you this is a moral and just war, with good intentions, but Cleland’d article addressed that. We cannot allow wars to be predicated on speculations and half-truths backed by shady dossiers and forged documents out of Nigeria.
Afghanistan was the best example of how to get the world community to line up behind us, and Iraq was the antithesis of that. One was based on terrorists and harboring them, the other on “what-ifs” and removing Saddam (who is not a terrorist, and we never demanded he turn any over).
This leads me to believe that such a direct course would have failed, since a terrorism link would be hard to prove, so plan B is to push a resolution authorizing use of force based on decade old intelligence. The U.N. (and inspectors) didn’t buy that load of horse-sh*t and neither do I. Bush’s actions and rhetoric leading up to the war is what causes me to question it, not the removal of Saddam.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at September 19, 2003 10:16 AMGood article and comments, though I didn’t pick up immediately that you were being ironic.
Posted by: Robert Nagle at September 19, 2003 12:54 PMjoestump…
Powell won’t be returning for the second term and I can only wonder if it has something to do with his own moderate tendencies conflicting with a neo-conservative White House”
WOW! Do you know Colin Powell personally? Care to back that statement up?
Steven…
“This leads me to believe that such a direct course would have failed, since a terrorism link would be hard to prove”
I am going to repeat my post from the Democrat Blog…
“1)Saddam did support terrorists and housed them as well. He sent money to Palestinian suicide bombers families to the tune of 25,000$ per bomber.
2)”Abu Abbas, architect of the 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking recently was found living in Iraq, as was Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the alleged designer of the radio-bomb that demolished Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground.”
3)”Mansoor Ijaz cites an Iraqi intelligence document in which the secret Mukhabarat invited a senior al Qaeda operative to Baghdad from the Sudan. The correspondence said: “We may find in this envoy a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden.” The al Qaeda representative indeed visited Baghdad in March 1998, five months before the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania exploded, killing 224 people, 12 of them American, and wounding some 5,000 others, many of them Africans and Muslims.”
Those who scream for evidence of WMDs RIGHT NOW will only say that we planted them when we do find them….furthermore, if this administration was so corrupt and evil then why haven’t they? It would make for a pretty easy political victory for the evil Bushies right?
Just ask yourself….
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/354
“Saddam did support terrorists and housed them as well. He sent money to Palestinian suicide bombers families to the tune of 25,000$ per bomber.”
So it’s an Israeli problem. I have no problem helping solve the terrorism problem in ally countries, but we already send $14b a year to them, which they use to fund their own military. If they wanted our help to remove Saddam, they should go to the UN, not let us be their front-man. All conspiracy theories aside, we seem to have a special affinity for helping Israel, from a large amount of UN vetoes, to military money and aid. The only country near that kind of special treatment from the US is South Korea, and even that is dwarfed. My point is, we give them aid so that they can one-day be self-reliant, not needing aid from the U.S. when they have issues with an aggressive nation-neighbor, or internal strife and terrorism (even when aided externally).
“Abu Abbas, architect of the 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking recently was found living in Iraq, as was Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the alleged designer of the radio-bomb that demolished Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground.”
So Britain has justification, yet still resorts to WMDs? And why wait 18 years to decide? Or does 9/11 now mean that any past transgressions are fair game? Does this mean radical Protestants can be hunted down as well?
“[T]he al Qaeda representative indeed visited Baghdad in March 1998, five months before the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania exploded […]”
That’s the nature of what terrorism is, it means we’re fighting small groups of people with varying national backgrounds and who live all over the world. It does not mean that every Iraqi or even Saddam has become infected by the rhetoric of their nihilism. The reason terrorism is in Iraq now is because we invaded them, and just like our own revolution, they are fighting guerilla style (the only recent addition is the advent of suicide missions). As for the recent UN bombing, indeed it would appear that it was the doing of Al Qaeda, but as our own Boston tea party would later show (conducted by white men dressed up as natives), homegrown radicals may be immitating.
“[T]hose who scream for evidence of WMDs RIGHT NOW will only say that we planted them when we do find them […]”
Probably, but with justification. We were led to believe, through Powell’s UN speech (“show and tell”), that our intelligence knew exactly where the large stockpiles (TONS AND BARRELS) were located. The only possibility I envision of an administration backed against the wall in such a way is to accuse neighboring countries of helping to move material out (Iran and Syria, but maybe Saudi Arabia). It’s very creative actually, and it helps to further polarize our arguments, that we (the idle armchair pundit) become further embattled against “the other side”.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at September 20, 2003 04:40 PMMax Cleland is right about his worries. If you read the september 14th post Casualty Cover-Up, you will see why we really need to re-think our strategy over in Iraq. That could be me loosing a limb over there, and it is happening every day.
Posted by: John at September 24, 2003 02:31 AMAnyone who could think of impugning Max Cleland’s patriotism makes me puke. Anyone on this board, any Democrat, any Republican. Period. Legions of pundits and blowhards who wouldn’t know what sacrifice was if it blew their limbs off have the audacity to attack a man who willfully defended this country (that’s you and me!) abroad. As a native Georgian, I remember the immense pride that I felt when Max Cleland, then Secretary of State of Georgia, met our sixth grade class. (Gov. Zell was too busy). He is the ultimate portrait of devotion to America.
Thus, it’s a sad commentary when blind partisan ideology comes before country, and its a trend that should make us pause and question what our country is all about.
I just read Max Clelands comment about how proud Vietnam veterans are now that John Kerry is running against President Bush. Well, I for one totally disagree, when I came home and attended college Vietnam veterans were scumb of the earth because people like Jane fonda and John Kerry were protesting the war, while my friends were still in Vietnam, doing what there counrty asked them to do, it has only been since President George W. Bush has been president that I now take pride in serving my country, even if it was in Vietnam. I can only say that democrats do not no how to fight and defend our country, so thank God George W. is in the White House.
Posted by: Stephen Devine at February 17, 2004 06:20 PM“I can only say that democrats do not no how to fight and defend our country, so thank God George W. is in the White House.”
Except, of course, if it’s Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, or John Kennedy.
Posted by: Joe Jackbird at October 6, 2004 03:16 AM
