Kudos to Martha who posted these on the DNC blog:
It seems like not a day goes by when some right winger claims that 'support the troops' means 'support the President's foreign policy' and that anyone who disagrees is 'unAmerican' or is 'helping our enemies.'
In fact, some of those kinds of statements come from the very same crowd quoted here:
VERBATIM QUOTES FROM WHEN CLINTON WAS COMMITTING TROOPS TO KOSOVO:
"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
Now, for the record, I also (as a Democrat) was opposed to our intervention in Kosovo because I didn't (and still don't) think that it was up to the United States to send troops to 'fix' everyone's problems (and had at least one letter published condemning it), but these remarks make it clear that these people have no principles, adjusting their argument to take which ever side of something their party is on. Even Soviet Communists would be proud of how chameleon-like conservatives can be, shifting from righteous indignation to mindless support, on a dime if need be.
And also, for the record, Clinton and General Wes Clark did plan it well enough to finish things off in about six weeks, had an exit strategy (we still have a handful of peacekeepers there, but no significant commitment) and most importantly: did so with exactly ZERO American combat deaths. That's right, NONE.
Lives killed to abortion every yr, 1.5 million... no outrage.
Well, realdebate, I would answer that I consider that 1.5 million figure a smashing success, considering that it used to be nearly twice that many. You can go into my archives from July 21 to read my thoughts on abortion.
In fact the first comment I got was from a guy who compared abortion to tobacco. And, he had an excellent point. They both kill millions every year. They both have been successfully reduced by means of education. But no one is talking about making tobacco illegal (and if they did, then it would be like when abortion was illegal-- you wouldn't stop it any more than you did pre-1973, you'd just have a bunch more criminals to throw in jail and pay for their room and board).
But then, the fact that the yearly number has been cut nearly in half is due almost exclusively to the quiet work of liberals while conservatives have been out banging the drums to get people riled up about it.
Post a Comment