Saturday, July 08, 2006

We SHOULD All Be In Agreement

The foreign policy of the Bush Administration is a disaster. As recently as this past week, there are quotes confirming this from people like Bill Kristol, who states:
"North Korea is firing missiles. Iran is going nuclear. Somalia is controlled by radical Islamists. Iraq isn't getting better, and Afghanistan is getting worse...."
Mind you, this isn't Cindy Sheehan saying this. This is conservative commentator Bill Kristol. This isn't one of those liberal Hollywood-types saying this. This is William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard.

So, the next time you hear Apologists crying and whining about "cutting and running" based on demands by those in the Real World who ask for accountability from this Administration in the form of an exit strategy on Iraq, or clarity of the mission in Iraq, or why there wasn't more diplomacy attempted prior to the actual start of the war in Iraq, maybe you can remind them that we really all SHOULD be in agreement.

Members of their own party, hypocrites though they may be, are seemingly in agreement. Let's look at what some Republicans have said:
"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. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. 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"
-FORMER Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush
When the Apologsts cry and moan about the fact that any criticism is demoralizing the people fighting for our freedom, and that those who criticize the war don't support our troops, perhaps you can remind them of the following:
"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?"
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"You can support the troops but not the president."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
These quotes, of course, are all in reference to our military efforts in Kosovo, where not a single American troop was killed in combat, as opposed to the over 2,500 troops killed in combat thus far in Iraq. A military action in which no lies were told by the Administration regarding motives. A military action which lasted for about three months, rather than for 3 1/2 years, and counting. A military action taken on with a true coalition, rather than a "coalition of the willing." A military action where the inhabitants of the city actually DID, in fact, cheer the arrival of the Marines, as anticipated.

When the Apologists whine that it's important to support the President during a time of war, perhaps you can remind them of the following:
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

"For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
When you hear Apologists labeling those who oppose the war as "cut and runners," maybe you can remind them of this:
"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."
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."
-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99
So, the next time you hear Apologists playing politics with the current war effort, and claiming the moral and patriotic high ground, remind them of this.

The next time you hear Apologists talking about supporting our troops while leaving our troops with no clear mission in Iraq, effectively placing them in a position of being nothing more than a target for insurgents in the midst of a civil war, remind them of this.

The next time you hear Apologists regurgitating their "cut and run" mantra, while giving no clear details regarding an exit strategy, objectives, or God forbid - a timetable - remind them of this.

People who oppose the war (I would have labeled this group as liberals, but the anti-war majority has grown to encompass liberals, moderates, AND conservatives at this point) are perceived as weak because they allow Apologists to put them in a defensive posture.

It's too bad that these hypocritical Apologists are more concerned with flag desecration, than they are with troop desecration.

We need to remind them EVERY day of their hypocrisy.

Every day.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by FleshPresser at 5:04 PM /


  • Blogger Mike V. posted at 8:33 PM  
    they can blow me with their "cut and run" BS.

    besides, cut and run is a nautical term that means you have to cut the line if your anchor gets stuck so you can sail away "unencumbered". Sounds like a good idea to me..

    the regressives are reaching now. grasping at anything.
    they'll happily swiftboat Murtha. wonder if they will do the same for Gen. Odom?

    blogmad hit. keep up the good work..

    Mike V.

  • Blogger Jon posted at 8:34 PM  
    I will admit President Bush's foreign policies are the one thing I really had have problem with. But it isn't like he is the only President that had problems with foreign policy, but I disagree with your opinion that it is a disaster. Not giving in to the dictator in North Korea and the fanatic in Iran are the two things he has done right in his foreign policy.

  • Blogger FleshPresser posted at 10:37 PM  
    Thanks for the praise, Mike. We'll keep trying to do the good work as long as its deemed necessary! :)

    And Jon, that's quite an honest statement, coming from you, and I appreciate it!

    Unfortunately, it truly IS a disaster - there's been no President to face the challenges that this Administration has been facing for decades now, and it's largely because Bush dropped the ball diplomatically on so many fronts.

    My point with all these quotes is simple - of course other Administrations have had foreign policy challenges.. Here's the difference, as I see it.

    When other Administrations have faced these challenges, and people (like the Republicans quoted above) questioned the actions of an Administration, their patriotism was never called into question. When people question ANY action of this Administration, however, they are immediately labeled as "treasonous, un-Patriotic traitors who don't support our troops." Clearly, if this is true, then Bush, DeLay, Hughes, Snow, Hannity and all the rest can just as easily be labeled treasonous traitors for not supporting the actions of other Presidents and their Administrations.

    If you recall, back when we were considering going into Iraq, it was the Democrats who were saying that we shouldn't give in to the North Korean dictator, and it's the Democrats who have been screaming to focus on places like Iran and North Korea, where nuclear weapons were/are a true reality, rather than Iraq, where they simply never were. even if there might have been a thought or intention to someday acquire nuclear weapons, Iran and North Korea were WAY ahead of Iraq.

    You and I both know that the "security of America" was not why Bush decided to prioritize Iraq over North Korea or Iran, who both represent more serious threats to American and world security than Iraq.

  • Blogger The Professor posted at 1:25 PM  
    Really quite a lot here to comment on, and to do so would most likely cause me to once again be labeled an apologist by the bashists...

    So let's just say that we reap what we sow. When one administration sells missile technology to the N Koreans, expect another administration to have to deal with it. When one administration negotiates with Saddam, or Osama, expect another administration to have to deal with it.

    Chickenss are coming home to roost, but these chickens were hatched in previous administration(S), not necessarily this one.

    Oh, and the US Military is still in Bosnia, so while an exit strategy is a nice idea, we still don't have one there, either.

    I have actually written about the notion of time-line versus event line for exiting Iraq on my blog (and even have a comment or 5 about the Lt who should receive the full sentence in Courts Martial.)


  • Blogger FleshPresser posted at 2:13 PM  
    Steve -

    First things first - there are 10,000 troops combined in both Hungary and Bosnia, as part of a NATO force - they are only there in a support capacity and have nothing to do with vital American interests.

    Care to claim the same with Iraq? I didn't think so.

    Steve, show me the quotes from Democrats and supporters of the military action in Bosnia that call Delay, Bush, and the others "traitors" or "unpatriotic" because of their questioning of the military action taken in Bosnia.

    Go ahead. I'll wait.

    What? You can't find any? Hmmm... that's odd. Because I can seem to find quite a bit of Republicans who like to play that game.

    and THAT'S the MAIN point of my post. Like I said to John, this isn't the first Administration to have foreign policy challenges, and it won't be the last.

    The partisan way in which this country has been divided up and essentially "forced to choose siades" by this Administration, questioning loyalties, patriotism, and motives is spectacularly horrific, and something that we have not seen in this country for quite some time.

    I'm not aware of an Administration selling missile technology to the North Koreans. Could you share what you know?

    As for negotiating with Saddam and/or Osama, you have Republicans to thank for both of those fine messes. I can pull out the tired old photo of Rumsfeld embracing Saddam, if you like.

    Your point is taken with regard to Bush Jr. not creating these problems, but guess what? Very few of the foreign policy problems a President faces are new.

    Take North Korea. Republicans love to tout that Clinton made agreements with N Korea, and then Kim Jong Il tore them up.

    Is this correct? Yes. However, if we look more closely, we can ask the question - did North Korea tear the agreements up before or after Bush labeled them as part of the "axis of evil?" What did this Administration do beyond labeling them as part of the "axis of evil" to better the situation?

    The answer, my friend, is zero. Zilch. Nada. Squat.

    I'll repeat what I've already posted in these comments - Bush chose to focus his priorities in Iraq, instead of focusing in other places in the world, like Iran and North Korea, and THAT'S why the problems have escalated to where they are now.

    This, of course, isn't even touching the surface of other foreign policy issues, which simply aren't even possible right now - like working to continue efforts at peace between Israel and Palestine - something of which both Bush, Sr. and Clinton were advocates - how has Bush, Jr. done on that score?

    Oh, yes. There may be inherited problems. But they were/are nothing compared to what the next President is going to inherit, regardless of party.

  • Post a Comment

    « Home