| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Clinton: NATO should run Iraq security |
| 2003-11-05 |
| Former President Bill Clinton sees a bright future for Iraq, if NATO takes charge of the security operation there. Good to see that ALL the Democrats are confident in our troops! Speaking at a press conference with former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso in Madrid Sunday, Clinton called for The North Atlantic Treaty Organization to call the shots on the security front under a United Nations mandate. Bill was there to look for the girl from Iepa Nepa. "We should revisit the question of whether the U.N. could assume responsibilities at least on paper for the security operations as well with NATO," Clinton said, according to Agence France-Presse. Clinton argued such a move would induce the international community to assume a greater role in the reconstruction of the country. Does this guy even pay attention? Clinton’s comments follow the recent convening of the International Donors Conference in Madrid, which was attended by 77 countries who collectively only anted up $13 billion in grants and loans to fund the rebuilding of Iraq while the U.S. has pledged $20 billion. Umm $13 Billion ain’t chump change. In expanding his theory, Clinton suggested U.S. troops should not be withdrawn immediately "because the Iraqi economy and security environment is not sufficiently strong." Many original opponents of the Iraq war, including France and Germany, have called for the U.N. to take over authority in Iraq immediately. Nice to see that Clinton (either one) and the Dems have their policies aligned with Germany, France, and Russia. I wonder if we had him (and Her) fixed they would shut their pie holes? I find it particularly embarrassing that any former U.S. President feels free to spout off about a policy in a foreign country while our country is at WAR and troops are in harms way. I spit on all of them! |
| Posted by:Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) |
| #15 But if it were NATO running the security under a UN mandate wouldn't it mean participation by France and Germany and full participation by other western Eueopean countries instead of token forces? Sounds like a good idea to me--what is the downside? |
| Posted by: NotMikeMoore 2003-11-5 11:40:22 PM |
| #14 Can someone send him an intern or two so he will STFU! |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2003-11-5 10:26:10 PM |
| #13 True Mr. McLeod... but if NATO worked thru the commiteee process and vetteed it up to the secondary FM level and then took 20% percent off the top there would be buy in. In which case.. UK already in... France Hahahaha, Germany? hehehehe, Turkey? they'd be massing forces at the border. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-11-5 4:52:26 PM |
| #12 And who, exactly, from NATO is going to do this? UK? Already in. France? hahahaha. Germany? hehehehe. Turkey? They said they'd help, but the Iraqis don't want them. Greece? Give me a break. Italy? Already in. This is pure BS from the King of BS. |
| Posted by: R. McLeod 2003-11-5 4:41:09 PM |
| #11 But, when the rubber hits the road, WE are NAT0. The rest of them shmucks are worthless (not counting the Brits, of course). See, Bill is really on our side after all. He just needs to speak in "code" as were lest Hillary smacks him up the side the head ( risking injury to Monica). What a guy. |
| Posted by: Michael 2003-11-5 3:42:06 PM |
| #10 Damn, someone send him to Iraq and have his convoy take a "wrong" turn. |
| Posted by: Charles 2003-11-5 2:16:16 PM |
| #9 He brought this up at a C-Span show w/Bob Dole last week. Dole agreed that a NATO ran force w/UN as the umbrella was a good idea. In theory not a bad idea, but in practice probably not the right move right now. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-11-5 1:49:10 PM |
| #8 Maybe instead of locking up Presidential papers for 60 years, we should lock up the Presidents themselves. If they can't manage to STFU, as all their predecessors (save one, anyway) did. |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-11-5 12:54:52 PM |
| #7 I doubt that Clinton speaks to any military besides his puppet Clark |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-11-5 12:45:33 PM |
| #6 Maybe Clinton has been talking to Gen Jones USMC: NATO Commander Sees Proactive Missions |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-11-5 12:25:18 PM |
| #5 Someday, somewhere, someone will finally get through to Bill: We don't want you any more. Get out of our face. Go away, far, far away. In the meantime, we all have to put up with this loser that caused no small part of the problem until he either hits on someone's wife once too often, or he says the wrong thing in the wrong place, and someone offs him. Early onset Alzheimers would be a horrible thing to wish on anyone, but Bill's pushing the limits. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-11-5 12:20:01 PM |
| #4 Can't miss you Bill if you won't go away... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-11-5 12:10:43 PM |
| #3 Who the hell gives a rat's ass what Clinton thinks? |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-11-5 11:51:04 AM |
| #2 How about we see if the UN can get control of the corruption and slavery rings being run out of its offices? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-11-5 11:45:51 AM |
| #1 whether the U.N. could assume responsibilities at least on paper for the security operations How about seeing if the UN can do a better job of providing security for just their buildings in Iraq first, then re-visit the issue. As an aside to Bill Clinton, "STFU!!!" |
| Posted by: snellenr 2003-11-5 10:59:25 AM |