| Author |
Message |
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
 Thu Nov 17, 2005 6:42 pm Senior Democrat Calls for Iraq Withdrawal |
|
| Quote: |
CNN.com
Powered by
Click Here to Print
SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close
Senior Democrat calls for U.S. troops to leave Iraq
Rep. Murtha: 'U.S. and coalition troops have done all they can'
Programming Note: Sen. John Kerry fires back at the president over Iraq, "The Situation Room," 7 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Warning that other global threats "cannot be ignored," Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, a leading adviser on defense issues, called Thursday for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
"U.S. and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq," the senior lawmaker said. "It's time for a change in direction."
He said he believes all the forces could be redeployed over a six-month period.
Murtha, a former Marine Corps colonel and veteran of the Vietnam war, is the first senior lawmaker to call for an immediate withdrawal. Other critics of the war have asked President Bush to set up a timetable for withdrawal. (Watch Murtha's take on 'flawed policy wrapped in illusion' -- 8:11)
GOP lawmaker: Withdrawal 'a mistake'
Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, blasted Murtha for his comments.
"I am saddened by the comments made today by Rep. Murtha," Hastert said in a statement. "It is clear that as [House Minority Leader] Nancy Pelosi's top lieutenant on armed services, Rep. Murtha and Democratic leaders have adopted a policy of cut-and-run. They would prefer that the United States surrender to the terrorists who would harm innocent Americans."
Rep. Duncan Hunter, a Republican from California and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, described calls for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq "a mistake," arguing that leaving Iraq would make it appear that America cannot sustain prolonged military operations.
"I just wanted to remind our friends that now is the time for endurance," Hunter said. "Right now, in Iraq, we are changing the world. ... We're changing a very strategic part of the world in such a way that it will not be a threat to the United States and, in fact, will be an ally in the global war against terror."
A respected voice
Murtha's call for a withdrawal, however, could have a significant impact on the debate over the future of the Iraq war, as both Democrats and Republicans seek his advice on military and veterans' issues.
"A man of the stature of John Murtha -- that's a pretty heavy hit, I don't mind telling you," said North Carolina Republican Rep. Walter Jones, sponsor of the House resolution that calls for a timetable for withdrawal. "He ... gives a lot of weight to this debate."
Jones said he thinks this will make "some Republicans think about their responsibility as relates to the war in Iraq" and that "this is a week that will help further the debate -- ignite the debate."
Another Democrat who voted for the war, Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee, said he had heard of Murtha's comments and wouldn't endorse his call for immediate withdrawal.
But, Ford said, "It's a powerful statement coming from arguably the most respected voice in the Congress," and it will be hard for the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney to dismiss these comments as easily as other Democratic criticisms on the war.
Presence 'uniting enemy against us'
Murtha, who has served in the House for over three decades, is the senior Democrat and former chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee and voted in favor of the Iraq war. Now, he said, the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq are "uniting the enemy against us."
"Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty," he said. "Our military captured Saddam Hussein, captured or killed his closest associates, but the war continues to intensify."
He said the redeployment will give Iraqis the incentive to take control of their country.
The statement comes amid increasingly heated debate over the Iraq war and the intelligence leading up to the March 2003 invasion. A recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll also found the public increasingly dissatisfied with the Iraq war. The poll, released Monday, found that 60 percent of Americans said the war was not worth fighting, while 38 percent said it was worthwhile. (Full story)
Monday's poll found that 19 percent of Americans want to see the troops come home now and 33 percent said they wanted them home within a year. Only 38 percent said they should remain "as long as needed."
On Tuesday, the Senate also voted 79-19 for an amendment that called for progress reports on the Iraq war every 90 days. The amendment's purpose was "to clarify and recommend changes" to U.S. policy in Iraq. The vote was seen as a reflection of the increasing bipartisan dissatisfaction over the war's progress.
On Wednesday, Vice President Dick Cheney dismissed Democratic critics, calling allegations that the administration misled the country as "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city." (Full story)
Murtha took issue with the administration's counter-criticism, specifically President Bush's Veterans Day speech in which he said it is "deeply irresponsible to rewrite how that war began."
'Flawed policy'
"I resent the fact that on Veterans Day, they criticized Democrats for criticizing them," Murtha said. "This [the war] is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public knows it, and lashing out at critics doesn't help a bit. You've got to change the policy. That's what's going to help the American people. You need to change direction."
Murtha -- who recently visited Iraq's Anbar province -- said it is Congress' responsibility to speak out for the "sons and daughters" on the battlefield, and relayed several emotional stories from soldiers recovering at Bethesda's Walter Reed Medical Center.
"I tell you, these young folks are under intense activity over there, I mean much more intense than Vietnam," he said. "You never know when it's going to happen."
CNN's Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/17/murtha.iraq/index.html
Click Here to Print
SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close
Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.
that: ese; esa; aquel; aquella; �se; �sa; aqu�l; aquella; que; tan; que |
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Nov 17, 2005 6:46 pm |
|
Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. The Democrats are sickening over all of this. It's so ridiculous. Does he REALLY want Iraq to descend into chaos, hmm? Does he REALLY want the terrorists to take over and bring us more problems than we have now? Does he REALLY want the terrorists to fight HERE instead of there? My goodness, this is ridiculous. These Democrats should be ashamed. They are disgusting. Especially Mr. Murtha right now, as well as Kucinich and Rengal. Horrifying. This is why it's so good that they're not in power and so critical that Republicans maintain control.
EDIT: Having no reason to stay there? It's not helping America, the Persian Gulf, or Iraq for us to stay there? Is he crazy right now!? So, that's his, and many other liberals/democats' exit strategy? An IMMEDIATE surrender? No way. That's far from the right thing to do.
I respect him for his service and history and say that he is a hero, but here he is far out there and incredibly wrong.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:52 pm |
|
Democrats need to take a lesson from Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson in the field of Respect.
Ben Nelson is a Liberal Democrat who respectfully disagrees with how the war has been carried out in some aspects, but he also believes it is attrocious to say that the president "mislead" the country, since most of the Democrats, himself included, supported the war in the first place, on the SAME intellegence info that the president had.
It's about time the president began to rebutt to some of those who are rewriting history. John Kerry being at the forefront.
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:50 pm |
|
I think that nearly all politcians are guilty of "rewritting history" as you put it. And I think that an immediate surrender is certainly not the right solution. Not at this point. I think the best solution would be to slowly (slowly!) begin to retract troops and ensure that they have proper infrastucture as they withdrawl.
But I'm not a military stratigist.
Basically I believe we need to constuct an solid plan to withdrawl and enact it as soon as possible without pulling the rug out from under the people of Iraq. And neither party is willing to make that compromise. Republicans want to stay, and Democrats are splintered. A poor stance for both of them.
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:34 pm |
|
They have the right to an opinion. That is my answer. 
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:25 am |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | | Ben Nelson is a Liberal Democrat |
Liberal Democrat!? he is no way liberal. He is a conservative democrat.
Rated 7% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.
Rated 21% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes.
Rated 83% by the Christian Coalition
Rated 50% by APHA, indicating a mixed record on public health issues.
Member of Democratic Leadership Council
Voted YES on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years.
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq.
Lets compare to a REAL liberal, Ted Kennedy
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.
Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes.
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record
Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years
Voted NO on authorizing use of military force against Iraq.
-------signature-------
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:03 am |
|
| borgslayer wrote: | | They have the right to an opinion. That is my answer. |
Lose the "" and show others respect. Thanks, 
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:14 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | Democrats need to take a lesson from Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson in the field of Respect.
Ben Nelson is a Liberal Democrat who respectfully disagrees with how the war has been carried out in some aspects, but he also believes it is attrocious to say that the president "mislead" the country, since most of the Democrats, himself included, supported the war in the first place, on the SAME intellegence info that the president had.
It's about time the president began to rebutt to some of those who are rewriting history. John Kerry being at the forefront. |
I believe he's one of the moderate democrats, actually, like Lieberman. Heck, I THINK he might even be in the gang of 14. Now, I agree with you wholeheartedly there, however. It's dispicable and IRRESPONSIBLE for these Democrats to be saying such things. It's irresponsible for them to say continually that Bush lied, that Bush misled our country into war, to say that we need to pull out immediately--to surrender. And it's also dispicable and irresponsible for them to politicize the war to the extent that they are now.
Could you imagine such politicization during WWII? This is just as bad, if not worse, than the Vietnam politicizations.
And for Harry Reid to go out there and say that it's wrong for Bush to be defending himself against their relentless attacks which they started is just disgusting! He said, yes, (I saw it on the news) that Bush needs to put aside partisan politics and politicization and give us a time table. Yeah, right, good for you, Harry, after politicizing it so much and attacking him yourself! When he finally defends against it you attack him for doing this. Quit playing politics with national security! If it wasn't for flip-floppers like you we wouldn't even BE in this discussion right now. Ridiculous.
And for Murtha to say that Cheney has no right to speak out against him is just dispicable. With all due respect to the Senator's military credentials, he's just plain wrong and doesn't seem to understand this situation.
The Democrats are just dispicable, politicizing this war to such an extent. Attacking Bush at every turn since it became politically expedient to do so, and when finally Bush and Cheney are lashing out and trying to defend against this relentless onslaut of uncountered attacks, they say "Let's move beyond the politics, Mr. President!" Bah! How can they say something like this? Oh, I know how. When it could hurt them. This is just disgusting. Pelosi, Kennedy, Reid, Murtha, Rangel, Kucinich...they're all ridiculous. So dispicably ridiculous. But then again, let's keep this in mind: President Bush is they're real enemy, not the terrorists, and it's dispicable how low they'll go in their hatred. (This does not necessarily pertain to a majority of them, but many of them, including Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, Rangel, and Kucinich at the very least.)
Oh, and finally, no, we shouldn't have a timetable. Setting out a timetable would only embolden the terrorists and make them think, "Okay, let's tone down the attacks so that they think they can definitely follow the timetable, and then after they leave we can start our attacks again." They also see this bickering and pull-out movement as a good thing and are laughing at us behind our backs.
We can't pull out our troops now and surrender. We can't even set up a timetable. Heck, I think McCain might even be somewhat right in that we need more troops, but I haven't decided yet.
I do think it's legitimate, though, for the President to say what criteria we have for an EVENTUAL withdrawel, but not set out a timetable for that. Say what their goals are now and what they're planning on doing to reach those goals. But to come up with a timetable? No siree.
And Borgslayer, yes, they have a right to speak their opinion. But does that mean that they should say all the things that they're saying, especially after THEY said the same things as Bush back then, including Clinton, and saw the SAME intelligence as Bush. It doesn't mean that they should be so irresponsible to say the things they're saying, after saying what they said in the beginning. Nelson and Lieberman are right in saying that it looks like it was a mistake and yet say that we shouldn't pull out, etc. And ESPECIALLY when our troops hear this kind of talk, and it decreases their morale and just isn't anything good for them to hear.
And for Clinton to go to Dubai and say the things he did last week is just horrendous. To go to a country near Iraq--near where our troops are fighting--and attack this president is rather TREACHEROUS and Clinton should be ASHAMED about it. ASHAMED. The former President has gone mad. I have ABSOLUTELY no respect for the man at all. To go there and say the things he said while America is at war is just reckless and irresponsible, not to mention disgusting. And for him to have been a former President and be saying that there is even WORSE. For shame, Bill. For shame.
Oh, and by the way. It's not "Bush's War." It's America's War.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:09 pm |
|
Might I remind the fellow conservatives of this:
| Quote: | Published on Saturday, September 24, 2005 by The Nation
"Victory Means Exit Strategy..."
by John Nichols
It's anti-war quiz time.
Who made the following statement:
"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."
A.) Cindy Sheehan?
B.) Phil Donahue?
C.) Michael Moore?
D.) A prominent politician who was not afraid to dissent in a time of war.
Answer: D.) A prominent politician who was not afraid to dissent in a time of war.
Defenders of the occupation of Iraq will, before the weekend is done, have some choice words for the hundreds of thousands of Americans who are marching and rallying for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from that Middle Eastern nation.
They will pull out all the deliberate misreads of intelligence and paranoid fantasies that were employed by George Bush in his relentless campaign to win support for the invasion of Iraq. But, above all, they will peddle the lie that since the beginning of this misguided war has been their favorite: The suggestion that those who oppose the war are somehow harming the troops.
A marketing campaign, launched shortly after the war began and continued to this day, has sought to link support for the men and women serving in this country's military forces with support for even the most foolhardy and dangerous of the president's policies. There are even bumper stickers that declare: "Support President Bush and the Troops."
But this is just political gamesmanship, nothing more.
How do we know?
Because House Majority Leader Tom DeLay tells us so.
Back in 1999, after then-President Bill Clinton had ordered U.S. forces to begin a massive bombing campaign and missile strikes against Yugoslavia, the House of Representatives considered a resolution supporting the mission. The leading opponent of the resolution was DeLay, who dismissed the notion that opposing the war was in any way an affront to the troops. In a visceral floor statement delivered in March of that year, DeLay declared, "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. We must stop giving the appearance that our foreign policy is formulated by the Unabomber." As the war progressed, DeLay condemned "(President Clinton's) war," and grumbled in April, 1999, that, "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 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."
To those who dared suggest that such aggressive language might be dispiriting to the troops who were engaged in the mission, DeLay told USA Today, "It's very simple. The president is not supported by the House, and the military is supported by the House."
DeLay's sentiments were echoed in the Senate by Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, who explained that, "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."
DeLay and Lott has allies in the media who were, if anything, even more passionate in their criticism of the war. Anticipating the current comments of Cindy Sheehan and other family members who have lost loved ones in Iraq, they framed their anti-war arguments as a plea to save the lives of U.S. troops who had been put in harm's way as part of a fool's mission. Sean Hannity growled into his Fox New microphone about how supporters of the war should be forced to: "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." Hannity was an "out now" man: "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," he argued. Hannity's fellow peacenik, conservative commentator Tony Snow, even went so far as to make quagmire comparisons, suggesting on a March 24, 1999, Fox program: "You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."
The commander-in-chief's critics found an ally in a candidate in the 2000 contest to replace Clinton. Sounding an awfully lot like U.S. Sen Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, who in August suggested that it was time to set a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, Texas Governor George W. Bush told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on June 5, 1999: "I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long (U.S. troops) will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."
What about "stay the course"?
No way, said Bush the candidate. "Victory means exit strategy," he told the Houston Chronicle on April 9, 1999, "and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
Critics of this weekend's anti-war marchers will surely dust off the claim that the protesters are merely recycling the slogans of the 1960s. Fair enough. No more: "Make Love, Not War." Instead, why not recycle an anti-war slogan from the 1990s? Something catchy, like: "Victory means exit strategy." And while they're at it, foes of the Iraq occupation might want to recycle some of the better rhetoric of that decade, like the line: "I cannot support a failed foreign policy." Just be sure to credit the prominent politician who was not afraid to dissent in a time of war -- even if it meant criticizing the commander-in-chief: Tom DeLay.
John Nichols, The Nation's Washington correspondent, has covered progressive politics and activism in the United States and abroad for more than a decade. Formerly a writer and editor for The Toledo Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette newspapers, he is now editorial page editor for The Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin.
� Copyright 2005 The Nation
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=24148 |
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:37 pm |
|
I'd like to see that quote sourced. I really don't trust some liberal's blog as a source.
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:06 am |
|
for the last quote from then gov. Bush The original article is gone, best I can get is a Transcript from the News.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/15/sitroom.02.html
| Quote: | REP. WALTER JONES (R), NORTH CAROLINA: John, I think so. And let me, if you will, for just a moment -- Senator Dole was talking about President Clinton and talking about the Army being in the Kosovo. And let me quote Governor Bush at that time, in 1999. It's "Houston Chronicle." It was April 9, 1999. Again, this is Governor Bush, who is now President Bush. This is what he said: "Victory means exit strategy. And it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
That, again, is Governor Bush in 1999, saying to President Clinton, tell us what the plan is.
And, John, I'm very pleased that the Senate took that action today in a bipartisan way. It passed overwhelmingly, as you know. And I think that's going to help the initiative on our side.
All we're saying to the president is -- and I have learned this from many people who were in Vietnam. And they told me since, they said, Congressman, you cannot have a war strategy unless you have an end point to the war strategy. |
|
|
|
Cathexis
The Angel of Avalon
Joined: 26 Dec 2001
Posts: 5901
Location: ~~ Where Dreams Have No End�
|
| Sat Nov 19, 2005 2:17 am |
|
Isk. More doodley-****s.........................................................this is getting so ridiculous.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Nov 19, 2005 2:37 am |
|
It's true, at least the Delay, etc. stuff is true. Allan Colmes has been badgering about that on Hannity and Colmes a lot, lately.
The Bush thing I'll get to, even though I don't know if he really said it.
First, on Delay, Frist, etc. Yes, they called it Clinton's war, which THAT very much was, however I wouldn't have done that if I were them, and don't quite condone it. However, it is my understanding that that happened before the troops really got involved in the Bosnia and Kosovo situations--in the EARLY days of the first few weeks. There's a great difference between the two, between when our troops are really fighting in harms way and when the war has just begun. In the case of Iraq, it's a war that the Democrats strongly supported. Now, they claim it Bush's war, when it's not. I do not believe that it was in the waning days of the war, as this article proclaims.
And also, Bosnia and Kosovo were different situations than Iraq is. Iraq was/is a war to defend America. Bosnia and Kosovo was a war to deal with ethnic cleansing disputes--a humanitarian crisis, yes, but nonetheless. We just did a redrawing project of Yugoslavia, and so I know quite a deal about this now, unlike three weeks ago and earlier. Anyways, it was not so much in the interest of America to go into war there. It was to aide others in dealing with the ethnic disputes in a multi-state (won't use national; it wasn't multi-national, but multi-state) way that would be most beneficial and speedy. That is unlike Iraq.
It was not necessary for the US to go into Yugoslavia like it was Iraq (or was perceived as such at the time), and so in that sense it was Clinton's war. Although again, I don't condone the action of calling it Clinton's war, even though in many ways it was.
And this also ties in with Bush and the exit strategy stuff. There's a HUGE difference between the two. Here's how:
1. Iraq involves the US being the most responsible for setting up democracy there and securing democracy and the nation. We went in there and took out Saddam and were key to the formation of democracy in Iraq. Therefore, we have an obligation to complete this war and secure Iraq so that the Baathists don't regain control, or the terrorists. So that the deaths of Americans to bring democracy to a formerly dictatorial region was not in vain.
2. Iraq involves TERRORISTS in the world-wide war on terror. It is key to winning the war on terror. If we withdrew now, or developed an exit strategy, the terrorists would not only be emboldened but would have a propoganda tool at their disposal, to twist it in such a way that would be very difficult to counter in the Muslim world. In that way we must stay, and we cannot afford to withdraw now or put forth an exit strategy.
Because of the way troops from different states and organizations were mobilized, and the fact that we have an obligation to secure Iraq for the future, and the fact that Iraq is key to winning the war on terror, we cannot have a timetable or immediate withdrawal. That would send the wrong message on a galactic scale.
Bosnia and Kosovo, however, were different. We didn't have an obligation to stay there nearly as much as we do now, and the world dynamic was not the same (with regards to that conflict) as this, and it did not affect the US nearly as much as Iraq did/does. That is the difference here between the comments then and now. It is a very pointed difference, and if you really know about Yugoslavia and the situation there quite well, you would know what I'm talking about.
With the world community recognizing the catastrophy in Yugoslavia and working to deal with it, US action was not really extremely necessary--although, yes, it was a great tragedy which deserved interference (but what happens to the "America policing the world" arguement of the left?), unlike Iraq (or at least as it was perceived), and in that sense it was Clinton's war, as it wasn't overly necessary for US intervention, with NATO, etc already intevening.
In the case of Yugoslavia, it was quite reasonable to ask for an exit strategy. However, with Iraq there is a significant difference and therefore it is not right to say that because Republicans called for an exit strategy then it's wrong for them to call for one now, or to use their Bosnia/Kosovo comments of Republicans to attack them for their comments on Iraq. Striking difference, and it doesn't take too much depth to tell.
And so Delay very much was right in his April 1999 statements about the war, and it doesn't mean anything about his, or any other Republican, for that matter, comments on Iraq and an exit strategy now. I don't really see the logic in that argument (of certain liberals).
I feel smart and well-thought-out right now, especially for it being so late  
As I said there, though, it's late. It was after midnight when I started this and now is after 12:30. I might touch up on a few things, fixing a few errors that I may have made, tomorrow in another post, so bear with me there.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Cathexis
The Angel of Avalon
Joined: 26 Dec 2001
Posts: 5901
Location: ~~ Where Dreams Have No End�
|
| Sat Nov 19, 2005 2:41 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | It's true, at least the Delay, etc. stuff is true. Allan Colmes has been badgering about that on Hannity and Colmes a lot, lately.
The Bush thing I'll get to, even though I don't know if he really said it.
First, on Delay, Frist, etc. Yes, they called it Clinton's war, which THAT very much was, however I wouldn't have done that if I were them, and don't quite condone it. However, it is my understanding that that happened before the troops really got involved in the Bosnia and Kosovo situations--in the EARLY days of the first few weeks. There's a great difference between the two, between when our troops are really fighting in harms way and when the war has just begun. In the case of Iraq, it's a war that the Democrats strongly supported. Now, they claim it Bush's war, when it's not. I do not believe that it was in the waning days of the war, as this article proclaims.
And also, Bosnia and Kosovo were different situations than Iraq is. Iraq was/is a war to defend America. Bosnia and Kosovo was a war to deal with ethnic cleansing disputes--a humanitarian crisis, yes, but nonetheless. We just did a redrawing project of Yugoslavia, and so I know quite a deal about this now, unlike three weeks ago and earlier. Anyways, it was not so much in the interest of America to go into war there. It was to aide others in dealing with the ethnic disputes in a multi-state (won't use national; it wasn't multi-national, but multi-state) way that would be most beneficial and speedy. That is unlike Iraq.
It was not necessary for the US to go into Yugoslavia like it was Iraq (or was perceived as such at the time), and so in that sense it was Clinton's war. Although again, I don't condone the action of calling it Clinton's war, even though in many ways it was.
And this also ties in with Bush and the exit strategy stuff. There's a HUGE difference between the two. Here's how:
1. Iraq involves the US being the most responsible for setting up democracy there and securing democracy and the nation. We went in there and took out Saddam and were key to the formation of democracy in Iraq. Therefore, we have an obligation to complete this war and secure Iraq so that the Baathists don't regain control, or the terrorists. So that the deaths of Americans to bring democracy to a formerly dictatorial region was not in vain.
2. Iraq involves TERRORISTS in the world-wide war on terror. It is key to winning the war on terror. If we withdrew now, or developed an exit strategy, the terrorists would not only be emboldened but would have a propoganda tool at their disposal, to twist it in such a way that would be very difficult to counter in the Muslim world. In that way we must stay, and we cannot afford to withdraw now or put forth an exit strategy.
Because of the way troops from different states and organizations were mobilized, and the fact that we have an obligation to secure Iraq for the future, and the fact that Iraq is key to winning the war on terror, we cannot have a timetable or immediate withdrawal. That would send the wrong message on a galactic scale.
Bosnia and Kosovo, however, were different. We didn't have an obligation to stay there nearly as much as we do now, and the world dynamic was not the same (with regards to that conflict) as this, and it did not affect the US nearly as much as Iraq did/does. That is the difference here between the comments then and now. It is a very pointed difference, and if you really know about Yugoslavia and the situation there quite well, you would know what I'm talking about.
With the world community recognizing the catastrophy in Yugoslavia and working to deal with it, US action was not really extremely necessary--although, yes, it was a great tragedy which deserved interference (but what happens to the "America policing the world" arguement of the left?), unlike Iraq (or at least as it was perceived), and in that sense it was Clinton's war, as it wasn't overly necessary for US intervention, with NATO, etc already intevening.
In the case of Yugoslavia, it was quite reasonable to ask for an exit strategy. However, with Iraq there is a significant difference and therefore it is not right to say that because Republicans called for an exit strategy then it's wrong for them to call for one now, or to use their Bosnia/Kosovo comments of Republicans to attack them for their comments on Iraq. Striking difference, and it doesn't take too much depth to tell.
And so Delay very much was right in his April 1999 statements about the war, and it doesn't mean anything about his, or any other Republican, for that matter, comments on Iraq and an exit strategy now. I don't really see the logic in that argument (of certain liberals).
I feel smart and well-thought-out right now, especially for it being so late
As I said there, though, it's late. It was after midnight when I started this and now is after 12:30. I might touch up on a few things, fixing a few errors that I may have made, tomorrow in another post, so bear with me there. |
Lol you are quite intelligent and well-thought-out, RM. I agree with essentially everything you said. Congratulations.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Nov 19, 2005 2:48 am |
|
Thanks . Now, I just wanted to comment, also, that I'm glad that Bush is making a great speech right now, live, in South Korea, reinforcing the successes of his policy and why we're there. He's saying his basic exit strategy. What the requirement is for success and pull-out. I must say, I am VERY pleased with Bush now. Finally he's doing the right thing on several issues.
I'm also glad that the House Republicans did that bill. It was a wise thing to do, and definitely shows the troops our support. Only 3 dissenters.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
