Skip to comments.
[Hillary] Clinton Says U.S. Must Increase NATO, UN Role in Iraq [is it treason YET?]
bloomberg no url
| 12/15/3
Posted on 12/15/2003 10:45:33 AM PST by NativeNewYorker
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
To: Kleon
I'm just pointing out how it's often bad to take the "blame Clinton" approach, because it's too easy and dilutes arguments.But it's so damned much fun to throw them under the bus!!!!
To: alaskanfan
"We would have more troops to put in Iraq if your husband hadn't cut our military so drastically during his administration."
That was over 3 years ago - GWB could have increased the military more if that's what he wanted to do. Seems to me Rummy has been saying the armed forces need to be re-sized (down) and be more mobile. How long will it be before GWB is held accountable for his own policies (3 years after he's gone)?
To: mewzilla
``This moment cannot be just about congratulating ourselves,''Just exactly what should the wicked witch be cangratulating herself for? Talk about her ol take credit for everything self. W captured Saddamn and Hilary captured Elian! Must hurt to lose your biggest club, two clubs counting the obvious silence about WMDs???
Pray for W and Merry Christmas to Our Troops
23
posted on
12/15/2003 11:45:42 AM PST
by
bray
(The Wicked Witch of NY is Taking the Rats Down in Flames!)
To: Kleon
I'm not blaming the VP of doing anything wrong, I'm just pointing out how it's often bad to take the "blame Clinton" approach, because it's too easy and dilutes arguments.
Awesome. Too many times here, the facts are ignored so people can say: "They are bad, stupid, dumb, evil, etc. and we are good, smart, wise, etc." I like knowing the facts as they are... You report, I decide. :)
To: brownsfan
25
posted on
12/15/2003 11:50:40 AM PST
by
SGCOS
To: bray
Maybe we should just take this opportunity to surrender. Now that we have the President of Iraq, couln't we just surrender to him and go home?
To: Kleon
Those cuts were pushed by Dick Cheney during the first Bush presidencyNational defense budget= 1980, 134; 1985, 253; 1990, 299; 1995 272;
There ws no reduction in the 80's while there was a very sharp reduction from 1995 to 1992.
27
posted on
12/15/2003 11:53:14 AM PST
by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: SGCOS
23-20 in OT again?
Yeah, didn't hurt so bad this time. Somehow, when you're 4-8 losing isn't such a big deal. The 1986 playoff game though... that hurt. Damn that Elway! :)
To: NativeNewYorker
-- New York Senator Hillary Clinton said the U.S. should use the opportunity created by the capture of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to increase the involvement of the United Nations and NATO in Iraq's reconstruction. Nothing could be more indicative that a huge victory for our side is looming than this incessant call to involve the UN, NATO, ANYONE to water down the success of the lately undefeated, ON A ROLL, George W. Bush-led United States.
Could it be that the most sacred tenets of the left are being exposed one by one as, let's be magnanimous here, INOPERATIVE? Or is it simply their fear of a victory for CAPITALISM?
To: NativeNewYorker
Silly hilleree is grabbing at straws...she's finished for 2004 and she knows it. What she says is irrelevant! She is nothing. No one respects her.
30
posted on
12/15/2003 12:17:49 PM PST
by
cubreporter
(I trust Rush...he will prevail in spite of the naysayers)
To: NativeNewYorker
Every one of the people that wants President Bush to LOSE the next election wants him to hand Iraq over to the U.N. - that should tell everyone something. It is the exact WRONG thing to do.
To: NativeNewYorker
Let's see we fight NATO's ( Europe ) War in the Balkans and they sit on their asses while our military fought in Iraq but now they have to cut them in on the reconstruction .
Yeah I am sure the American Public will understand that ( the ones that even remember the Balkan War that is )
32
posted on
12/15/2003 12:28:50 PM PST
by
uncbob
To: NativeNewYorker
``We need to build a world with more friends and fewer terrorists by examining new ways to enhance and deepen relations around the world,'' Clinton said today. ``The more we throw our weight around the more we encourage other nations to join with each other as a counter weight.''
YOu mean like the way yourslime bag husband did in Haiti Somalia and the Balkans
33
posted on
12/15/2003 12:30:13 PM PST
by
uncbob
To: NativeNewYorker
Clinton, a Democrat,Did anyone not know this?
To: NativeNewYorker
Concerning the North Korean nuclear crisis, Clinton said she couldn't understand Bush administration's policy, and that the U.S. should return to an accord to trade aid for agreement not to develop a nuclear weapons program that her husband as president negotiated with the North Koreans in 1994.And which were just a smashing success!
Also I think her line about "not just congratulating ourselves" is an attempt to oh-so-subtlely take some of the credit for Saddam's capture.
35
posted on
12/15/2003 2:46:52 PM PST
by
cyncooper
("The evil is in plain sight")
To: familyofman
How long will it be before GWB is held accountable for his own policies (3 years after he's gone)?He's accountable, and for much, much longer than 3 years he will be remembered as one of our greatest presidents.
36
posted on
12/15/2003 2:53:36 PM PST
by
cyncooper
("The evil is in plain sight")
To: brownsfan; Kleon
If you want facts, then I wouldn't call that one quote the end all and be all of the situation.
Saying Cheney advocated some cuts back then, and acting like that is the end of the story won't cut it here.
latimes.com: Cheney acknowledges defense cuts began on his watch
EXCERPTS:
Dick Cheney, the Republican vice presidential nominee, acknowledged Wednesday that military cutbacks began during the Bush administration but said further cuts under President Clinton had "gone too far."
-snip-
"We were victorious in the Cold War, and in the aftermath of that, we did in fact significantly reduce the overall size of the U.S. military," Cheney said. "But I think we've gone too far with it. I think we've shrunk the force now at the same time we've been adding commitments, and so we're stretched pretty thin."
So no, the cuts the original poster referred to indeed trace back to clinton, not Cheney.
37
posted on
12/15/2003 3:02:36 PM PST
by
cyncooper
("The evil is in plain sight")
To: cyncooper
So no, the cuts the original poster referred to indeed trace back to clinton, not Cheney. I drove to Homer today for a haircut. It was a long drive (about 2 hours)and the roads were icy, but I listened to Rush on the way down. He reiterated the same thing that you and I have both said here that it was the Clinton administration that cut the military.
Although I have not had time to research this, (just got home) I'm convinced that a high profile radio commentator like Rush would not have made a statement like this if it were false.
To: Kleon
Those cuts were pushed by Dick Cheney during the first Bush presidencyDo you have a source?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson