Democrats suppoted attacking Iraq in 1998. Why not now?

[shiner]

Link to story

"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us," Clinton said in February 1998. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act.

The words came within weeks of Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, co-sponsored by Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle and a dozen other Democrats.

The resolution condemned "in the strongest possible terms" Iraq's continued threat to international peace and security, and urged then-President Clinton to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end it's weapons of mass destruction programs."

Among the Democratic co-sponsors were Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Max Cleland of Georgia, Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, Bob Graham of Florida and John Kerry of Massachusetts.

 

[CPA]

Yes, and why is Scott Ridder (sp?) also taking a different stance than he did back in 98 and 99?

 

[StattlichPassat]

Because they see Republicans supporting an attack and say, "whoa! ok we gotta switch sides then!"

 

[teddymines]

Because there is a republican president now. Democrats are programmed to robotically disagree with anything sponsored by a republican. If they agree with a republican, they spontaneously combust....very messy indeed.

 

[Red Dawn]

Because they are no better than their petty brethren, the Republicans. Partisanship rules American Politics.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Because they are no better than their petty brethren, the Republicans. Partisanship rules American Politics.

Well said, except when their voter popularity is at stake (anti-terrorism is one of the few non-partisan acts).

Then you have to ask yourself, why didnt the Republicans favor an Iraqi attack in 1998?

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Because they are no better than their petty brethren, the Republicans. Partisanship rules American Politics.

"But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system. You have no choice but to vote for one of us."
"He's right!"
"I'm going to vote for a third-party candidate!"
"Go ahead, throw your vote away!"

 

[AU Tiger]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Because they are no better than their petty brethren, the Republicans. Partisanship rules American Politics.

Well said, except when their voter popularity is at stake (anti-terrorism is one of the few non-partisan acts).

Then you have to ask yourself, why didnt the Republicans favor an Iraqi attack in 1998?

There is no indication of how the Republicans felt in 1998 from that article. The resolution was never put to a vote before the Senate so we do not know how the parties would have voted.

 

[zzzz]

There is no indication of how the Republicans felt in 1998 from that article. The resolution was never put to a vote before the Senate so we do not know how the parties would have voted.

foxnews.

 

[Nitemare]

that is the problem with having a 2 party system...if one has black the other says white. Sometimes you have to ignore the fact that they are against you and team together against the greater evil...

Looks like daschle and his gang would rather square off against a bunch of politicians than take on someone who likes to kill American civilians, or give weapons to others so they can kill our civilians too.

 

[HendrixFan]

Bush isnt talking about lobbing a few bombs at suspected sites, but rather a full scale invasion of a country to overthrow its leader, pre-emptively without any sort of attack from Iraq.

 

[JellyBaby]

Because they care more for politics than America, plain and simple, at least on this issue. The Ds voted down party lines against the Gulf War as well, IIFC. Politicians are no longer statesmen and I honestly can't believe how the weasles continue to gain office...actually I can...certain people are asleep at the wheel *cough* voters *cough*.

Bush isnt talking about lobbing a few bombs at suspected sites, but rather a full scale invasion of a country to overthrow its leader, pre-emptively without any sort of attack from Iraq.

This seems to be the case. The outcome they desire is a puppet in charge of oil-rich Iraq. The west has done this before all over the world including Iraq from time-to-time.

 

[HendrixFan]

I dont remember the Ds voting against the Gulf War, Bush Sr had done quite a good job of garnering public support, and in addition, it was a UN backed war.

Saddam was one of those "puppets" in the 80s, remember? We were supplying him with weapons and funding so he could fight Iran for us. Just like Afghanistan in the 80s fighting Russia for us, bin Laden being one of the generals of the Afghan army that we trained.

Edit: It should also say something when Rs in Congress dont even give Bush full support for this action.

 

[JellyBaby]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
I dont remember the Ds voting against the Gulf War, Bush Sr had done quite a good job of garnering public support, and in addition, it was a UN backed war.

Saddam was one of those "puppets" in the 80s, remember? We were supplying him with weapons and funding so he could fight Iran for us. Just like Afghanistan in the 80s fighting Russia for us, bin Laden being one of the generals of the Afghan army that we trained.

Edit: It should also say something when Rs in Congress dont even give Bush full support for this action.

IIFC the Ds were, on the whole, against the Gulf War. Dashle voted against it.

I agree Bush Sr. did a good job gathering domestic and foreign support. But even though the cause was just - liberation of Kuwait - Bush had to buy the support of most Arab league nations. And like father like son, Bush. Jr. is doing the same. I believe he recently offered Turkey the carrot of forgiving $5 billion of debt if they support us. I think that's largely why Arab countries are slow to support Gulf War 2.0 -- they're waiting for handouts. Pretty pathetic and I'm aiming that at both Arab nations and our federal government.

Thomas Jefferson said it best: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none".

 

[SuperTool]

Why when Clinton Conducted airstrikes on Iraq, the Republicans questioned his timing? Are they traitors?

 

[shiner]

Why when Clinton Conducted airstrikes on Iraq, the Republicans questioned his timing? Are they traitors?

All President Clinton ever ordered were a few meaningless airstrikes or lobbing a few cruise missiles at mostly empty camps. If he had been serious about taking out Iraq he would have had support. It's just funny how whenever the Lewinsky story would heat up there would suddenly be some cruise missiles lobed into Sudan, Afghanistan, or etc.... I've said it before and I'll say it again.....his use of the military was just like the rest of his presidency....all style and no substance....

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Why when Clinton Conducted airstrikes on Iraq, the Republicans questioned his timing? Are they traitors?

All President Clinton ever ordered were a few meaningless airstrikes or lobbing a few cruise missiles at mostly empty camps. If he had been serious about taking out Iraq he would have had support. It's just funny how whenever the Lewinsky story would heat up there would suddenly be some cruise missiles lobed into Sudan, Afghanistan, or etc.... I've said it before and I'll say it again.....his use of the military was just like the rest of his presidency....all style and no substance....

Maybe if the Republican traitors put their Country ahead of their party, and stopped bothering Clinton when he was going went after Bin Laden, he would have been more successful. Of course they were more concerned with destroying Clinton than protecting their country. That I will not forget of forgive. I don't remember the Republicans saying that the airstrikes were not sufficient and had to be more substantial. Instead they questioned the few strikes that Clinton did conduct. To them Bin Laden was just a distraction from the Levinsky affair, which they wanted to concentrate on.
The Democrats aren't supporting Bush now because he lacks any leadership skills to go out and make a case for war to Congress, and more importantly to the American people. If Bush convinces the people that war is necessary, the Congress will follow the people's will. We are getting into a potential quagmire that will cost at least 100B when all is said and done, and Bush has not gone to the people and said why they should pay $1000 more in taxes to take out Saddam. If you want me to pay that money, you better make a case for it.
And Bush is all style and no substance a lot more than Clinton. You don't think that starting a war during election time is an accident of time? At least with Clinton, the economy was good.

 

[shiner]

Maybe if the Republican traitors put their Country ahead of their party, and stopped bothering Clinton when he was going went after Bin Laden, he would have been more successful. Of course they were more concerned with destroying Clinton than protecting their country. That I will not forget of forgive. I don't remember the Republicans saying that the airstrikes were not sufficient and had to be more substantial. Instead they questioned the few strikes that Clinton did conduct. To them Bin Laden was just a distraction from the Levinsky affair, which they wanted to concentrate on.
The Democrats aren't supporting Bush now because he lacks any leadership skills to go out and make a case for war to Congress, and more importantly to the American people. If Bush convinces the people that war is necessary, the Congress will follow the people's will. We are getting into a potential quagmire that will cost at least 100B when all is said and done, and Bush has not gone to the people and said why they should pay $1000 more in taxes to take out Saddam. If you want me to pay that money, you better make a case for it.
And Bush is all style and no substance a lot more than Clinton. You don't think that starting a war during election time is an accident of time? At least with Clinton, the economy was good.

Your name is very fitting.

Clinton never went after Bin Laden. We could have had him years ago when Sudan offered to turn him over. What happenend? Nothing. As for the people being convinced that the war is necessary just look at some polls. I haven't seen one yet where a majority of the population didn't support taking out Iraq. A Quagmire? Same thing was said before Desert Storm. Just because Vietnam happened once does not mean it will happen again. We learned our lesson from Vietnam and will not allow it to happen again. At least the economy was good with Clinton? Ummm yeah....sorta....thanks to all to corporations that were cooking the books and the Internet boom which Clinton had nothing to do with.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Your name is very fitting.
At least the economy was good with Clinton? Ummm yeah....sorta....thanks to all to corporations that were cooking the books and the Internet boom which Clinton had nothing to do with.

you forgot debt spending by consumers based on high consumer confidence.

 

[shiner]

you forgot debt spending by consumers based on high consumer confidence.

Dammit....I knew I missed something.....

 

[wQuay]

Just because it's wrong when your enemy does it doesn't mean it's wrong when you do it.

 

[JellyBaby]

Devolving the argument to a petty R vs. D blamefest is pointless. The issues span a timeframe larger than a president, an administration or even a generation.

We see a slice of the picture when we peek at world events todays but fail to understand our foreign policy, over the last hundred years, contributed greatly to the problems we now face. This is why we continue to patch the problem instead of righting the wrongs of the past.

 

[SuperTool]

Clinton never went after Bin Laden. We could have had him years ago when Sudan offered to turn him over. What happenend? Nothing.

One person is claiming this, and he is milking that claim for all he can touring talk shows. As far as I am concerned that is uncorroborated. What is corroborated is that Clinton tried to bomb OBL, and congress questioned his motives. How dared he try to change the subject from Monica to Osama.

As for the people being convinced that the war is necessary just look at some polls. I haven't seen one yet where a majority of the population didn't support taking out Iraq.

So why is Bush so afraid to ask for congressional approval, and instead saying it's only executive decision. If there is such overwheliming support for a war, congress would be foolish to go against it. That just shows a total lack of leadership at the helm. If Bush has popular support, he has nothing to fear. The democrats are not stupid. They aren't going to sacrifice their election prospects on this.

A Quagmire? Same thing was said before Desert Storm. Just because Vietnam happened once does not mean it will happen again. We learned our lesson from Vietnam and will not allow it to happen again.

By quagmire, I mean a long term occupation and rebuilding effort, that might last decades. With US facing the same commitment in Afganistan, deployments in FRY, Korea, do we really need fo commit to another undertaking like this, especially since none of our allies appear willing to help us with the tab this time.

At least the economy was good with Clinton? Ummm yeah....sorta....thanks to all to corporations that were cooking the books and the Internet boom which Clinton had nothing to do with.

I just remember surpluses as far as the eye can see. I remember shrinking debt. I remember low unemployment. Maybe it's just luck that these things happen under Democrats and not Republicans, but until their luck changes, I'll keep voting Democrat.

 

[Electrode]

Originally posted by: NightFlyerGTI
Because they see Republicans supporting an attack and say, "whoa! ok we gotta switch sides then!"

 

[JellyBaby]

Just because Vietnam happened once does not mean it will happen again

Mentioning Vietnam is timely. Our War there "failed to achieve a U.S. victory". We pulled out and left them alone. We didn't occupy their terrority or mess with their government. Ironically (or perhaps not so!) today we enjoy free trade with them and are on good terms with Vietnam.

Kindof flies in the face of interventionism always being the answer doesn't it?