Ok, well I did read it and these are my replies -
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133
"Don't Attack Saddam" - dated Aug 15th 2002
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/4234259.htm
Dated Oct 08, 2002
Uses terms commonly used with liberal rhetoric such as "invading" "administration hawks"
Also note the comment from (D)Sen. Durbin in which he says some information he had seen
did not support Bush's portrayal of the Iraqi threat.
But just a month before on September 12, 2002 he says things like -
"The President accurately laid out the history of Iraq's defiance of the United Nations. I applaud the
President for his pledge to work with the U.N. to address the challenges Iraq presents
to the region and the world."
Sounds like someone just got caught spinning...
located here -
http://durbin.senate.gov/~durbin/new2001/press/2002/09/2002B13737.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-09-09-oplede_x.htm
This piece dated Sept 9, 2002 ..the FULL paragraph that they shared reads -
Attacking Iraq now, before these other actions are taken, would reduce, not enhance,
our security. Unilateral U.S. action today would disrupt the war against al-Qaeda,
supercharge anti-American sentiment in the Middle East and Europe, undercut international
cooperation and shake up moderate Arab governments.
Since this was said, the US HAS gone before the UN, the US HAS gotten the cooperation
of the UN by a 15 - 0 vote from the security council. The US HAS received numerous
allies who will contribute to any military conflict in Iraq. Unilateral is a word
that Democrats & Liberals wish to cling to even though it is erroneous with full
UN cooperation. But good try, nonetheless.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/10/17/zinni/
This piece, like previous ones using the term "hawk". Automatic give away for
left-wing rhetoric. This quote was taken out of a quite larger and thoughtful speech
given by this fine marine who has seen BAD decisions of battle. Vietnam &
Somalia to name them specifically. This Marine as with every other military official
agrees that with the proper support and UN support, this thing is a go. Of course
you won't see those types of comments on an anti-war propaganda sheet.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29786
Highly decorated as he may be, he has chosen on his own accord to become
an 'advocate' if you will.. of politican deicisions. Having served WWII to Vietnam
he has seen the hell the battlefield brings. He has seen the good and the bad.
One of the things Worldnetdaily.com doesn't WANT you to see is another comment
this Colonel made Sept 24, 2001 - This time around, we're fortunate that President Bush
has already fielded a team capable of crafting and delivering a mighty international
fist - leaders like Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and Gen. Hugh Shelton.
These "A" players won't ready, fire, aim a few missiles at a vitamin factory in Sudan or
a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and report to the nation "mission accomplished."
They'll take the hard road and have the wisdom, patience and endurance to go the distance.
Located at -
http://www.hackworth.com/24sept01.html
While I have all the respect in the world for his sacrifices as a warrior, I don't
find his spinning very flattering. He has many articles which he posts on his own
website that criss cross one another. If you want to hear him talk about war, he's a good
source of info, but that's about it.
http://www.naplesnews.com/02/10/perspective/d838246a.htm
Probably does not cut it for me. Probably didn't work on 9/11 Director.
Oh, yet another DATED statement from Oct of 2002.
In regards to the non-linked republican dissent... by "major GOP" contributors not named...
perhaps they forget the fact that we were attacked on 9/11 and now we're on the rampage.
The days of fingerbanging around are done with. The President is doing whatever it takes
to defend the country. If that spoils the hopes you had of spinning a politician with
your special interest, well... tough shit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/02/international/middleeast/02INTE.html?pagewanted=1
Well I'm not going to sign up on any site that wants me to click on things other
than those which give me immediate access to an article. So going from the quoted statement
I must say to the FBI "Gee... how long were you looking hard at terrorist groups and
didn't think it was there prior to 9/11? Thanks for failing us buddies. The President
has made it clear he is NOT interested in speculation or assumptions. He will take
no chances of another attack on America.. yes.. even if it means a few FBI agents who
were probably sucking down donuts when the first plane struck the tower are baffled.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqwarcost.htm
What the anti-war guru neglected to cut/paste on this PDF in regards to the
"non-partisan" CBO is that the TRUE costs would depend on several "unknown factors". So
take their estimates with a grain of salt.