Plans For Iraq War on 9/20/01?

That's what General Wesley Clark is claiming. The problem is that this creates a whole other level of questions. Is what he's saying true? Did we plan on going to war with Iraq on September 20th, 2001 with no evidence of a connection to Al-Qaeda? Is this a publicity stunt to drum up support because he wants to run for the Presidency? Why is he not being prosecuted for revealing classified information if all of this is indeed true? There's too many "what if's" involved for me to make a decision, but if true, it would raise quite a shit storm.

The problem I really have with General Clark is that on one hand, he makes the correct statement of: "the trouble with Iraq is it's not illegal. It was authorized by the United States Congress. It was authorized by the United Nations Security Council resolution. It's an illegitimate war, but not an illegal war." He's half right there, it was authorized by the UN Security Council, but it's not an "illegal war".

Then he goes off the deep end and states: "You see, essentially, you cannot win the war on terror by military force. It is first and foremost a battle of ideas. It is secondly a law enforcement effort and a cooperative effort among nations. And only as a last resort do you use military force."

This is where he's completely wrong. Military force is a perfect way to deal with terrorists. Law enforcement has to deal with rules and regulations in terms of evidence and when and where they can operate. The military has severely less restrictions on what they can and can't do. I would rather a covert team go in and assassinate a known terrorist then have his plastered across the front page of CNN in court mocking us every step of the way because we decided to go the "law enforcement" way.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com