In their own words: Liberals opposed to war in Iraq, gung-ho about attacking Kosovo

The Congressional Record ^ | Feb. 7, 2003 | Jim Lakely

[GailA]

You were thorough on this. Try his voting record. That will speak volumes, I'd think. Seen it posted somewhere that he voted NO on most actions to use our military. But don't remember where or exactly which ones.

[johnb838]

Exactly! Just another way I was duped by the government/media complex. We were never informed regarding what the practioners of the Religion of Peace^TM might have contributed to the mayhem. Damn. Now I wish we had bombed the muslimes.

[johnb838]

They want us to act UNILATERALLY with N. Korea, but we have to get the whole world on our side to deal with Saddam, brilliant!

Of course you know that if NK were our top priority they would be saying we needed to go after Saddam. They are nothing if not corrupt.

[crazykatz]

Those muslimes in KosovO are STILL killing and torturing Orthodox Christian Serbs... and still destroying their churches and grave yards. Over 120 houses of worship just since NATO/UN came to power.

[Kay Soze]

They were Gung Ho about Attacking Viet Nam, Haiti, Cuba and Somalia as well.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Thank you!

Great job.....

[Free ThinkerNY]

Exactly. After all,as the Anti-Warriors say, Viet Nam was not an "imminent threat" to us,was it. They never attacked us. Yet Demoncrats were all for it as long as Johnson was leading the charge. If a Republican had been President instead of Johnson, the Dems would have opposed the Viet Nam war from the very beginning. They put the interests of the Democrat Party ahead of the interests of this country. Wake up, America!

[aristeides]

The RATs did change their minds about Vietnam, once Nixon became president.

[johnb838]

I wish we could make up for what we did to the Serbs.

[jwalsh07]

Btt

[Dragonfly]

Bump!

[kimosabe31]

"They couldn't have changed their mind this year because there's a Republican in the White House, could they?"

I think the answer is simple...no big "pay day" in it for the libs if they support GW policy and he succeeds. If he succeeds, he probably gets re elected. They always support whitehouse policy when their guy is in the saddle. Why??? There's ALWAYS a big pay day for them. There is no right or wrong where they're concerned. Damn national security. The only thing that counts with them are $$$'s.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Thank you, seamus. The Dems. and their press accomplices choose to say and do whatever will undermine the President and bring them power. Simple. National security is not a concern to them, nor are borders. They choose the UN over the US, PC (failed socialist) fantasies over free trade, liberating reality.

---

How did the world and the press treat Clinton and America when he chose to bomb Iraq,  before impeachment hearings and after revelations of Monica?

 

President Clinton on bombing Iraq on the eve of impeachment hearings: Clinton said Thursday that air strikes (Reuters Dec. 17) were "absolutely the right thing to do."

 

Newt Gingrich (CFR) strongly (AP Dec. 17) endorsed the military action as he formally passed his gavel to Bob Livingston: "We must carry the burden of leading the world."

 

Madeline Albright (CFR/TC) told Jim Lehrer (CFR) that (News Hour Dec. 17): "I believe that the President did the right thing to make the decision to have this military campaign at this time."

While the Washington Times said (Reuters Dec. 17) that Clinton's attack followed the pattern of the "Wag the Dog scenario," the New York Times said the action "was fully justified." Support for the President and U.S. troops also came from the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Hartford Courant, the Miami Herald and the Chicago Tribune.

James A. Baker III (CFR) of the Baker Institute said (NBC News Dec. 16) there was a need for speed and that Clinton probably was forced to act: "We've diddled around . . . we probably had to act, this is the right thing, I think, for the United States to do . . . Nobody could be so craven as to risk the lives of our military men and women to cover their political backsides . . . "

Samuel R. Berger (CFR), U.S. National Security Adviser, explained (CNN Dec. 16) that the UN Secretary-General had agreed upon five criteria. Iraq has not cooperated. The inspection commission was not able to function. Richard Butler, on Tuesday, reported that due to Iraq's deception, the inspections were ineffectual. There was no choice but to take military action. The object was to take out missiles, weapons of mass destruction and prevent aggression towards neighbors. With the inspections no longer being possible, the U.S. had to make good on its threats of military force. (Clinton admin. KNEW Saddam had WMDs when inspections stopped. Think about that.)

Former President Jimmy Carter (CFR/TC) stated (Reuters Dec. 17): "American leaders played no role in the timing of Iraq's violations, which cannot be related to political events in Washington."

Laurence S. Eagleburger (CFR/TC), however, apparently broke rank, and said (NBC News Dec. 16) that "it smells."

Richard ("Dick") Andrew Gephardt (CFR) opposed holding a debate on impeachment (ABC Dec. 17) in part based on what Saddam Hussein would think.

Paul Gigot (BB) said there could be no debate while Americans are in harm's way (PBS Dec. 16) while Mark Shields said that Saddam Hussein had ran out his string.

Lott said he had been briefed by the administration (NBC De. 17) and stated: "I am going to take their word for it."

Rep. Porter Goss (R-Florida) , House Intelligence Committee Chairman, said (CNN Dec. 16) that he had not been briefed: "Bringing Saddam Hussein to justice and dismantling his regime is what this is about."

Joseph Lieberman (CFR) (D-Conn.) supported (PBS Dec. 16) Clinton's actions "absolutely." It was made clear to Senators three weeks ago that if Richard Butler was frustrated, the U.S. would strike Iraq without delay or warning.

John Forbes Kerry (S&B 1966) said that Clinton was doing the right thing (K-Eye News Dec. 16).

Senator John Warner (PBS Dec. 16) said it was imperative to join together "to enforce the rule of law." He said England was "bravely participating" and that there was clear and convincing proof in the Butler report to the UN. Timing was an issue but now we must back our troops.

Mohammed Said Al-Sahaf, Iraq Foreign Minister, said (News Hour Dec. 17) that rather than "Operation Desert Fox," the operation should be called "Villians in the Arabian Desert."

Wednesday night (AP Dec. 17) Iraq, Russia and China called to an immediate halt to the attacks. Iraq's UN envoy, Nizar Hamdoon, said that the uproar over weapons of mass destruction was "nothing more than a big lie" like the claim that Iraq was a threat to its neighbors. He said that Richard Butler, the head of UNSCOM, had cited only five incidents in 300 inspection operations. In an almost unanimous resolution (Reuters Dec. 17), the lower house of the Russian Parliament, said that the U.S. and Britain were engaged in "international terrorism." Yeltsin said the strikes "crudely violated" the UN charter and should be halted immediately. Russia is furious (Reuters Dec. 18) that the U.S. bypassed the UN Security Council which gave it no chance to use its veto.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/763425/posts

[sarasmom]

Thank you.

[crazykatz]

Go to this site....look I am no good at posting links...but here is the web site to find out more about Christian +Kosovo.

http://www.kosovo.com/default4.html

You can find out what is going on there now and, IF YOU LIKE....how to make a donation to help Christian Serbian Children in Kosovo through Decani Monastery.

Thanks!!

[crazykatz]

BUMP

[AFPhys]

Very nice job. I commend you. I especially enjoyed Demon Pelosi:
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, March 11, 1999: .... I, for one, do not think that we, Congress, has a role in voting on whether the President should send peacekeepers into a region, so I do not think that this debate is a necessary one, and I think again that the timing of it is unfortunate. "

Wonder how her supporters spin the change...?

[Cvengr]

I've considered this, but my observations of liberals and even some conservatives aren't consistent with the dualism proposed,....there seems to be something more.

I tend to believe that there is something behind conspiracy theories with regard to Freemasons, Satanists, or Luciferians, which might actually lead or guide some of the groups which influence events. IMHO, not the majority of any one poitical party,..probably less than 1 %, but diversely linked interests with some unity between them.

I'd then say 30% of the populace consider events similar to how we might discuss them here on FR. Perhaps liberal, perhaps conservative, not in any conspiracy, but by acting reasonably can easily be played by some with ulterior motives.

IMHO, there's another 5% out there that is strictly anarchist, amoral, or criminal. and probably a large percentage of apathetic, people with varied other interests who might support one cause or another simply because of some particular individual interest they hold.

But with all of this said,...some things don't seem consistent. Clinton and many who support his ideology, for lack of a better descriptor, for instance. This fellow and his entourage don't seem to represent the American people, but rather some sick organized crime syndicate. Perhaps not in official power now, but nonetheless they remain, defiantly in the shadows and not so powerless.

The national climate seems to have returned to normalacy, yet Clinton and those of his ilk are still defiantly out there, possibly engaged in things we will never be heinous enough to even detect as the tip of their iceburg.

I can understand some Senators gaming international events so as to gain more national political party power, or to position themselves or their party for future conditions, but there still seems to be underlying agendas beyond simple partisan politics.

IMHO, I don't believe all persons are involved in conspiracies, but they do seem to remain incredibly consistent for all of their complexity, even after taking simple human character into account.

Many things are explained by laziness, stupidity, desire for comfort, greed, lust, (every sin under the sun), desire to win, refusal to lose, rebellious will in general,....but still there seems to be something more significant at hand.

I consider this everytime I board an aircraft and fly across the nation. Looking down upon cities and subrban areas where millions upon millions of people lead very rigorous lives and yet, the numbers of familiar faces in media and politics seem resiliently consistent. There must be a metric to discern the odds of such persons remaining in authority while so many of equal, greater, or more current skills are ignored.

And this in a land of freedom, compared to someplace like Cuba, where the same dictator has remained for a lifetime.

I have't figured it out,...maybe when somebody does, they'll let me know.