Politics

Changing Their Tune on Supporting the Troops

These are comments about Clinton’s commitment of US troops into Bosnia; and it wasn’t all that long ago – they should be able to remember the logic. (Thanks to kos.)

“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)

Leave a Comment

8 Comments

  • Why does the main point keep getting lost? The war in Iraq was never about fighting terrorism. It was a foreign policy of the neocons who want bases there. These influential insiders wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11. They tried to get Clinton to do it but he wouldn’t. Iraq had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with 9/11. When you are against attacking the wrong country, you are not anti- American, you are not an appeaser, you are a sensible person using his brain. The first Bush called the neocons “the crazies in the basement.â€? He was right. The neocons are wrong. Period. Oh, and when people can’t tell the difference between freelance Arab extremists and the country of Iraq, that may explain why they can’t tell the difference between treating the 10 commandments the way they were intended (ie obeying them) and just making them into an item of feelgood decor – or maybe even an idol!

  • I was not attacking this website, BTW, last post, although it may appear that way.

    My friend was reading over my shoulder(and had previously , earlier today,prior to me coming back, read many posts here on this website).
    My friend had stated that it sounded like a political board, under the guise of religion, and that I, along with other posters, tend to use the Bible as a sort of “weapon”,
    to prove “the others” wrong?

    So, I will no longer post replies to anything even remotely”(supposedly) “political” on here again.

    There are some nice threads on here, non-poltiical(even talkng about the war, there are sides, and Biblical comparions).
    Peace. Please try to have a great week one and all.

  • That quotation from Mr Hannity, I Believe(if I recall correctly) is only Partial (post).
    On the radio, he said that, then went on to say he’d tell them why(explain to them) about terrorists, and that
    being an “Appeaser” only makes things worse(soemthing along thsoe lines is what he had said).

    Appeasment: Hmmm. Mr Chamberlin wanted to Appease Hitler, and it back fired, to a degree, until a Mr Churchill
    stepped in and spoke the truth(and he was “flamed” by his critics, mocked for his Value System. He basically said Hitler represented Evil,
    while England, a state that believed in a Higher Power, was , basically Good…not exact wording, but the general gist of his words).

    How was right? Mr Chamberlin or Mr Churchill?

    Seems many want to appease the enemy.
    Give them what they want, our country!
    That’ll stop the terrorists!
    LOL.
    right.
    In whose dreams?
    To me, I trust God over Man, and Appeasers seem to push God aside, and trust in Man-only!

    They want to ban the 10 Commandments from being displayed in public(in USA)!
    If they could, they would probably ban “In God We Trust” on our money!
    yeah, I trust Appeasers who hate to mention God in public, or on building, or 10 Commandments, and beleive abortion is
    a right( Oh, I have a baby, let me kill it bescause it is only tissue/my body: “Man” over “God’s” way: Appeasers way of thinking, also).
    It is ok to kill a baby in one’s body, but not a terrorist who killed 5000 people?

    Tell me: do you think “Man” knows more than God?
    Was Jesus wrong for over turning those tables in the temple, and telling them all that they were
    (forgot the exact name!) oh, blasphemers!!???

    Does the Bible not say a tooth for a tooh, eye for an eye. It says to turn the other cheek, but also says , basically, that if someone tries to kill you, and you defend yourself and kill him, it is not a sin against you(this is the 2005 version, lol….my wording of the Biblical version)

    Also,in late 78-early 79, when we tried to appease The Ayatollah in Iran(or tried, after the Shah was over thrown by Radicals), what did he do?
    They captured 52 Americans at the Embassy, held them hostagefor 444 days,a nd emabrassed the Administration something terribly bad!
    Funny how when Reagan took his oath, they released the hostages(to embarass mr Carter, some say, but didn’t reagan let him go to Iran and pick-up the hostages, with the Air Force?).
    Whining, begging, and mulit-lateralism don’t work.

    Begging a school bully to no take your money doesn’t work.
    Same idea, more deadly situation: terrorists laugh at people begging for you to leave them alone, and we’ll leav you alone.

    Did not work in 1993: Ask Mr Clinton! First World trade center attack happened, adn we ignored the base group resonsible, and put a few guys in jail.
    Hmm, that kept them from doing their Evil deeds in 2001!
    roll-eyes.
    ps: Maybe we should Not use Biblical verses(?) and other ideas, perhpas, when referring to Dems vs repubs, etc. ….makes it all sound too politcal/phoney, even when I do it.

Follow by Email
RSS