Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Republicans Criticize War Effort

What?! Republicans have begun to criticize the Iraq War? Are they finally seeing through the folly that this administration has unleashed on its own troops?

Here's what U.S. Representative Tom Delay had to say:

"You can support the troops but not the President."

And here's what Fox News "personality" Sean Hannity had to say:

"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."

Huh? Did they really say that? Are the right wing blowhards finally coming to their collective senses on Iraq? Has Cindy Sheehan's courageous attempt to meet with President Bush finally turned the tide on support for the war?

Well, not exactly. On Air America today, Randi Rhodes read these comments and others that many Republican leaders were making..........several years ago after President Bill Clinton committed U.S. troops to Bosnia. These comments also appeared last week on DailyKos. Needless to say, the hypocrisy is striking if not surprising.

Not long ago, many will remember, the Republican Party platform decried far-flung military engagements and sought to bring U.S. forces closer to home. Clearly, they have abandoned that mantra, supposedly in the name of terrorism. Of course, the Iraq conflict had nothing to do with terrorism. But I digress...

Nice to see that the Hypocrite Party...I mean...the Republican Party is standing by its ideals. They're so full of crap!


At 9:20 AM, Blogger bob said...

As usual, Ms. Rhodes whining rant lacked context and was clearly intended to mislead her audience. (Both of them ;)

If you recall, the major gripe against Clinton's miltary polices was that he saw absolutely no problem with putting American lives at risk by placing them under the control of the corrupt and ineffective UN. That's what his critics were critical of.

Clinton sent American troops to too many places — in the interest of "peacekeeping" — yet failed to respond with decisive action to direct attacks on Americans, our embassies, and even our naval vessels. His answer to terrorist attacks was to make meaningless cruise missile strikes, and combine them with bracing speeches unconnected to policy.

I think that Clinton's hate of the US military, combined with his limp wristed and ineffective approach to deterring terrorists emboldened those who have sworn to destroy us.

At 2:26 PM, Blogger DrewL said...

Actually, it was indifference on the part of the Pentagon and the CIA that handcuffed what President Clinton wanted to do to deal a blow to al Quaeda. This was clearly laid out in Richard Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies".

In addition, Clinton understood the importance of diplomacy and working WITH (not against) other nations to achieve an objective. To say that he put American lives at risk by putting them under UN control dramatically overstates the issue.

We've seen first-hand how the current administration failed miserably to plan for the war in Iraq, resulting in over 1,800 dead U.S. soldiers to date...and they were able to accomplish THAT noble feat without anyone else's help. As I recall, no U.S. troops died in Bosnia/Kosovo in spite of the UN's involvement. The U.S. also was able to thwart the involvement in that conflict of the revived mujahadeen, who were poised to enter the conflict in retaliation for the ethnic cleansing of Muslims.


Post a Comment

<< Home