Okay, I’ll bite. Aye Chi says we’re doing an “on this day” bit. So I’ll throw out a quick post to show you where we were “on this day” one year ago.
And two years ago.
And three years ago.
And four years… well, you get the drift.
Short and sweet illustration of factual partisan hypocrisy… and needs no further comment from me.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
Obama wants national healthcare because of all the whiplash Liberals received turning too fast on every position they ever had about America the last 8 years…
cnredd
Political Wrinkles
http://www.politicalwrinkles.com
To be accurate, we need to have the first cartoon block repeated 8 more times since Democrats have “supported the troops but not the war” since before the US started bombing Afghanistan in 2001.
Holier than thou really gets to be tiresome:
http://democraticleader.house.gov/in_the_news/press_releases/index.cfm?pressReleaseID=76
While troops were on the ground, GOP passed a motion specifically condemning the Bosnian war, while “supporting the troops.”
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The moral is that it’s a bad idea to fight either “Republican Wars” or “Democratic Wars.” The last wars which were clearly supported by both sides were Kuwait and, before that, World War II, and these were probably the only wars in that time period which were worth fighting. Maybe Afghanistan (which I supported at the time), but now I’m not even sure of this latter war. We were better off with Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan than we are with them destabilizing Pakistan and being more secure in Pakistan than thay’d have been in Afghanistan.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I can’t see as you’re in much of a position to argue that the cartoon is anything but true, Larry W. And strangely, I don’t see any supporting documentation from you that the GOP declared Bosnia a war “lost” during that period. Nor threatened to pull funding for the troops. Nor threatened to force exit plans and timelines on Clinton.
Nor did they demonize Teflon Bill for his war, but for lying about not being able to keep it in his pants while in the Oval Office.
Therefore your point is… well… pointless.
If the holier than thou bit gets so tiresome, perhaps you’ll tell your liberal progressive buds to stop hurtling their righteous BS about how unAmerican we conservatives are for wanting Obama’s agenda to fail passage, Larry. Other than that, the hypocritical partisan tag holds true for both parties… but most especially for the Dems. Their leadership is a particularly nasty lot.
That gut’s face sorta looks like the Jews pictured in the Nazi propaganda with the glasses and the long nose. Since the Jews usually vite for the Democrats i wonder if it was intentional ?
Larry, I supported the war in Kosovo. I wrote President Clinton several times asking him to intervene in the Balkans before it was too late. There are a few things your post ignores beyond that:
1) if it was wrong for Republicans to do it w Kosovo, it was surely wrong for Democrats to have failed to learn the lesson that dissent degrades deterrence, and that makes their faux anti-war effort all the more disingenuous and dispicable
2) Most of the Republicans cited are long long gone
3) the lesson of both parties opposing military action for political purposes is clear: it’s not patriotic, and more importantly not helpful. One cannot hope for success while opposing efforts to gain it.
The Repubs who said those things have been purged
The Dems should have learned from the Repub’s errors (as they should have learned from the Repubs losing Congress in 2006 because of big spending and huge deficits)
If it was wrong for Repubs to do it, it was far far worse for Dems to have done it later….after the lesson had been taught.
I’m sorry, but I’m going to register a grand protest here, Scott.
Per the linked comments in Larry’s “gotcha” attempt, there was nothing that rises to the opposition the Dems have demonstrated in the past six years to Iraq and Bush. There were two… count ’em… TWO uncredited floor statements. One about not wanting to fund the ground troops, and another saying there was no exit strategy and no timeline. Neither of these rises to the attempts to slam amendments on bills to force these issues, as the Dems did.
Nor did any Republican have the unmitigated audacity to declare the war lost.
It is not wrong for a Congress member to oppose a war in principle or opinion. But it’s another entirely to attempt to micromanage the war efforts via legislation. That line was a big one crossed under Bush.
I pretty much agree Mata, but I look at it from the perspective not of right/wrong, but as effective/ineffective.
If one wants success, then one must support success
If one wants success, then opposing efforts to succeed will not bring it about
If one wants to bring peace through diplomacy, and opposes appeasement as impractical, then deterrence is the only diplomacy, and deterrence is nothing more than threat. To oppose the threat, to deny the validity of the threat, to subvert it is in effect to subvert the chance of diplomacy through deterrence. THIS is my major problem with those who opposed the invasion of Iraq even before it was started (and who opposed the bombing of Afghanistan before it began). Those people wanted peace, but their efforts destroyed deterrence, and thus destroyed the chances of peace. The Taliban were emboldened by it. Saddam personally admitted and by all accounts never believed the US would have the balls to invade. Why? Because deterrence (the threat) had been undermined successfully.
Put another way by a far FAR greater man, those who want peace, are prepared for war
I’m daily called a warmonger, neocon, and similar. Many of us are, but I do NOT want war, airstrikes, etc. I do not want more friends going into harm’s way, and I hate how every time I see an MRAP in Afghanistan I think of the people we know who are over there working on them. I hate it. I hate the historical tales of battles. I hate every facet of the worst tragedy man can befall. Maybe because I hate it so much, I prefer that threats be addressed quickly, soundly, and fully rather than left to fester for years ala Bin Laden, the revival of Al Queda, Saddam, the Balkans, and so many more (man, don’t even get me started on Africa).
Festering threats don’t go away. They get worse, and procrastination is not a policy. It’s a fool’s errand that costs far more in blood and treasure later. I’m upset that anyone (D/R) would oppose war for political reasons, but in the grand scale of things, the Democrats’ placid opposition to the war in Iraq was never anything more than a political crutch, not at all patriotic, it was wrong, it was counter-productive to peace efforts, and it is shameful. If Republicans did the same, I’d blast them too.
Where is the call for immediate withdrawal today?
Where’s Harry Reid’s bullshit about the war being lost (2yrs ago?!)
These people opposed war for political reasons
Many opposed it just because it was Bush and Republicans
Some opposed for heartfelt reasons, but even in those cases, the point remains that the “support the troops, not the war/efforts to succeed” was counter-productive to success, to peace, and to deterrence before it all began. Their tactics were wrong. If they REALLY wanted peace, they would have needed to march in the streets chanting, “DEATH TO SADDAM!” and signs saying “INVADE IRAQ NOW” That might have deterred Saddam and brought compliance with at least 1 UN resolution. Instead, they marched with signs that might as well have read “SAVE SADDAM” “LEAVE SADDAM ALONE” “DON’T BOMB IRAQ” =no deterrence/no diplomatic movement=war
Those who marched against invading Iraq, emboldened Saddam, gave him hope, convinced him he didn’t need to worry about being invaded, convinced him he didn’t need to comply, convinced him there was no real threat, and in effect brought about the invasion as much as Saddam and Bush did.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Ah yes, we were so much better off with Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
We sure were.
It’s not like anything bad happened because of that.
Yeah, we were sooooooo much better off with Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.