clinton vs. Sadam - Food for thought

A. C. Szul mack97 at EROLS.COM
Tue Nov 18 00:32:38 MST 1997

Dennis Putnam wrote:
> 1. clinton campaigned against Bush claiming he spent too much time on
> foreign affairs. Rush predicted clinton's presidency would be defined by
> foreign affairs. Sadly the soccer moms bought clinton's line and could not
> see the implications of Rush's prediction.
> 2. Does clinton have the international respect to hold the Arab colition
> together or even reassemble it?

Klinton ("BK" hereafter, as in BK Broiler at Burger King!) may be the
prez, but America is still AMERICA, land of the free and proud.  I
believe that US is the envy of country out there; but, at the same time,
it's also the world leader, the world power.  We must lead by example.

> 3. Does Israel trust clinton like it did Bush enough to refrain from
> retaliation should Sadam launch SCUDs at them again. If Israel attacks Iraq
> the colition will fall apart for sure. That was the biggest fear during
> Desert Storm.

Does any country really have a choice?  It's either align yourself with
the US and its allies against such horror, or risk going it alone and
playing lone ranger.  The former gives you a chance, while the latter is
foolish and impulsive.

> 4. Will Sadam, knowing what a jerk clinton is in the foreign affairs area,
> test the theory of 3?

Certainly hope he has the sense to realize that we are the US, a country
with hope and strength and the resolve to do what's necessary to
maintain international order (and by no means am I supporting the idea
the we must assume the role of peacekeepers 'round the world -- ugh,
that's the farthest from the truth).  Instead we need to convince our
allies the importance of standing firm and sending a clear, concise
message to SH and his crew.

> > 5. Has the fact that the US elected a traitor, war protestor and one that
> has written that he "loathes the military" to the presidency influenced
> Sadam to test clinton?

Again, SH better think long and hard whether he wants the wrath of our
forces on him like bees on honey.  It's not BK he'll be facing but folks
like myself and others in our great armed forces. All I can say is God
help him!

> 6. Had Bush been re-elected in '92 and/or Dole in '96, would Sadam have even
> tried what he is attempting?

There's no real way of saying.  It's easy to say "of course not"
considering BK's track record, but with SH one never knows (or at least
it seems like it so far).
But if Reagan were still Prez, that's a whole different question -- I
don't think we would have heard a peep from SH would Pres. Reagan were
still in office.  Remember with the Lybia thing -- what RR said, "They
thought America was going to be passive, THEY THOUGHT WRONG!!!"

> 7. Is the social engineered military, that clinton has gutted since in
> office, capable of launching a successful precision strike against Iraq like
> it did in Desert Storm? Is the morale, training and respect for its
> commander-in-chief sufficient for the troops to be successful without
> excessive casualties?

>From folks within our military that I've spoken with, incl. myself,
we're ready to rock and do what's gotta be done.
Folks, please keep in mind (and this *is* important) it wouldn't be a
military strike for BK, but for the entire free world that every
American feverently believes in and supports.

> 8. What if the troops say they believe a strike against Iraq is morally
> wrong and refuse? What can clinton say?

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.  Not to worry, if anyting,
BK is an orator!!


"The sharpest tool in the shed." -- anonymous

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list