For Those Who Refuse to Support our Military

[Blammo]

Scott J-

Good point. Though they never carried it out, regime change in Iraq was the policy of the Clinton Administration.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

With complete agreement in the house and senate.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Or could it be your moral conscience is convicting you?

I think you give them way too much credit. But that is just my opinion.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[James_Newman]

Pete,

Habits are born of repetition. What I am saying is that when one repeatedly gives in, quits because of hardship, difficulties unforseen problems etc. one begins to establish a habit of quiting, giving up or of saying its to hard therefore when real persecution comes these same individuals will find it easier to circumvent persecution and surrender to demands of the enemy rather than indure it to the end.

This is not a reflection on salvation that is a spiritual issue between God and each of us so please do not make it so.

What some lose sight of is that there will be world wide conflict and there will be world wide persecution, when the wall is removed between us and the world we will find that all the world wanted was to destroy the believers. Our military is part of our wall of protection when that portion is deemed of no use or unworthy another part of our protection is gone not to be recovered in our time.

This is a sad note for me for I see not today but tommorrow. I don't know how old you are but I am nearly 60 I have children and grand children that are as old as some on this board. I have seen the attacks for 40 years and if the next 40 are as aggressive there will not be an America in 2050.

All the walls in the world will not keep us safe when we have offended the Allmighty with our national sins. We should be mourning the loss of our willingness to fight for what is right. But fighting for what is wrong is even worse. Our nation doesn't deserve to live in peace, because we have not followed God. Our children will suffer for the sins of the previous generations, unless we stop shedding innocent blood and repent. Otherwise we will be judged just like every other godless nation that went before us and God will be just for doing so.

 

[thjplgvp]

An honest answer from the heart

The question has been asked, “How are we not supporting our troops?”

Psychological warfare is as old as war itself. Often you would see leaders lay siege and then read ultimatums to the besieged city saying what would happen if they did not surrender, or drop pamphlets from the air offering amnesty to those who would surrender, or put a Tokyo Rose on the air waves to taunt. It is all designed to cause one to distrust their superiors to entertain thought that their purpose is somehow wrong that they are being misled on purpose. Distrust breeds contempt if you do not believe this look carefully at your own emotions concerning aspects of our war, presidency and politics. Those whom you trust you are staunchly behind and whom you distrust you are vehemently against.

Many reading this are saying yep that’s right we want them to know we should not be there. I would ask you a question has not America always fought tyranny, have we not always stood against bullies? We stood against Germany when they would have destroyed France, we stood against slavery, we stood against Communist China and Russia in Viet Nam, and now we are standing against a regime that has murdered hundreds of thousands. And quit obviously will continue to murder their own and more so if we leave.

On our BBs, news papers, radios and TVs we constantly pursue the negatives that support our opinions and that strengthen our individual stands against what we believe to be injustices. But we also interject doubt concerning our leadership into the minds of our men and women who serve our great country and in my mind this is where we do not support our military.

There is a principle taught in 1 Corinthians 8 that when we cause another to be entrapped (skandalidzo, offend) we have done disservice. The trapped part comes when one does something thinking it is the right thing to do but another comes behind and interjects a thought or an action that now causes the other to question or doubt their original motives. Paul said he would rather sacrifice his personal liberty rather than cause another to doubt or be entrapped between action and thought.

It has relevance in this post because we are not addressing ‘can you speak negatively’ I am addressing should you speak negatively? Is it the right thing to do or is it a part of psychological warfare either intentionally or unintentionally?

May I remind us that psychological warfare really is as old as man after all did not the wicked one say “Yeah hath God said?”


I suspect I shall be beaten severely about the head and shoulders, I once said on this BB that passion is not always right and I may indeed be shown to be wrong but I will live with what I have said and you will also.


:type:

 

[poncho]

Scott J-

Good point. Though they never carried it out, regime change in Iraq was the policy of the Clinton Administration.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]January 26, 1998[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dear Mr. President:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]<snip>[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]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 in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Sincerely,[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT] http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

 

[Daisy]

Scott J-

Good point. Though they never carried it out, regime change in Iraq was the policy of the Clinton Administration.

True, but with an important difference - the Clinton Administration was working for change from the inside by funding democratic opposition groups rather than forcing it from the outside.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

Source: Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (link - pdf)

Bit of a difference, that.

 

[poncho]

Good post Daisy.

thjplgvp,

I'll be making my reply to your post point by point later on after I've given it much thought.

Well, I've thought about it all day and read all the posts and decided to make a small statement instead.

Yippie! Yeah I know.


To me supporting the troops means giving them everything they need to do their duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution and protect the people of the United States of America and then giving them full support after their duty is done. Most importantly that includes the unvarnished truth, unfortunately we have few people in our government that are willing or courageous enough to give them that basic necessity and even fewer citizens willing to listen on the rare occasions it's spoken.


Okay thats my little statement, and now here's the words of one man that is brave enough to speak the truth. For those who would listen. I'm not going to hold my breath though.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

 

[Daisy]

The question has been asked, “How are we not supporting our troops?”

Psychological warfare is as old as war itself....Those whom you trust you are staunchly behind and whom you distrust you are vehemently against.

That may be true for you, but someone I trust may be wrong and someone I do not trust may be on the right path (for the time being).

Many reading this are saying yep that’s right we want them to know we should not be there. I would ask you a question has not America always fought tyranny, have we not always stood against bullies?

Actually, no, America has not always fought against tyranny - we generally fight for whatever we consider our self-interest to lay.

We stood against Germany when they would have destroyed France, we stood against slavery, we stood against Communist China and Russia in Viet Nam, and now we are standing against a regime that has murdered hundreds of thousands. And quit obviously will continue to murder their own and more so if we leave.

We stood against Germany after they declared war on us and after we were bombed by their ally, Japan. Invading a country and causing the deaths of a hundred thousand in only a couple of years may not be as big a favor to its citizens as you claim - it is eerily similar to the claims of "saving the village by burning the village" used in Vietnam. It is hypocritical and false to claim that we invaded them for their good and not because we wanted a military base and a fine source of non-Saudi oil.

On our BBs, news papers, radios and TVs we constantly pursue the negatives that support our opinions and that strengthen our individual stands against what we believe to be injustices. But we also interject doubt concerning our leadership into the minds of our men and women who serve our great country and in my mind this is where we do not support our military.

Doubt may be a by-product of truth, but I don't think that lying to avoid it is supportive. I would rather trust our troops to be able to figure out things for themselves than lie to them. Pretending that our leadership is anything other than what it is would be disrepectful of our troops.

...It has relevance in this post because we are not addressing ‘can you speak negatively’ I am addressing should you speak negatively? Is it the right thing to do or is it a part of psychological warfare either intentionally or unintentionally?

So you actually are equating criticism of the bad actions of a few to treason.

May I remind us that psychological warfare really is as old as man after all did not the wicked one say “Yeah hath God said?”

It seems to me that you are the one trying to silence honest opposition through the intimidation of very serious accusations. You said those who didn't support the troops in the only way you approve will go to hell as traitors.

I suspect I shall be beaten severely about the head and shoulders, I once said on this BB that passion is not always right and I may indeed be shown to be wrong but I will live with what I have said and you will also.

Hmm, yeah -that's rather disingenuous to accuse those who criticize or even comment on wrongful actions of being traitors while crying that you are the victim.

No, I think you are trying to bully those with whom you disagree by accusing them of a serious crime against their country and against God.

 

[thjplgvp]

Daisy said, "You said those who didn't support the troops in the only way you approve will go to hell as traitors". I do not believe that is what I said. “You are the same people who when put to the ultimate test will deny the very God who purchased you with his blood.” If you have been purchased with his blood you will not go to hell.

One of the definitions of traitor is 'the betrayal of trust"

To those who fail or refuse to support our troops you are traitors of the highest order. (Because you have betrayed the soldiers trust that America was behind them in this endeavor/war)

You call it freedom of speech I call treason. When one speaks against America and her policies during war one is saying they do not trust America and in that they have betrayed her trust.

There is no bullying to it I am not threatening you, I am not throwing quotes of law and I am using very little scripture. You have complete freedom of speech to counter (and you do). Your anger is based on who you feel others will see you as. In fact you do not wish to be portrayed as unpatriotic for your aggressive defense of your stance. I never mentioned any names nor did I have in mind you specifically when I wrote the OP. Since I did not mention your name or anyone else why are you angry?

 

[LadyEagle]

True, but with an important difference - the Clinton Administration was working for change from the inside by funding democratic opposition groups rather than forcing it from the outside.
Bit of a difference, that.

Not exactly. Bush carried on what Clinton wanted to do. See this:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/

 

[ktn4eg]

An earlier post on this thread referred to the fact that today we have an all volunteer military. Of course, that wasn't always the case.

I well remember the days of the draft. In my case, I successfully evaded the draft.

I enlisted in the military.

My biggest bone of contention with most of these political pundits you see or hear or read about (be they left wingers, right wingers, centrists, Republicans, Democrats, or what have you) is if they are really as all- fired supporters of our troops as they claim to be, why don't they prove it by enlisting in the military themselves?

In these past 4 - 5 years, I can think of very few examples of people in the public eye who have boldly proclaimed their 100% support of our troops that have actually left their homes, their jobs, their families, etc., and signed up for the military.

'nuff said.

ktn4eg,
USAF / ANG (ret.)

 

[Terry_Herrington]

An earlier post on this thread referred to the fact that today we have an all volunteer military. Of course, that wasn't always the case.

I well remember the days of the draft. In my case, I successfully evaded the draft.

I enlisted in the military.

My biggest bone of contention with most of these political pundits you see or hear or read about (be they left wingers, right wingers, centrists, Republicans, Democrats, or what have you) is if they are really as all- fired supporters of our troops as they claim to be, why don't they prove it by enlisting in the military themselves?

In these past 4 - 5 years, I can think of very few examples of people in the public eye who have boldly proclaimed their 100% support of our troops that have actually left their homes, their jobs, their families, etc., and signed up for the military.

'nuff said.

ktn4eg,
USAF / ANG (ret.)

For someone to enlist in the armed forces today they would be very foolish indeed. I don't see how anyone in their right mind would put themselves under this Commander-in-Chief and take the chance of going to Iraq with this Administration's failed policies of war.

 

[poncho]

For someone to enlist in the armed forces today they would be very foolish indeed. I don't see how anyone in their right mind would put themselves under this Commander-in-Chief and take the chance of going to Iraq with this Administration's failed policies of war.

I don't think these are failed policies Terry. If we look at how empires have been expanded and maintained in the past it looks like Bush and the neocons are doing alot of things right. Being the followers of Machiavelli and Malthus they see deception as being noble. Not exactly a Christian principle but one that many "princes" have often adhered too.

 

[LadyEagle]

Now might be a good time to post this email I received today:

Subject: WHO Took Us To War ?!?!?!?

Things that make you think a little:

So you're screaming IRAQ NEVER ATTACKED US.......

a. FDR, a Democrat, led us into World War II.

b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 112,500 per year.

c. Truman, a Democrat, finished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us..
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 18,334 per year.

d John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.

e. Johnson, a Democrat, turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 5,800 per year.

f. Clinton, a Democrat, went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush
has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled
al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and, North
Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who
slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining
about how long the war is taking.
But .....
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno
to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51-day operation..

We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!
The Military morale is high!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts

But Wait .

There's more!


There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.


JOHN GLENN (ON THE SENATE FLOOR)
Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13

Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living.

This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military.

Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
"How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?"

Senator Glenn (D-Ohio):
"I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank."

"I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day... to a veteran's hospital and look those men ...
with their mangled bodies . in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job!

You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee... and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job.

You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags.

You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?

What about you?"

For those who don't remember ..
During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA.

Now he's a Senator!

If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran.

 

[Daisy]

Daisy said, "You said those who didn't support the troops in the only way you approve will go to hell as traitors". I do not believe that is what I said. “You are the same people who when put to the ultimate test will deny the very God who purchased you with his blood.” If you have been purchased with his blood you will not go to hell.

Ok, my mistake.

One of the definitions of traitor is 'the betrayal of trust".

To those who fail or refuse to support our troops you are traitors of the highest order. (Because you have betrayed the soldiers trust that America was behind them in this endeavor/war)

Your idea that refusal to criticize Bush or comment on war crimes supports the troops is, in my opinion, a betrayal of what America stands for and what the troops are fighting for.

You call it freedom of speech I call treason. When one speaks against America and her policies during war one is saying they do not trust America and in that they have betrayed her trust.

Bush is not America. Why would I trust a, um, politician like Bush? Further more, it is against American policy to commit war crimes and in keeping with her policy to prosecute them.

There is no bullying to it I am not threatening you, I am not throwing quotes of law and I am using very little scripture. You have complete freedom of speech to counter (and you do). Your anger is based on who you feel others will see you as. In fact you do not wish to be portrayed as unpatriotic for your aggressive defense of your stance. I never mentioned any names nor did I have in mind you specifically when I wrote the OP. Since I did not mention your name or anyone else why are you angry?

I am angry because you wantonly accuse people of treason for dicussing what happened or may have happened. If I understand you correctly, you are equating criticism of Bush with subverting the country, acknowleding the misbehavior of some military with betraying them all.

Claiming that expressed disagreement with your point of view re Bush's war and leadership constitutes treason, a serious crime, is an attempt at bullying. You didn't mention names and I didn't think your post was directed at me, but I don't like seeing other people falsely accused of treason, either. It makes me angry.

 

[Daisy]

Subject: WHO Took Us To War ?!?!?!?
Things that make you think a little:
So you're screaming IRAQ NEVER ATTACKED US.......

Not exactly. Bush carried on what Clinton wanted to do. See this:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/

The air strikes were retaliation for specific acts. Bush did get the inspectors back in - an excellent thing, but then he blew it by taking them out again and invading.

Now might be a good time to post this email I received today:
Subject: WHO Took Us To War ?!?!?!?
Things that make you think a little:
So you're screaming IRAQ NEVER ATTACKED US.......

Hmmm, who is screaming here, in BIG red letters no less?

a. FDR, a Democrat, led us into World War II.
b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.

Yep, and Germany declared war on us soon after, whereas Iraq did not declare war on us until after we invaded them. That one is totally bogus.

...North Korea never attacked us..
...Vietnam never attacked us.

All that is true, but somehow Grenada, Panama, Iraq (which hadn't attacked us then, either) got left off the list.

...Bosnia never attacked us.

We didn't attack Bosnia either, we intervened in the slaughter of the Bosnians by the Serbs.

He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.

I'd like to see the evidence on that one. Clinton did order missile strikes against bin Laden in Afghanistan in '98 - which was laughed at by the same sort of person that emails junk like this.

g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and, North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

Afghanistan and Iraq are hardly liberated, unless you consider the absence of civil order to be liberating somehow. They are both still actively engaged in war. The Taliban, which Reagan helped fund still makes occasional comebacks in Afghanistan. Bush and his invasion of Iraq increased donations and recruitment to al-Qaida. The nuclear inspectors are a good thing - kudos to Bush for that. Kudos as well for capturing Saddam Hussein and bringing him to trial.

 

[poncho]

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/impeachment/violations_documented.pdf

 

[LadyEagle]

Subject: WHO Took Us To War ?!?!?!?
Things that make you think a little:
So you're screaming IRAQ NEVER ATTACKED US.......

The air strikes were retaliation for specific acts. Bush did get the inspectors back in - an excellent thing, but then he blew it by taking them out again and invading.

Hmmm, Daisy. Did you even read the CNN article? It plainly states:

In the meantime, Sen. Arlen Specter has urged Clinton to hold off on military action until Congress, which returns next week, can offer its counsel. "Bomber and missile strikes constitute acts of war," Specter said in a letter to the president. "Only Congress has the constitutional prerogative to authorize war. The Congress spoke loudly last week by not speaking at all."

I find it interesting though that when Clinton was Prez, Mr. Spector stated only Congress has the constitutional prerogative to authorize war. That seems to have gone out the window when it came to Prez. Bush and Iraq.

Hmmm, who is screaming here, in BIG red letters no less?

The author of the email. Not me.

Yep, and Germany declared war on us soon after, whereas Iraq did not declare war on us until after we invaded them. That one is totally bogus.

Perhaps.

All that is true, but somehow Grenada, Panama, Iraq (which hadn't attacked us then, either) got left off the list.

I wasn't aware we attacked Grenada or Panama. Perhaps I was too busy back then to pay attention?

We didn't attack Bosnia either, we intervened in the slaughter of the Bosnians by the Serbs.

I seem to remember differently, like there was a big to-do about one of our missles hitting the Chinese embassy.

I'd like to see the evidence on that one. Clinton did order missile strikes against bin Laden in Afghanistan in '98 - which was laughed at by the same sort of person that emails junk like this.

Oh, yes except the strikes against OBL were scrapped when it was discovered some Saudi princes were around him. Yep, I remember that one.

Afghanistan and Iraq are hardly liberated, unless you consider the absence of civil order to be liberating somehow. They are both still actively engaged in war. The Taliban, which Reagan helped fund still makes occasional comebacks in Afghanistan. Bush and his invasion of Iraq increased donations and recruitment to al-Qaida.

Agreed. Plus the drugs from Afghanistan (poppy fields) going through Iraq to Europe and the West as well as human trafficking (children sex slave industry, etc.) have become a big problem which is not covered in the press, even the liberal press. You'd think they'd be screaming it.

The nuclear inspectors are a good thing - kudos to Bush for that. Kudos as well for capturing Saddam Hussein and bringing him to trial.

Agreed.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]January 26, 1998[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dear Mr. President:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]<snip>[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]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 in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sincerely,[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

This same crowd sent the same letter to Gerge Herbert Walker Bush and were turned down.