Worthy News: More Republicans oppose Iraq troop increase - USA Today

[JustinM]

I'm gonna guess that about 90% of those casualties are from the terrorists actions, not the military's.

[Giaour]

First the dems say pull out, so Bush makes a plan to reduce troops, then the dems say we need more troops, so Bush says OK we'll increase the troops, now the dems are back to pullout.

It doesnt matter what Bush does, the dems will say they want the opposite.

You just cant please them.

[forrestkc]

Here's what Republicans said about Clinton and Kosovo:

"President Clinton 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."

-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

"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."

-Representative 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 presidential candidate 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)

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."

-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

"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)

"I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles."

-Senator Inhofe (R-OK )

"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 clarifiedrules 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 overextended 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"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag"

-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"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

"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)

"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."

-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

"The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We're taking on not just Milosevic. We can't just say, 'that little guy, we can whip him.' We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president."

-Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)

"You can support the troops but not the president"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."

-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

Why did they blame America first?

Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started"

-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"

Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"

-Pat Buchanan ®

"These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ...who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton."

-Michael Savage

"This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals."

-Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."

-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)

"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"

-Pat Buchanan (R )

"By the order to launch air strikes against Serbia, NATO and President Clinton have entered uncharted territory in mankind's history. Not even Hitler's grab of the Sudetenland in the 1930s, which eventually led to WW II, ranks as a comparable travesty. For, there are no American interests whatsoever that the NATO bombing will

either help, or protect; only needless risks to which it exposes the American soldiers and assets, not to mention the victims on the ground in Serbia."

-Bob Djurdjevic, founder of Truth in Media

[forrestkc]

What we are talking about goes beyond what you described. We are talking about how the Democrats, as recently as last month, were calling for a troop build up. They did this thinking Bush would oppose it. Then when he went along with this new policy, they forgot all about what they had just said, and now oppose a troop build up. These Republicans didn't flip flop all over the place concerning Kosovo. We didn't have any reason for going in, and I opposed the mission as well. Even though I opposed sending troops there, nobody that I know of continuously attacked the troops, accusing them of killing innocent civilians, and nobody that I know of kept showing each individual casualty on the nightly news. Once the troops went in, everyone supported them. What is taking place in Iraq is quite differen't. Nobody was on the news after the fact demanding the troops come home, and calling on Clinton to re-deploy. We accepted the fact he was commander in chief and allowed him to lead. There were also no threats to cut off funding of the troops. I do not know if there could have been a couple of fringe members of Congress that may have, but the Republican Party never united behind such measures.

Also, Pat Buchanan has opposed the war in Iraq as well as the conflict in Kosovo, so including his quotes is misleading. He has consistently taken an isolationist viewpoint.

I agree with you on Buchanan. However, other than one Democrat, I can't think of a single one that just a month ago was supporting a build up. Most of all of them and a lot of Republicans at this point, have said we have done all we can do at this point.

[Giaour]

Hey forrest,

Where did you get this information from?

[forrestkc]

Hey forrest,

Where did you get this information from?

Its been posted in various editorials and articles over the years to point out their hypocrisy. Just the same, you can find these quotes in a variety of places:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2005...nAndKosovo.html

http://www.slate.com/id/27730/

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1...out_kosovo.html

Among hundreds of others.

[ted]

Would it surprise you to know that I didn't support the Republican's stance on Kosovo, or the whole Balkans thing? In fact, I supported Clinton (in those actions) for the same reason I support Bush and the war on terror: If we're going to do it, then let's do it right.

What I didn't much agree with concerning Clinton's plan for the area was the massive reliance on nothing but air strikes. I thought that he was making a mistake by not sending massive troop numbers into the area to take ground. Although air power is fearsome, no war is won without taking the ground, and nothing takes the ground but ground troops. In His policy, that was my major finding of fault.

In other words, if we're going in, then let's go in, and do it right.

So, all in all, it was not his decision to do something there that I was against, but the way he relied on only air power to fight it.

It was also my main contention with him concerning his handling of Iraq during his term. I thought that he had more than enough reason to invade due to their complete disregard of the enforcement of the numerous UN sanctions and the violations of the same. He should have went in ten years ago or more, really.

Now that Bush has finally brought us to that point, I feel that we need to continue on until it is finished, and by finished, I mean that a strong enough Government should be placed to ensure that major attacks are squashed in their places and the Iraqi Government is able to gain independence. In my opinion, this would have to be accomplished pretty much in the same ways as Germany was controlled shortly after the Nazi's defeat in WWII.

I also think this was part of Bush's plan in the beginning, as well. The problems arose when major world powers pulled out in the last few weeks before the invasion. No longer would we have Russia, Germany, France, etc, to take their shares of the load of the combat and reconstruction phases of the invasion.

Put yourself in Bush's shoes just prior to the invasion. Do you continue with invasion plans, knowing that Saddam still has to go, even though a major part of the plan has been altered?

Well, right or wrong, he did. Personally, I still think it was the right decision.

But, your post of the Republican's stance on the Kosovo issue brings to light another major motivation for the current Democratic stance on the war in Iraq: Political revenge.

Republicans were relentless in their opposition to anything "Clinton" throughout his terms in Office, much of the time to their discredit. It's clear to see that Democrats, in turn, decided long ago to make the next Republican President pay the price for that. It's the only clear explanation for why they oppose anything closely deemed as "Bush". It started on the day he took office, just the same as it did for Clinton.

Here's another example: The Democrats will bring impeachment charges to the floor against Bush. It's a done deal, and will happen eventually. It will also be done in the name of revenge, because they will never get over the fact that Clinton had to go through the impeachment process.

While we sit back and try to understand why these people do the things they do, much of it boils down to simple, child-like revenge.

I never thought that Clinton should have been impeached. He could have been punished in other ways, to include civil or criminal prosecution after he completed his terms in office. It's a dangerous thing to weaken a sitting President, unless the crime is so severe that it affects our National security at face value. While lying to a Grand Jury is certainly bad, and worthy of prosecution, I don't think a sitting President, no matter how buffoonish he may seem to be, needs to be subject to impeachment proceedings for it. When you boil it all down, he had some affairs, and then lied about it. That's about it. While it's bad, sickening, and worthy of condemnation, I don't think he should have gone through impeachment proceedings for it.

They could have figured it all out once another President was in office.

to prosecute him for those things while he was still in the seat of power was bordering on dangerous.

It should take a bit more than that to take out the most powerful man on earth, and weaken the security of the entire nation as a result. So, I agreed with many of the Democrats of the time when they basically said that what Clinton did was bad, but we should wait until after his Presidency to prosecute him. The seat of power needs to be a little more secure than what it was. I think it was a stretch to say that he committed "High Crimes or Misdemeanors" worthy of impeachment. What he did would get the average joe about 12 months of probation for a fist offence, and certainly not worth risking the stature of the nation over the argument.

So, the fact that the issue was pushed to the point of actual impeachment was enough to force some to seek revenge when the chance presented itself with the next elected Republican President. It's been happening since day one of Bush's first term, and will continue until the day he leaves office. I think many have decided that Bush will pay for the "sins" of past Republican behavior, and I think that's why we see so much flipping and flopping going on right now.

Like has been suggested numerous times before, it simply doesn't matter what Bush does, there are always going to be people to take the exact opposite side, even though their own side matches whatever Bush comes up with. It explains how a person can scream that we don't have enough troops in Iraq on one day, and scream louder when Bush announces the "surge" of more troops the next.

It would be comical if the lives of people were not at risk.

Surely people have noticed the political brilliance of Bush in one area of his leadership: He has the knack of knowing what will force Democrats to officially choose his sides in crucial votes, because he knows exactly what they are doing! His counter to their arguments is to give them precisely what they are asking for, thus forcing them to take his side when it comes to a real vote.

So, in the end, the Dems get what they want, but it looks like Bush came up with the idea in the first place! lol He's a master at watching them work themselves into a frenzy over an issue, and then proposing virtually the same exact thing, forcing them to vote "his" way!

He simply beats them at their own game, time and time again, and they can't stand it. What is surprising is that he hasn't proposed the draft yet. I think he was waiting for Rangle's proposal to get more news that it did.and he was hoping that the Dems would latch onto the idea long enough so he could watch them take a stand supporting it. Then, he would simply wait them out until they were going nuts, thinking that they would force him to vote no. Personally, I think Bush would have then proposed his own version of the draft, and then force the Dems to vote "yes" on something they were supposedly in favor of, thereby reinstating the draft.

Somewhere along the line, the Dems forgot to follow Rangle's lead, and messed the whole thing up.

But anyway, I'm drifting a bit.

In summary, I think that busting Clinton's chops to the degree that they did was a mistake, while he was in office.

I also think that the revenge factor is going way overboard, too. All these games are going to do is further bog down the decision making process at the Executive and Legislative levels. That can only mean trouble for immediate response situations.

There used to be a day when politicians would shut up and follow a President when the nation was at war, presenting a united front before the enemy. Personally, I think we need to return to that unwritten policy, and figure out how to settle differences in other ways.

Peace,

t.