Madeleine Albright says, "The US needs to withdraw from Iraq and stabilize Iraq."
Would someone help explain that one, please.
(It sounds like Madeleine is the latest democrat to have dozed off during the Petraeus report.)
Madeleine Albright was stumping for her pal Hillary Clinton and pushing diplomacy with dictators this weekend in Iowa.
WFTV reported:
"I don't think I have ever seen the world in such a mess," Albright said to a packed house at the West Des Moines Community Center.We all know how Madeleine's talks with Kim Jung Il from North Korea turned out last time-
Albright is advising Clinton on foreign policy and believes the U.S. needs to withdraw from Iraq, stabilize the country, help in reconstruction and use a diplomatic surge.
"Our national security toolbox has a lot of different tools in it, and this administration has basically only used the military tool," she said in an exclusive interview with KCCI.
The North Korean dictator violated the agreement almost as soon as it was signed.
Is what we can expect from another Clinton presidency?
I'd take a leader who dances with free people, over one who dances with dictators... Any day!
Macsmind has more on Madeleine.
I hate to jack a line from PM Golda, but the Democrats will start to sound sane again when they start loving America more than they hate Bush.
ReplyDeleteHmmm, Madeline NOTBright doesn't seem to remember the mess she helped leave back on Dec. 16 '98 though...
ReplyDeleteOf course not, juandos.
ReplyDeleteI guarantee you we will be in the Balkans longer then we will be in Iraq.
Ah, yes... the lady with the basketball! Good going, Maddy! Agreements with rogue states work out so swell, so long as you pay them their bribe... right up to when they begin to ask for more, because you have already given them a half-loaf. Why not go for everything when you don't deserve a half-loaf and have already gotten it? And just why *did* the US let Iran get a foothold in the Balkans? And al Qaeda in Kosovo?
ReplyDeleteI am sure another round of 'Kumbaya' will help, ever so much... Mind you sending a cake to Iran didn't help much from the Reagan administration, either. Nor having Ollie North empower one of the deadliest operators on the planet to spread Hezbollah to South America by his dealings with him. Or James Baker who hasn't seen anyone worth standing up to over the long run, but grandstanding for himself...
And lest we forget the inept Saint Carter, who the modern Left sees as doing no wrong, he was unable to stand up for the Nation against Iran and even promulgated something that is ranted about by the Left today: Blood for Oil. That *was* the Carter Doctrine.
Then there is Hillary who urged the bombing campaign in the Balkans which looks to be her idea of a 'perfect war'. Of course Gen. Clarke let two entire divisions get so abused and left out in the cold for so long that their readiness fell to level far below anything seen since Vietnam and it took them two years to recover to a viable state of readiness. But then Gen. Clarke so liked Slobodan that he saw very little wrong with what he was doing... just one big, happy round of 'Kumbaya' and handing the peace over to the UN. Say, did all the folks there in Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo and such get nice elections to have constitutions, ratify them, and then elect governments? I know that hasn't happened in Kosovo...
++
ReplyDeleteRitter Resignation Letter (8/26/98)
excerpt:
[The illusion of arms control is more dangerous than no arms control at all. What is being propagated by the Security Council today in relation to the work of the Special Commission is such an illusion, one which in all good faith I cannot, and will not, be a party to. I have no other option than to resign from my position here at the Commission effective immediately.]
UNITED STATES SENATE (9/3/98)
excerpts:
[SEN. CLELAND: Now, who did not allow you do to the job? Was it the Security Council?
MR. RITTER: There's a collective responsibility. ... But the United States, as a member -- one of the five permanent members -- and, in fact, as the single most capable and responsible member of the Security Council, the single nation which the world looks to to exercise leadership, I hold the United States directly responsible, because it is a failure of leadership to get the Security Council to enforce its own laws.]
[SEN. MCCAIN: ... Do you believe that Saddam Hussein today has three nuclear weapons assembled -- lacking only the fissile material?
MR. RITTER: The Special Commission has intelligence information, which indicates that components necessary for three nuclear weapons exist, lacking the fissile material. Yes, sir.]
[SEN. INHOFE: Do you think, in your evaluation of the type of person that Saddam Hussein is, that he would hesitate in any way from using a weapon of mass destruction and delivering it to the United States, if he had the capability?
MR. RITTER: My experience with the Iraqi government is that it is a ruthless government and that it would carry out such a task if that was the decision of the president of Iraq.]
[SEN. HAGEL: Mmm-hmm. And do you think our administration articulating a policy out front, but in fact pursuing a different policy behind the scenes, plays to Saddam Hussein's long-term objective?
MR. RITTER: Absolutely. I want to re-emphasize this is a cease- fire resolution. And what is happening here, to use the analogy of Senator Robb, who said that George Bush said this issue lacked a Missouri -- what's happening now is that we do have a Missouri. It's a cease-fire resolution, which states Iraq must disarm, and what we have is the vanquished boarding the Missouri and dictating the terms of conflict resolution to those who won the war. And it's a travesty, and I'm really sad that it's happening.
SEN. HAGEL: Mr. Berger's call to the U.N. mission that you reference in the Wall Street Journal article today -- was that unusual?
MR. RITTER: The fact that Mr. Berger or Ms. Albright called the executive chairman to offer their consultations is not unusual. No, sir.
SEN. HAGEL: But to specifically say, "You keep Major Ritter penned up"?
MR. RITTER: That's not the first time that this has occurred. No, sir.
SEN. HAGEL: That's not the first time?
MR. RITTER: No, sir.
SEN. HAGEL: Would you care to enlighten the committee on other times?
MR. RITTER: I can state that in March of 1998, both the national security adviser and the secretary of State intervened on numerous occasions with the executive chairman to keep myself out of Iraq as the leader of a concealment-based inspection team.]
[SEN. SNOWE: Right. And there were six different encounters, I gather, since November 23rd of 1997. Is that correct? There are six different instances which -- specifically Secretary Albright intervened to cancel the inspections or to encourage the disruption of the inspections?
MR. RITTER: There's at least six. There may be more. And it may not have all fallen on the shoulders of the secretary of state; it could have been other members of the national security team. But the United States has intervened at least six times to stop inspections since November. Yes, ma'am.]
[SEN. SNOWE: Right. And there were six different encounters, I gather, since November 23rd of 1997. Is that correct? There are six different instances which -- specifically Secretary Albright intervened to cancel the inspections or to encourage the disruption of the inspections?
MR. RITTER: There's at least six. There may be more. And it may not have all fallen on the shoulders of the secretary of state; it could have been other members of the national security team. But the United States has intervened at least six times to stop inspections since November. Yes, ma'am.]
okay, there's lost more from the beginning to the end, but this is post is getting extremely lengthy, and for that i apologize..
==
++
ReplyDeletere: bg @ 3:34 PM
synopsis on SR testimony..
==
++
ReplyDeleteHalf bright - Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright (10/12/98)
==
Diplomacy only works on people with a conscience. Not much good against a car bomb.
ReplyDelete