NationStates Jolt Archive

Ah, can you smell that, here's some fresh right-wing hypocrisy for you (No surpise there, ;)). :rolleyes:

Here's what Republicans said about Clinton and Kosovo

Why did they second-guess our commitment to freedom from genocide and demand that we cut and run?

"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

Why did they demoralize our brave men and women in uniform?

"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

Why didn't they support our president in a time of war?

"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 (R)
"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

Reading these quotes, I am very surprised to see some of the same politicians and television personalities suddenly flip-flopping. The title was an obviously sarcastic tongue-in-cheek comment, but wow, I must say I was very surprised to see all these statements and how the rhetoric differs now.

Ha! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Ack! Fix your post!

Ack! Fix your post!Do you mean me, or the guy going, hahaha... (so on and so forth)?

Yeah I know the comments are funny, but knowing that so many are dying right now as a result of these same people is equally depressing.

Do you mean me, or the guy going, hahaha... (so on and so forth)?

Yeah I know the comments are funny, but knowing that so many are dying right now as a result of these same people is equally depressing.

The hahas that were making my browser screen weep.

Republicans advocate non-interventionism when it works for them politically and oppose it when it doesn’t. Both parties do this on every issue.

Now watch the conservatives of NS turn this into an all out Flame War defending those that made those statements. Oh well, I'll stick around. This ought to be interesting.

...though it is rather funny how so all those who opposed Clinton's actions with Kosovo are supporting Bush in a war with an even less definately defined objective.

Republicans advocate non-interventionism when it works for them politically and oppose it when it doesn’t. Both parties do this on every issue.

Absolutely. I am sure one could compile a list of quotes from Democrats supporting Kosovo that have opposed Iraq.

...though it is rather funny how so all those who opposed Clinton's actions with Kosovo are supporting Bush in a war with an even less definately defined objective.The thing is, if Bush went in on the same premise as Clinton, there'd definitely be much less of an uproar, but then it'd look rather hypocritical for the same gang of people (his Cabinet) saying how much of a monster Saddam Hussein was for killing people in the 1980's and after the Gulf War when they either actively or passively supported these actions at the time.

Absolutely. I am sure one could compile a list of quotes from Democrats supporting Kosovo that have opposed Iraq.The thing is Kosovo WAS different.

The thing is Kosovo WAS different.

It was, but the point remains that people will support military action if it serves their interests and will oppose it if it does not serve their interests.

Classic Bushevik Doctrine.

"It's a horrible crime unless we're the ones committing it."

Bush's Motto:


"Thanks for not paying attention!"

Sorry for the "hahahaha," but man's ability to be entirely and unabashedly hypocritical is so painful, you have to laugh to let it out before you get an ulcer.

My middle finger is now raised to all these sanctimonious pricks who are currently saying that criticizing the rationale and strategy for war means you hate America and it's troops. Fuck you all, right in the earhole.

Aw, I wanna cry now, but I choose to keep laughing.

Sorry for the "hahahaha," but man's ability to be entirely and unabashedly hypocritical is so painful, you have to laugh to let it out before you get an ulcer.

My middle finger is now raised to all these sanctimonious pricks who are currently saying that criticizing the rationale and strategy for war means you hate America and it's troops. Fuck you all, right in the earhole.

Aw, I wanna cry now, but I choose to keep laughing.

I'm with you, GII

So what are you guys saying here? That since the republicans do it that the democrats should be allowed to do it too? :confused:

I think I'll continue in my current doctrine of not adopting either the Democrats nor the Republicans and continue to vote and support my views independently of political party doctrine.

I tend to lean heavily towards what is called conservative around here, but I also supported some democrats, like Paul Wellstone when he was around, and I voted for Reagan. I think I am more hawkish than a dove, regardless of which party controls the president's office. In fact, I thought we should have done more in Kosovo than we did, but Clinton was interfering with the military aspects of it too much and making our participation less beneficial to the civilian people than it should have been (for example: instructing the bombing pilots to flight ten thousand feet higher than they trained for, to do their bombing runs. It was meant to keep the pilots safer but it makes it more likely to miss and do more collateral damage - and Clinton should have just told them to do the job and then get out of the way, or else not do the job at all).

But what are you guys saying in this thread? You only support democrat presidents when the troops are needed overseas? Fine. :rolleyes: Ninnies.

The current party not supporting the troops are the democrats, the next time this sort of thing happens and IF then it is the republicans, I’ll say they aren’t supporting the troops either. You don’t protest the troops themselves, they don’t belong to a political party. You don’t send them on a mission and then call them back before it’s done, and you don’t’ tell them, while they are fighting and dying and reporting back that they are doing good and they are proud of what they are doing, that they are wasting their time that they are the bad guys and you are rooting against them.

The point is that a lot of people seem to think that Bush and the Republicans had some kind of humanitarian/moral ideals behind invading war, which is laughable. It doesn't really matter what the Democrats think, they're so similar to the Republicans anyway...

Ah, can you smell that, here's some fresh right-wing hypocrisy for you (No surpise there, ;)). :rolleyes:

Here's what Republicans said about Clinton and Kosovo

Why did they second-guess our commitment to freedom from genocide and demand that we cut and run?

"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

Why did they demoralize our brave men and women in uniform?

"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

Why didn't they support our president in a time of war?

"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 (R)
"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 MediaLike Fucking LLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

If any more proof is needed that republicans are hypocrits, than you're even worse than they are.

No it just proves that politicans are hypocrites.. nothing new there.

You could probably pick an issue out of a hat and find politicians on both sides have wavered on it. They will do anything for a vote, anything to stay in office. They seem not to actually care about the issue 90% of the time.

However, these are some great quotes. It illustrates how much the party opposite the president likes to make his job harder.

So what are you guys saying here? That since the republicans do it that the democrats should be allowed to do it too? :confused:

I think I'll continue in my current doctrine of not adopting either the Democrats nor the Republicans and continue to vote and support my views independently of political party doctrine.

I tend to lean heavily towards what is called conservative around here, but I also supported some democrats, like Paul Wellstone when he was around, and I voted for Reagan. I think I am more hawkish than a dove, regardless of which party controls the president's office. In fact, I thought we should have done more in Kosovo than we did, but Clinton was interfering with the military aspects of it too much and making our participation less beneficial to the civilian people than it should have been (for example: instructing the bombing pilots to flight ten thousand feet higher than they trained for, to do their bombing runs. It was meant to keep the pilots safer but it makes it more likely to miss and do more collateral damage - and Clinton should have just told them to do the job and then get out of the way, or else not do the job at all).

But what are you guys saying in this thread? You only support democrat presidents when the troops are needed overseas? Fine. :rolleyes: Ninnies.

The current party not supporting the troops are the democrats, the next time this sort of thing happens and IF then it is the republicans, I’ll say they aren’t supporting the troops either. You don’t protest the troops themselves, they don’t belong to a political party. You don’t send them on a mission and then call them back before it’s done, and you don’t’ tell them, while they are fighting and dying and reporting back that they are doing good and they are proud of what they are doing, that they are wasting their time that they are the bad guys and you are rooting against them.


This is where I am consistent; even while being in operations under the Clinton Administration in assosiation with, and in support of operations in Kosovo; I opposed (while a member of the armed forces on station there) those opperations; as did many of the people I served with at the time.

At this time; I oppose our operations in Iraq as well, as being an action to which we should never have initiated. And I'd hazard a very reliable guess that many of our troops don't support the activities in Iraq, at a personal level, any more than I, or those I served with, were in support of Clinton's operations in Kosovo. But, that we do carry out our missions still.

Either one would ideologically support both sets of operations (Iraq and Kosovo); or support neither; and any other view is based upon partisian politics.

I'm just going to say one thing. Kosovo is NOTHING compared to what Iraq is.

So what are you guys saying here? That since the republicans do it that the democrats should be allowed to do it too? :confused:

I think it's that the rationale "if you don't support the war you hate the troops and America," is total bullshit. Not only is it bullshit, but the people who trot it out know that it's bullshit and do it anyway.

The liberals never started yelling "if you don't support the war in Kosovo then you're giving aid and comfort to the enemy. You want the ethnic Albanians to die in a bloody genocide, you want the Hitler of Eastern Europe to win," at conservatives who cried "wag the dog" and "no war for Monica."

We're not doing the same as the Republicans. This post is all about pointing out that Conservatives, and Republicans are more hypocritical than has been truly appreciated. However much crossover there is between the Democrats and the Republicans there is a fundamental difference between their bases. Howard Dean was right. "It's a battle between good and evil and we're the good guys." There may be some traitors in our midst, like the DLC and the corporate Democrats, but there's no such thing as a Non-corporate Republican, and since Bush came to office there has been no such thing as a non-hypocritical Republican. Not even Colon Powell and John McCain have a scrap of moral high-ground left on which to stand.

I'm just going to say one thing. Kosovo is NOTHING compared to what Iraq is.
That's because the US never sent in ground troops against the Serbs.

18-year-old kids saving up for college vs. a modern army which had been doing non-stop urban warfare for 7 years, and with home advantage? Oh yeah, that would have been just great. :rolleyes: I don't think many people in NATO countries realise how lucky they are, the Serbs agreeing to withdraw.

In any case, this just goes to show, the political opposition usually bases its arguments not on principles, but on opposition.

I'm just going to say one thing. Kosovo is NOTHING compared to what Iraq is.

Well, there is grounds for comparison.

Kosovo cost us relativly little, Iraq is costing us a fortune.

Kosovo earned us international prestige, Iraq is turning the world against us.

Kosovo saved the lives of an oppresed minority, Iraq permited, even encouraged the murder of an oppressed minority and then used it as an excuse to invade, but not help them at all, and created a new oppressed minority.

Kosovo removed a criminal political leader and quickly replaced him with a functioning government, Iraq chased around a guy whose only criminal actions were commited when he was our ally and we had no problem with it, and now, years later, has yet to establish a functioning government with any authority, and has repeated many of the same crimes that they removed guy was accused of.

Kosovo met with partizan resistence from people who hated Clinton and had no argument for opposing the war other than they didn't trust Clinton to do it, and they turned out to be completly wrong. Iraq met with partisan support after bi-partisan support had clearly established that both sides were committed to supporting their president strengthen national security. That bi-partisanship only evaporated when it became clear the the reasons for war didn't make any sense. And its critics turned out to be completly right.

I'm just going to say one thing. Kosovo is NOTHING compared to what Iraq is.

Kosovo and Iraq have far more in common than you seem to not realize.

In both cases operations were commenced based upon heinous acts commited by the leadership of each nation, in oppressive acts against other groups.

Both leaderships placed severe oppression upon minorities.

Neither leadership was a direct threat to the United States; nor had provoked war against the United States.

The differences:

Kosovo actions were supported by the United Nations. Iraq's were not.

Kosovo actions were supported by the United Nations. Iraq's were not.
Actually, NATO. The UN never formally endorsed it because of Russia's threat of a veto.

The hahas that were making my browser screen weep.

Fix your browser screen. ;)

If any more proof is needed that republicans are hypocrits, than you're even worse than they are.

So you think that Republicans and conservatives are hypocrits only and
you libs are holy little angels all you all you speak is truth?
HAH! not to hijack this topic and change it to something diferent but, you want a great example of Liberal Hypocrasy? How about the whole "Oohh abortion is an american's way of life, but we cannot execute dangerous criminals."? Or "Ohh save the baby seal and animals have the same rights as humans, while human babies have no rights and mother has the right to choose."? Criminals should have more rights than law abiding citizens. So if conservatives are nothing but hypocrites than liberals are nothing more than shrill, whiny whimps who stomp their hankies and throw a temper tantrume when they dont get things their way. Like MoveOn.org. GET OVER IT. Bush won the election, move on. Now thats a great hypocritical website. MoveOn.org just cant seem to move on. I'm sorry I am now going to laugh my ass off at this, excuse me.

So you think that Republicans and conservatives are hypocrits only and
you libs are holy little angels all you all you speak is truth?
HAH! not to hijack this topic and change it to something diferent but, you want a great example of Liberal Hypocrasy? How about the whole "Oohh abortion is an american's way of life, but we cannot execute dangerous criminals."? Or "Ohh save the baby seal and animals have the same rights as humans, while human babies have no rights and mother has the right to choose."? Criminals should have more rights than law abiding citizens. So if conservatives are nothing but hypocrites than liberals are nothing more than shrill, whiny whimps who stomp their hankies and throw a temper tantrume when they dont get things their way. Like MoveOn.org. GET OVER IT. Bush won the election, move on. Now thats a great hypocritical website. MoveOn.org just cant seem to move on. I'm sorry I am now going to laugh my ass off at this, excuse me.
We're not laughing with you... we're laughing at you.

Honestly people, why are people so damned caught up with "us vs. them" (and no, I don't need a snappy come-back re: Bush's statement to that effect after 9/11)??? Most of my friends consider me to be right of Attilla the Hun because I'm a tad more hawkish than most (sorry, I look at the benefits intervention can grant, as they did in WWII). To be completely honest I was FOR the war in Iraq and now I have to admit that, yes, we went to war for the WRONG reasons; BUT, am I the only one who was fooled by incorrect evidence? It seems to me that so many people were fooled that now the entire intelligence community is under investigation for not being able to predict 9/11 or to correctly evaluate Iraq. People make mistakes. That's the nature of democracy. I doubt you'd ever get any politician to admit how they truly felt about Kosovo or Iraq because their political futures rest on toeing the party line. The bottom line is that you can't expect politicians to admit when they're wrong or to retract hypocritical statements. What gives a leader the right to rule is the mystique that surrounds them as an effective and perfect leader (though it's often not true). It's simply up to the American people to either forgive and forget or elect new leaders that have a chance of being better. Everyone on this blog feels strongly about their politics and that's good; however, you shouldn't let it take you so far as to turn it into an "us vs. them" mentality. We're all Americans and, at the end of the day, we should be facing the world as a united people. We should bicker about politics because it's the difference of opinions that produces the best outcome, just don't let if become personal. No-one should be made to feel stupid for belonging to one political party or another. Sorry to be so preachy.

To the conservative "firebrands" out there, I'd like to point you to this Onion (http://www.theonion.com) infographic:

http://upl.silentwhisper.net/uplfolders/upload7/onion_infographic.jpg

It may be a satire newspaper, but the 0% and 100% numbers are important to examine, since they're not any less true because that particular publication isn't generally very serious. Somehow, I doubt we have scores of troops huddled over small TVs listening to what the Democrats have to say about the war: suggesting that people are "demoralizing" them by opposing the conflict is laughable at best, since any soldier with two neurons to rub together was already well aware of the opposition and its size before they left.

If anything is demoralizing them, it's probably the near-daily suicide bombings and guerilla strikes. We wouldn't even have a war to be "demoralized" over if your two-bit Texas asscowboy of a President had stuck to the real terrorists instead of focusing on creating new ones.

To the conservative "firebrands" out there, I'd like to point you to this Onion (http://www.theonion.com) infographic:

http://upl.silentwhisper.net/uplfolders/upload7/onion_infographic.jpg

It may be a satire newspaper, but the 0% and 100% numbers are important to examine, since they're not any less true because that particular publication isn't generally very serious. Somehow, I doubt we have scores of troops huddled over small TVs listening to what the Democrats have to say about the war: suggesting that people are "demoralizing" them by opposing the conflict is laughable at best, since any soldier with two neurons to rub together was already well aware of the opposition and its size before they left.

If anything is demoralizing them, it's probably the near-daily suicide bombings and guerilla strikes. We wouldn't even have a war to be "demoralized" over if your two-bit Texas asscowboy of a President had stuck to the real terrorists instead of focusing on creating new ones.I've got no problem with satire but calling John Kerry a coward is just sad. He may be many things and I have called him many unpleasant things but he is not a coward.

I'm fairly certain that particular statistic is to be taken tounge in cheek: the Onion makes a point of harassing both sides of any issue, if only as a matter of principle. It's probably just there to appease the Republicans they're trying to piss off, whether it's actually true or not.

Besides, that was totally not the point of my having posted that.

The 0% for WMD's and 100% for Executive* decision to invade Iraq is hillarious though. :D






*actually PNAC

I've got no problem with satire but calling John Kerry a coward is just sad. He may be many things and I have called him many unpleasant things but he is not a coward.

I'd take it as tongue-in-cheek too, more of a satire of people calling Kerry a coward than a claim that he is one...

I love the Onion, hadn't seen that infographic yet :D

So what are you guys saying here? That since the republicans do it that the democrats should be allowed to do it too? :confused:

I think I'll continue in my current doctrine of not adopting either the Democrats nor the Republicans and continue to vote and support my views independently of political party doctrine.

I tend to lean heavily towards what is called conservative around here, but I also supported some democrats, like Paul Wellstone when he was around, and I voted for Reagan. I think I am more hawkish than a dove, regardless of which party controls the president's office. In fact, I thought we should have done more in Kosovo than we did, but Clinton was interfering with the military aspects of it too much and making our participation less beneficial to the civilian people than it should have been (for example: instructing the bombing pilots to flight ten thousand feet higher than they trained for, to do their bombing runs. It was meant to keep the pilots safer but it makes it more likely to miss and do more collateral damage - and Clinton should have just told them to do the job and then get out of the way, or else not do the job at all).

But what are you guys saying in this thread? You only support democrat presidents when the troops are needed overseas? Fine. :rolleyes: Ninnies.

The current party not supporting the troops are the democrats, the next time this sort of thing happens and IF then it is the republicans, I’ll say they aren’t supporting the troops either. You don’t protest the troops themselves, they don’t belong to a political party. You don’t send them on a mission and then call them back before it’s done, and you don’t’ tell them, while they are fighting and dying and reporting back that they are doing good and they are proud of what they are doing, that they are wasting their time that they are the bad guys and you are rooting against them.


It's very easy, and most likely correct, to point out that many Democrats who are currently against the Iraq war supported the war in Kosovo. (However, I think you will find that a lot of the protestors were anti-war then as well, and if that war had dragged on as long as the current one then the support would have continued declining) But the point is, a very popular meme among the pro-war right is that anyone who doesn't support the war is treasonous, is anti-military, and must hate freedom and democracy and love Saddam Hussein. Turns out that a lot of them were very anti-war when their enemy decided to go. That's pretty funny.

So you think that Republicans and conservatives are hypocrits only and
you libs are holy little angels all you all you speak is truth?
HAH! not to hijack this topic and change it to something diferent but, you want a great example of Liberal Hypocrasy? How about the whole "Oohh abortion is an american's way of life, but we cannot execute dangerous criminals."? Or "Ohh save the baby seal and animals have the same rights as humans, while human babies have no rights and mother has the right to choose."? Criminals should have more rights than law abiding citizens. So if conservatives are nothing but hypocrites than liberals are nothing more than shrill, whiny whimps who stomp their hankies and throw a temper tantrume when they dont get things their way. Like MoveOn.org. GET OVER IT. Bush won the election, move on. Now thats a great hypocritical website. MoveOn.org just cant seem to move on. I'm sorry I am now going to laugh my ass off at this, excuse me.

So true!

Kosovo saved the lives of an oppresed minority, Iraq permited, even encouraged the murder of an oppressed minority and then used it as an excuse to invade, but not help them at all, and created a new oppressed minority.

Kosovo removed a criminal political leader and quickly replaced him with a functioning government, Iraq chased around a guy whose only criminal actions were commited when he was our ally and we had no problem with it, and now, years later, has yet to establish a functioning government with any authority, and has repeated many of the same crimes that they removed guy was accused of.
Your arguments are as valid as those of the Republican hypocrites, and just as much based on principle rather than oppositionism.

Kosovo and Iraq have far more in common than you seem to not realize.

In both cases operations were commenced based upon heinous acts commited by the leadership of each nation, in oppressive acts against other groups.

Both leaderships placed severe oppression upon minorities.

Neither leadership was a direct threat to the United States; nor had provoked war against the United States.

The differences:

Kosovo actions were supported by the United Nations. Iraq's were not.
Don't forget, we didn't go to war over Hussein's human rights record. We went, pure and simple, for the WMD. WMDWMDWMD he said, "they have it, we know they do, lots of it, and they're bosom buddies with Al Qaeda". Then we go in, and there are none. Could they have moved it? Sure. But we have no evidence of it. And then we find out that there's no credible evidence linking Hussein to bin Laden. It was only after the rationale fell apart that Bush started talking about liberating the Iraqi people and removing a ruthless dictator. People forget that all too easily. Makes me sad.

hmm....i dont recall any right wing protest groups causing any problems around the country back then....I dont remember them egging military hospitals...i dont remember them pouring red paint on the house of any american generals in Iraq right now.....ANSWER just did that a few days ago...but of course you wont hear about that, since it would put the peaceniks movement in bad light and show them for who they really are..nothing but radicalists that would love nothing more then see a communist/anarchist flag.

Don't forget, we didn't go to war over Hussein's human rights record. We went, pure and simple, for the WMD. WMDWMDWMD he said, "they have it, we know they do, lots of it, and they're bosom buddies with Al Qaeda". Then we go in, and there are none. Could they have moved it? Sure. But we have no evidence of it. And then we find out that there's no credible evidence linking Hussein to bin Laden. It was only after the rationale fell apart that Bush started talking about liberating the Iraqi people and removing a ruthless dictator. People forget that all too easily. Makes me sad.


Where is your evidence of no link? You want me to show you Ansar-al-islams terror base in Iraq pre-invasion? the one with the mock up of a 737?

hmm....i dont recall any right wing protest groups causing any problems around the country back then....I dont remember them egging military hospitals...i dont remember them pouring red paint on the house of any american generals in Iraq right now.....ANSWER just did that a few days ago...but of course you wont hear about that, since it would put the peaceniks movement in bad light and show them for who they really are..nothing but radicalists that would love nothing more then see a communist/anarchist flag.

Not everyone opposed to Iraq is part of the radical and (too often) hateful left. I don't condone insulting and abusing the men fighting and dying over there, and I don't consider the war immoral or unjust. It was just the wrong place at the wrong time.

There are people like myself who see it as a mistake because we are wasting hundreds of billions of dollars, manpower, equipment and time while real threats like Iran and North Korea load up on nuclear weapons and increase the size of their military because we can't do anything. Don't forget the instability that is spreading throughout the region and the utter collapse of dimplomacy that makes it impossible to take action on anything. And, to top it all off, we never found anything that was part of the justification for war.

I think it's that the rationale "if you don't support the war you hate the troops and America," is total bullshit. Not only is it bullshit, but the people who trot it out know that it's bullshit and do it anyway.

The liberals never started yelling "if you don't support the war in Kosovo then you're giving aid and comfort to the enemy. You want the ethnic Albanians to die in a bloody genocide, you want the Hitler of Eastern Europe to win," at conservatives who cried "wag the dog" and "no war for Monica."

We're not doing the same as the Republicans. This post is all about pointing out that Conservatives, and Republicans are more hypocritical than has been truly appreciated. However much crossover there is between the Democrats and the Republicans there is a fundamental difference between their bases. Howard Dean was right. "It's a battle between good and evil and we're the good guys." There may be some traitors in our midst, like the DLC and the corporate Democrats, but there's no such thing as a Non-corporate Republican, and since Bush came to office there has been no such thing as a non-hypocritical Republican. Not even Colon Powell and John McCain have a scrap of moral high-ground left on which to stand.

Wait a second.. was it you that was complaining about Cornelieu being a party dog?

Where is your evidence of no link? You want me to show you Ansar-al-islams terror base in Iraq pre-invasion? the one with the mock up of a 737?You mean the organization that wanted to topple Saddam and kill off the Kurds at the same time?

You want me to show you Ansar-al-islams terror base in Iraq pre-invasion? the one with the mock up of a 737?
Yeah actually, that'd be nice.

Iraq has never been [although they might now become] a major player in international terrorism. Saddam's secular regime was regularly condemned by any Islamofascist worth his weight in dog shit.

Am I willing to rule out the possibility that Saddam wanted to do something bad to us? No. Of course not. Am I willing to rule out the possibility that dozens of other leaders around the world are likely interested in the exact same thing? Again, no. Am I willing to accept the possibility that terrorist organizations existed within Iraq that we [and possibly Saddam himself] had no idea about? Of course.

However, freedom, in order to be deployed rationally as a concept, must allow for dissent to exist. I'm not condoning Saddam's actions by any stretch of the imagination, but if "they don't like us" is a valid reason for invading someone, then basically what we're talking about here is eradicating all opposition to our viewpoint. I think it's fairly safe to say that the WMD argument has thoroughly been put to bed, with repeated admissions by our very own government that there is nothing in Iraq that indicates the presence of these weapons.

With the WMD argument gone, the only remaining argument is "they don't like us." Or, more specifically, he doesn't like us. I don't care what your ideals are [even if they are "freedom" and "security" as Bush claims, which I heartily doubt], as soon as you force them upon a completely different culture with a completely different set of values, you become fascists of a frightening variety.

Am I willing to accept the possibility that terrorist organizations existed within Iraq that we [and possibly Saddam himself] had no idea about?

The same can be said about groups existing in the US.

Exactly. Like PETA. PETA is a tax exempt terrorist organization.

I love the smell of irony in the morning.

Exactly. Like PETA. PETA is a tax exempt terrorist organization.

I love the smell of irony in the morning.

LOL :D

Also, the intel community didn't see Tim McVeigh coming either... the worst terrorist act on US soil (after Sept. 11th)- who's to know whats brewing inside... stuff that has NOTHING to do with 'Islamofascism'.

Don't forget when Sean Hannity said the troops in Kosovo were running out of ammunition. Untruthfully, I might add.

Exactly. Like PETA. PETA is a tax exempt terrorist organization.

I love the smell of irony in the morning.
There is nothing terrorist about being against animal testing and supporting abortion.

It is just your human bias clouding your judgement.

Antre_Travarious']There is nothing terrorist about being against animal testing and supporting abortion.

It is just your human bias clouding your judgement.Are they really supporting abortion? Or the choice to it?

As an environmentalist (teehee, that word has "mental" in it :D ) I'm disgusted by what PeTA does. But that doesn't refer to the things you're pointing out (because, actually, that has nothing to do with terrorism. It's the burning down houses part that's terrorist)

Antre_Travarious']There is nothing terrorist about being against animal testing and supporting abortion.

It is just your human bias clouding your judgement.
Do your research. PETA, in the mid nineties, issued a "loan" to one Rodney Coronado, an arsonist who has admitted, as part of a plea bargain, to firebombing Michigan State University testing labs because animals were used in their experiments.

I don't know about you, but I define 'terrorism' as the destruction of lives or property to further a politically motivated end. The fact that Coronado received money from PETA [and mind you, because they're tax exempt, their annual tax records are public domain--if you don't beleive me go look it up yourself] and shares their views implicitly seems a little too conveinent to ignore.

I don't see anything wrong with peopl esupporting animal rights: they should be allowed to do it. I do however, see problems with throwing cash to people who basically light a fuse and...you know, throw a bomb. I've seen footage of Coronado telling University students how to construct an incendiary device. And Ingrid Newkirk calls him a "fine young man."

Sorry, try again.

Defining the actions of an entire organization by the actions of an individual is not the smartest or most truthful thing to do. The BTK killer was a Scout leader and a Church congregation president. Are all Scout leaders and church congregation presidents serial killers? Both the Boy Scouts and the Church are tax exempt as well.

Anyone?

Classic Bushevik Doctrine.

"It's a horrible crime unless we're the ones committing it."I think the new one is IOKIYAR--It's OK if you're a Republican.

I think it's been said before, but the big difference between the liberals and conservatives is the calling of people that oppose the conservative president, hating America or hating and undermining the troops.

We can look at the quotes and just accept it as standard political fodder (I personally don't think it's clear cut opposing because you're part of the opposition), but the response to the comments is definitely what we should look at and realize how hypocritical and disgusting they really are.

At the time all these statements were made, no one was called anti-American, no one said, "You're hurting the morale of the troops," no one said any of the endless tirades of bullshit coming from the right and that really shows the difference.

I think it's been said before, but the big difference between the liberals and conservatives is the calling of people that oppose the conservative president, hating America or hating and undermining the troops.

We can look at the quotes and just accept it as standard political fodder (I personally don't think it's clear cut opposing because you're part of the opposition), but the response to the comments is definitely what we should look at and realize how hypocritical and disgusting they really are.

At the time all these statements were made, no one was called anti-American, no one said, "You're hurting the morale of the troops," no one said any of the endless tirades of bullshit coming from the right and that really shows the difference.

Well, you can't really say "no one," because I'm sure someone somewhere did. Those people were a tiny, minute unheard and unheeded minority though.

It's also important to remember that Clinton took a lot of shit from the left wing of his party over Kosovo. If I remember correctly, he basically built a centrist coalition to get the permission he needed to start action over there--moderate Dems and Republicans. The people you quoted at the beginning of this thread are all extremists, even though many are in the leadership. DeLay, Santorum--these aren't mainstream guys.

Well, you can't really say "no one," because I'm sure someone somewhere did. Those people were a tiny, minute unheard and unheeded minority though.Which is the point, if there was such a group, it was a minute unseen minority; as opposed to the monolithic noise machine of the neo-cons (this is not all conservatives either). The neo-cons have definitely poisoned the pot and I think this is one of the big reasons the president's approval rating keeps dropping like a rock. Let's see if he can best Millhouse for the lowest approval rating.

Which is the point, if there was such a group, it was a minute unseen minority; as opposed to the monolithic noise machine of the neo-cons (this is not all conservatives either). The neo-cons have definitely poisoned the pot and I think this is one of the big reasons the president's approval rating keeps dropping like a rock. Let's see if he can best Millhouse for the lowest approval rating.
According to a poll by ARG last week, he was at 36%, which is below the 39% Nixon bottomed out at. Harris yesterday had him at 40%, I believe.

According to a poll by ARG last week, he was at 36%, which is below the 39% Nixon bottomed out at. Harris yesterday had him at 40%, I believe.Yeah, when all the polls have him at the same approval ratings below 40%, we definitely know it is bad for the president.

I really wondered what had this country under a spell, I always saw the truth since 9/11, I was still in that little 8% that disapproved of the president. It's amazing how the truth changes things in a year.

I am still wondering why people even thought the president was effective in the first place. Before 9/11 he was fumbling and jumbling. 9/11 happened, and then everyone thought he was competent? As soon as the "support the president no matter what" fever wore off it's obvious, he's the same know-nothing, Alfred E. Newman, Mad Magazine, cowboy hat wearing president.

Wait a second.. was it you that was complaining about Cornelieu being a party dog?

My complaint was that he never has anything to back up his position other than "I know a guy who knows a guy who says that... and he's in the military so it must be true."

Also, I did point out that there are some terrible Democrats. I'd rather we had an electoral system that encouraged the growth of new parties, in the absence of such a system then statisticly one side is going to be preferable to the other. It is not unreasonably partisan to pick one of them based on important issues and some actual information. Most of my gripes with Corneliu were based on his absence of any actual support for his positions, it was retro-validated from the Republican party platform.

I disagree with Joe Biden on Bankrupcy deform. I disagree with Lieberman on censorship. I disagreed with Clinton on telecommunications deregulation and NAFTA. All of that said, there are Democrats that support the working class and work to protect our civil rights and oppose immoral wars of choice. They appear with greater regularity in the Democrats ranks than in those of the GOP.

The GOP is too monolithic. Why do you think that they voted with such unity on Bankrupcy deform when such a policy has been recognized as distinctly UNAmerican for the better part of the last 200 years? It's governed completly by elitist monied interests. The DLC represents such an interest within the Democratic party, but has not completly consumed the party yet, and so if their is to be any hope for fixing the horrendously bad course we're on it lies with the Dems. They're not perfect by any means, but the GOP is an almost perfect specimen of every political evil you might care to name. The handful of redeemable scraps of rhetoric that they even have left to trot out have been betrayed so many times in such lockstep that it is absurd to even pretend that they GOP has any interest in States' rights, small government, or individual responsibility. They're just code words for racism, lack of social support, and governmental abandonment.

Exactly. Like PETA. PETA is a tax exempt terrorist organization.

I love the smell of irony in the morning.
And the 700 Club.

So if American troops get demoralized their lives are at risk, huh? Gee, and I thought American troops were trained adult soldiers, not emotionally sensitive children. Better bring them all home before they miss their Mommies.

P.S. Nutcases! Think carefully about what I wrote before replying to this!