conservative double standard - again

[Sauron]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1193-2003Mar20.html

A Double Standard On Dissent

  
 The president's party took an early run this week at shutting down criticism with an all-hands-on-deck attack on Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, a Vietnam-era veteran who had the nerve to criticize the diplomatic failures leading up to this war.

"I'm saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war," Daschle said on Monday, "saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country."

The way the Republicans reacted, you'd have thought Daschle had endorsed Saddam Hussein for reelection. "Those comments may not undermine the president as he leads us into war," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert. "And they may not give comfort to our adversaries, but they come mighty close."

But a different standard seemed to apply after President Clinton launched his 1999 air campaign in Kosovo to protect ethnic Albanians from another dictator.

"I don't think we should be bombing in the Balkans," said Rep. Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican. "I don't think NATO should be destroyed because we changed its mission to a humanitarian one." His colleague Rep. Randy Cunningham (R-Calif.) accused Clinton of pursuing "the most inept foreign policy in the history of the United States."

 

 

[Starscream]

Yeah, I read something today too about Frist raking Daschle over the coals as well.  Of course Frist also spoke out against Clinton's war efforts too ...

IMPO, for quite some time now, it has been obvious that Bush wanted nothing but war so I think Daschle's comments are well placed.

 

[Sauron]

Today at 10:06 PM Starscream said this in Post #2

Yeah, I read something today too about Frist raking Daschle over the coals as well.  Of course Frist also spoke out against Clinton's war efforts too ...

IMPO, for quite some time now, it has been obvious that Bush wanted nothing but war so I think Daschle's comments are well placed.

Indeed.  The reason that the administration is so ticked off with the UN is that they went there, expecting to get the UN's blessing to start a war.  When that didn't happen, the US rudely discovered that they had miscalculated.

Make no mistake - the accidental president wanted war and regime change from day one - even if the original UN resolution said *nothing* about regime change at all. 

 

[Auntie]

Today at 12:23 AM Sauron said this in Post #3




Make no mistake - the accidental president wanted war and regime change from day one - .....

 

[Sauron]

Well, unfortunately I'm correct here.  This was part of the Wolfowitz/Perle/Abrams/Rumsfield plan, even as they presented it to Clinton.  Regime change in Iraq was a building block for the New American Century.

The events of 9/11 provided the excuse for it.  No one seems to realize that Iraq had *nothing* to do with 9/11.

 

[OldBadfish]

Well there is some speculation that Iraq did have something to do with 9/11.

Isn't it obvious by Saddams behavior, distator tactics and the way he treats his own people that something had to be done?

Bush gave Saddam lots of time to disarm and step down, and all Saddam says is " Bush should resign".

It is our business and responsibility when terrorism comes to this country, or any of our ally countries, also the world (whether you realize it or not) looks to the US for protection, the world will back us when we set things right.

The war is just and was needed.

Everyone opposed doesn't seem to have a better alternative, do you? Does anyone?

 

[nephilimiyr]

The events of 9/11 provided the excuse for it.  No one seems to realize that Iraq had *nothing* to do with 9/11.

Well, who did?

 

[cenimo]

So then why have they discovered a training camp in Iraq where they teach Al Qaeda how to hijack airplanes, for instance?

Or was that some kind of mirage too, just like the chemical weapons that Saddam "didn't have", the SCUDS he "didn't have", etc...ad nauseam...

 

[bigat]

Today at 02:13 AM Badfish said this in Post #6

Well there is some speculation that Iraq did have something to do with 9/11.

Isn't it obvious by Saddams behavior, distator tactics and the way he treats his own people that something had to be done?

Bush gave Saddam lots of time to disarm and step down, and all Saddam says is " Bush should resign".

It is our business and responsibility when terrorism comes to this country, or any of our ally countries, also the world (whether you realize it or not) looks to the US for protection, the world will back us when we set things right.

The war is just and was needed.

Everyone opposed doesn't seem to have a better alternative, do you? Does anyone?

 

BTW - Nice car badfish.

 

[bigat]

I heard someone say that the people who are against the war are not "anti-war" or "anti-American" but just "anti-Bush".  Really doesn't matter what he did, if it is right or wrong, just the fact that it is Bush people would stand up and be upset.   

Some people just can't get over the election.  Let it go!!!

 

[Starscream]

Today at 07:22 AM bigat said this in Post #10

I heard someone say that the people who are against the war are not "anti-war" or "anti-American" but just "anti-Bush".  Really doesn't matter what he did, if it is right or wrong, just the fact that it is Bush people would stand up and be upset.   

Some people just can't get over the election.  Let it go!!!

I don't think that's fair, I supported Bush's last war just 1.5 years ago.

 

[Sauron]

Today at 04:59 AM cenimo said this in Post #8

So then why have they discovered a training camp in Iraq where they teach Al Qaeda how to hijack airplanes, for instance?

I don't know for a fact that they discovered anything like that.  Considering the faulty intelligence about Powell's satellite photos, and consider also the faulty intelligence about getting enriched uranium from Niger - kinda hard to believe the US govt.

Moreover, since 9/11, the backgrounds of each of the hijackers involved in 9/11 has been extensively investigated.  Their movements were tracked, their years in college, what apartments they rented, etc.  And you know what?  ZERO of these hijackers ever trained in Iraq.

So my statement is still true:  Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and even if any such training camp as you describe were found in Iraq, there's no evidence that the 9/11 hijackers ever attended it.

 

[Stormy]

I can sympathize with the citizens of our country who do not want war if the reason is because they wish to spare human life. However, in the case of this war... I truly think it will result in the saving of many lifes that would have been lost if Saddam was alllowed to remain in power.

But some of the protesters on this forum seem to be pro-Sadamn.

That puzzles me.

 

[Sauron]

Today at 12:33 PM Stormy said this in Post #13

I can sympathize with the citizens of our country who do not want war if the reason is because they wish to spare human life. However, in the case of this war... I truly think it will result in the saving of many lifes that would have been lost if Saddam was alllowed to remain in power.

But some of the protesters on this forum seem to be pro-Sadamn.

That puzzles me.

Are you serious about misunderstanding this?  Or is this just a way to get in an insult, underneath the moderators' radar?

Your view is too simplistic - you're a victim of Bush's "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric.  Just because someone doesn't support this war, that doesn't mean they're pro-Saddam.




 

 

[MichaelFJF]

It's amazing how some people have superior knowledge to that of the Secretary of State. It must be nice to have that knowledge. And of course, someone in that position would no doubt spend a lot of time on message boards sharing that knowledge. It's even more amazing that the same people just can't figure out that the electoral college was won. These people are still holding their breath in protest. Must be a nice shade of blue by now. What a crock. M

 

[MG]

This war IS NOT about liberals or conservatives! Innocent people are oppressed under a tyrants rule! Saddam has lied, murdered, tortured, his own people. Its unbelievable. If you wish to argue a political point (that is absolutely so irrelevant in any stance) then argue WHY Daschle supported Clinton in 98 when bombing Iraq, saying "We have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that... We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."  Interesting.

Anti-war protest campaigns are your american right. But what the groups that do not support "Iraqi Freedom" seem to forget is this, Our husbands, wives, brothers, and sisters, sons and daughters DO believe in what they are fighting for. And to have their OWN people not supporting them is an outrage. What will the anti-war groups say to the mothers whose sons come home in a casket? "Sorry but I practice my rights and my beliefs. Sorry for your loss on such an unneccessary war" You might as well slap her in the face.

God is in control here. Not the liberals or conservatives. This is all part of HIS campaign.

Thank you Father for my freedom in this blessed country. I pray for your will to be done here and across the borders around the globe. Amen.

 

[Morat]

Sauron: He's probably referring to the so-called "Poison Factory" in Northern Iraq. What he didn't mention, and probably doesn't know, is that:

1) It was nothing of the sort.
2) Northern Iraq is under Kurdish control, and under our no-fly zone. If there was really an Al-Qaeda camp there, some Senior Officials need to explain why it still exists when it's in a place where our planes can freely bomb it.

 

[Sauron]

Today at 12:55 PM MichaelFJF said this in Post #15

It's amazing how some people have superior knowledge to that of the Secretary of State.

By your definition, we should NEVER question what any of our elected officials say, since someone can always ask, "Do you know more than THEY do?" 

And I'll bet that you didn't hesitate to criticize Clinton or his Sec of State when you disagreed with them, did you?  Even though your broken argument should work for them as well, right?

The reality is that your position is just an excuse for mental laziness.  Each citizen has to take upon themselves the responsibility to stay fully informed. That's the only way that we can keep the government honest.

And by the way - for this *particular* issue, it was the UN arms inspectors who were contradicting the Sec of State on the surveillance photographs - and yes, I do believe that they probably knew more about the subject than Powell did, since they are specialists in that subject and were on the ground doing inspections in person.  Oh, and about the forged documents showing an alleged link between Niger and Iraq for uranium?  Even the CIA admitted that they're not reliable - in fact, the CIA is spending some time cleaning the egg off its face, for being so gullible. 

 

 

[OldBadfish]

Well those that are against the war, I still ask, do you have a better idea? A better plan to get rid of this abomination (Saddam) of the world?

The UN does nothing, nobody does anything, we should support this war, Saddam is evil and a torturer of his own people, what would you people who are against military action suggest?

Let him be? So he can become more powerful and release biological stuff over here?

You don't think that Saddams number 1 goal is to get revenge for Desert Storm and ours and the UN's command to not have weapons of mass destruction.

Thanks Bigat for the kind words.

 

[Sauron]

Today at 02:22 PM Badfish said this in Post #19

Well those that are against the war, I still ask, do you have a better idea? A better plan to get rid of this abomination (Saddam) of the world?

The UN does nothing, nobody does anything, we should support this war, Saddam is evil and a torturer of his own people, what would you people who are against military action suggest?

Let him be? So he can become more powerful and release biological stuff over here?

You don't think that Saddams number 1 goal is to get revenge for Desert Storm and ours and the UN's command to not have weapons of mass destruction.

Thanks Bigat for the kind words.

I have a question:  when did it become our job to get rid of evil dictators around the world?

And where do we stop?  Currently, there are several dozen countries around the world that are headed by dictators, military generals, unelected officials - all of whom abuse their populations and deny them human rights.  I think it's bad, no matter where it happens.

How about Pervez Musharraf?  General, military dictator, and suddenly he's our "friend" now, even though AlQaeda was supplied and funded from Pakistan.  Suddenly, we forgot all about that - and he's still in power, oppressing his people, thanks to the USA.

Or, how about North Korea?  People starving, eating grass and pinecones, the leader is a certifiable nutjob, and we KNOW he has nuclear weapons, and he's sitting withing striking distance of three other nuclear powers:  Russia, China, and American bases.  What's more, he's within striking distance of Japan - something we care about very much.  But you don't see this administration trying to do "regime change" in North Korea, do you?

There are plenty of other examples. But the question still remains:  why is the USA suddenly tasked with going around the world and fixing all these govts?  And considering how many times we've tried that in the past, and how many times we've either failed or even made things worse, is it really a wise thing for us to try and do?