Good news on the war shot down by partisan party

[Craig234]

The president announces that there is a moral need for us to go to war.

He effictively lines up a broad international coalition of European nations for the war, while the US maintains the primary leadership.

Predictions of the war being effective militarily are bourne out when there is not a single casualty on the US side.

The world sees the US as having provided leadership and strength.

The dictator the war was aimed at is taken into custody for trial at the international criminal court inthe Hague, rather than tried under a cloud by his former enemies.

The post-war period is marked by a restoration of relative peace. The wide violence is greatly reduced.

And yet, the US domestic reaction is muted; the political party opposed to the president is critical of the war and his policies, accusing his motives.

In fact, the Wall Street Journal's front page reports, in an article headlined "To all but Americans... War Appears a Major U.S. Victory":

Americans aren't feeling victorious, either about Washington's ambivalent leadership of the war or its still-dangerous aftermath. But the display of American military might - shattering [the enemy] from the air without suffering a single [allied] casualty - is changing the way the rest of the world looks at the U.S.

In Moscow and Beijing, warnings of a new American hegemony have replaced earlier paeans to a strategic partnership...

For America's European allies - co-victors in a war completely dominated by American technology and firepower - (the war) has sparked renewed soul-searching about their stark dependance on the U.S.

While a full 74% of Americans approved of U.S. involvement in the Gulf War, only 58% thought (the later war) was worthwhile... President Bush's approval ratings soared after the Gulf War; (this President's) percentages barely moved...

Why the country doesn't feel victorious about (the war) is a cmplicated question... (one) explanation is that many American experts and pundits were expecting the U.S., and particularly (the president), to fail in (the war), and some have been extremely grudging about acknowledgind the victory.

Can you imagine if the above good news was about the war in Iraq, in contrast to the facts, how much the republicans would be claiming it was an incredibly, historic victory?

The war above was not the war in Iraq, but the war under another president, Clinton, in Kosovo.

I think one lesson to be drawn is the power of the 'vast right-wing media' to 'spin' the public views on the news, and another is the hypocrisy of the right.

I think there are some issues that can be raised about Kosovo, but in contrast to the current war, it was better motivated (*worse* evidence was found of the atroticities the war was based on, rather than none), it was done in a timely manner, with plannng for the post-war where nearly half a million people were able to return home, and without a single NATO casualty... things the current war cannot be compared on.

I just ran across the above-quoted article on the war in an old copy of the WSJ, and the contrast between a war going far better, and the different reaction, was striking.

 

[WHAMPOM]

The Right or Neocons hate Clinton because he succeeded at being a better Republican then they could ever hope to be.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
The Right or Neocons hate Clinton because he succeeded at being a better Republican then they could ever hope to be.

Lol. I don't know about that I just dislike Clinton because he cheated on his wife and than lied under oath about doing it.

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
The Right or Neocons hate Clinton because he succeeded at being a better Republican then they could ever hope to be.

Lol. I don't know about that I just dislike Clinton because he cheated on his wife and than lied under oath about doing it.

You must dislike an awful lot of people. Tell me that you wouldn't do the same, if you were married to Hilary Clinton.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
The Right or Neocons hate Clinton because he succeeded at being a better Republican then they could ever hope to be.

Lol. I don't know about that I just dislike Clinton because he cheated on his wife and than lied under oath about doing it.

You must dislike an awful lot of people. Tell me that you wouldn't do the same, if you were married to Hilary Clinton.

I'd eat a bullet before I'd ever marry that she-devil.

 

[teclado]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I think one lesson to be drawn is the power of the 'vast left-wing media' to 'spin' the public views on the news, and another is the hypocrisy of politics in general.

Fixed.

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: teclado

Originally posted by: Craig234
I think one lesson to be drawn is the power of the 'vast left-wing media' to 'spin' the public views on the news, and another is the hypocrisy of politics in general.

Fixed.

'Left-wing media'? Granted. 'Vast'? You must be seeing something I'm not, son.

 

[teclado]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: teclado

Originally posted by: Craig234
I think one lesson to be drawn is the power of the 'vast left-wing media' to 'spin' the public views on the news, and another is the hypocrisy of politics in general.

Fixed.

'Left-wing media'? Granted. 'Vast'? You must be seeing something I'm not, son.

Yes, I'm seeing the left-wing biased news.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
The Right or Neocons hate Clinton because he succeeded at being a better Republican then they could ever hope to be.

Lol. I don't know about that I just dislike Clinton because he cheated on his wife and than lied under oath about doing it.

You must dislike an awful lot of people. Tell me that you wouldn't do the same, if you were married to Hilary Clinton.

I dislike Bill because he was the president of the U.S. when he did what he did. I realize there are a lot of people who do terrible things like that but they don't represent our country. Maybe I have an idealized perception of what a president should be but I think he/she should be someone who inspires others because of the kind of person he/she is.

 

[thraashman]

Every president is gonna do some act while in office that makes him a despicable human being to someone else out there, even alot of people out there. They're humans, all humans do despicable acts no matter what. For a president, what matter to me is what they do as a president. From looking at it, Clinton's presidency is not characterized by his getting a bj. W's presidency is characterized by constant dishonesty, incompetence, and civil rights violations. At the end of 8 years, if you compare what both presidents did for teh world and the US, unless Bush manages to be directly involved in curing cancer and ending all religious zealotry, Clinton is gonna come out on top as the better president by far.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: thraashman
Every president is gonna do some act while in office that makes him a despicable human being to someone else out there, even alot of people out there. They're humans, all humans do despicable acts no matter what. For a president, what matter to me is what they do as a president. From looking at it, Clinton's presidency is not characterized by his getting a bj. W's presidency is characterized by constant dishonesty, incompetence, and civil rights violations. At the end of 8 years, if you compare what both presidents did for teh world and the US, unless Bush manages to be directly involved in curing cancer and ending all religious zealotry, Clinton is gonna come out on top as the better president by far.

I guess it depends on what you think of GW. IMO he's made some mistakes, yes, but Clinton comes across as a complete sleezeball to me.

I also disagree with you that all humans do despicable things. All humans make mistakes and do things they regret but despicable?

 

[Craig234]

I guess it depends on what you think of GW. IMO he's made some mistakes, yes, but Clinton comes across as a complete sleezeball to me.

I also disagree with you that all humans do despicable things. All humans make mistakes and do things they regret but despicable?

Ranking a relationship with an intern and denying it early on as worse than the lies and policies bankrupting the nation, threatening the constitution, killing hundreds of thousands.

Thanks for the sense of perspective you display.

As for Clinton coming across as a 'total sleazeball', while you can find some traits you don't like, the man has more than earned credit for clearly caring a lot about helping people.

He's put all kinds of effort into programs to do a lot of good.

 

[Conky]

Was that when Clinton started bombing everybody to try and turn the world's attention away from the whole "Lewinski, blowjob in the oval office" thing?

Yes, honorable man he was. /Borat voice

 

[Arglebargle]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
The Right or Neocons hate Clinton because he succeeded at being a better Republican then they could ever hope to be.

Lol. I don't know about that I just dislike Clinton because he cheated on his wife and than lied under oath about doing it.

You must dislike an awful lot of people. Tell me that you wouldn't do the same, if you were married to Hilary Clinton.

I dislike Bill because he was the president of the U.S. when he did what he did. I realize there are a lot of people who do terrible things like that but they don't represent our country. Maybe I have an idealized perception of what a president should be but I think he/she should be someone who inspires others because of the kind of person he/she is.

You had better not look too closely at the history of US presidents, because a large number of them had infidelities, corrupt practices, or other unbecoming behaviors.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Elfear
I just dislike Clinton because he cheated on his wife and than lied under oath about doing it.

Bahahahahahaha :laugh:

That's the best Republicans can do now?

What about your heroes cheating on theor wive's from the pulpit with Gays that they supposedly hate so much?

Ever hear of Pastor Ted Haggard???

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Elfear
I just dislike Clinton because he cheated on his wife and than lied under oath about doing it.

Bahahahahahaha :laugh:

That's the best Republicans can do now?

What about your heroes cheating on theor wive's from the pulpit with Gays that they supposedly hate so much?

Ever hear of Pastor Ted Haggard???

I've honestly never heard of the guy. I'd have the same disrespect for anyone who would do that to their spouse whether republican, democrat, libertarian, etc.

Originally posted by: Arglebargle

You had better not look too closely at the history of US presidents, because a large number of them had infidelities, corrupt practices, or other unbecoming behaviors.

I'm sure there have been other presidents in the past who have cheated on their wives (JFK) and I probably would have been as embarrassed to have them representing our nation as I was when Clinton was in office.

Originally posted by: Craig234

Ranking a relationship with an intern and denying it early on as worse than the lies and policies bankrupting the nation, threatening the constitution, killing hundreds of thousands.

Thanks for the sense of perspective you display.

Like I said, it depends on what you think of GW. If you believe that the Bush administration really saw a threat of nuclear weapons coming out of Iraq than you probably wouldn't say that Bush was irresponsible for going to war with Iraq. I'm sure you feel differently about the war but until I see some conclusive evidence to the contrary than I'm not going to assume that the whole thing was a giant coverup to further GW's personal agenda or some such thing.

IF Bush was responsible for "bankrupting the nation, threatening the constitution, killing hundreds of thousands" than of course those things are worse than cheating on your wife on the grand scale of things. I guess we just disagree as to Bush's guilt on those issues.

 

[piasabird]

Well since you brought up Clinton, Lets see we bombed the hell out of Kosavo and we had nothing to gain or lose in that war. Then we invaded Somalia a country in Africa, for compassionate reasons, the military gets a bloody nose, then Clinton orders them to withdraw (Surrender). This is what happens when the US Gives Aid to Africa. We are basically just feeding the terrorists.

 

[lotus503]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
The Right or Neocons hate Clinton because he succeeded at being a better Republican then they could ever hope to be.

Lol. I don't know about that I just dislike Clinton because he cheated on his wife and than lied under oath about doing it.

You must dislike an awful lot of people. Tell me that you wouldn't do the same, if you were married to Hilary Clinton.

I dislike Bill because he was the president of the U.S. when he did what he did. I realize there are a lot of people who do terrible things like that but they don't represent our country. Maybe I have an idealized perception of what a president should be but I think he/she should be someone who inspires others because of the kind of person he/she is.

I tend to think that what people do in or out of the Bedroom is no business of mine.
I think we should judge our leaders by the leadership they provide in office, what they accomplish for our country, not who gets a blowjob outside thier marriage.

Part of the issue here is that we are looking to people Like the president to provide a moral base for our country. When in fact who hes doing has nothing to do with the job he does. I knwo lots of folks that are weak in several areas but do a kickass job in others.

Im sick and tired of leadership being chosen based on morality and religious convictions.

They should be chosen and judged based on what they do for the country

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234
As for Clinton coming across as a 'total sleazeball', you can find alot of traits you don't like; the man has never cared a lot about helping people. He's put all kinds of your money into programs that dont do a lot of good.

fixed.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: S0Lstice

I tend to think that what people do in or out of the Bedroom is no business of mine.
I think we should judge our leaders by the leadership they provide in office, what they accomplish for our country, not who gets a blowjob outside thier marriage.

Part of the issue here is that we are looking to people Like the president to provide a moral base for our country. When in fact who hes doing has nothing to do with the job he does. I knwo lots of folks that are weak in several areas but do a kickass job in others.

Im sick and tired of leadership being chosen based on morality and religious convictions.

They should be chosen and judged based on what they do for the country

I guess I tend to think that what a person does makes up who they are. If someone is a sleazeball than his morals will inevitably leak over into other parts of his life. I don't look to the president of the U.S. to be my moral compass but I do expect he/she to be an honest and good person.

Also, weak in some areas is relative. A president may be weak in his foreign policy but strong in domestic issues. Those kind of weaknesses can be overcome by having competent people to advise you. A guy who cheats on his wife and than lies to the whole nation about it is morally corrupt and not someone I would want leading our nation.

 

[lotus503]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: S0Lstice

I tend to think that what people do in or out of the Bedroom is no business of mine.
I think we should judge our leaders by the leadership they provide in office, what they accomplish for our country, not who gets a blowjob outside thier marriage.

Part of the issue here is that we are looking to people Like the president to provide a moral base for our country. When in fact who hes doing has nothing to do with the job he does. I knwo lots of folks that are weak in several areas but do a kickass job in others.

Im sick and tired of leadership being chosen based on morality and religious convictions.

They should be chosen and judged based on what they do for the country

I guess I tend to think that what a person does makes up who they are. If someone is a sleazeball than his morals will inevitably leak over into other parts of his life. I don't look to the president of the U.S. to be my moral compass but I do expect he/she to be an honest and good person.

Also, weak in some areas is relative. A president may be weak in his foreign policy but strong in domestic issues. Those kind of weaknesses can be overcome by having competent people to advise you. A guy who cheats on his wife and than lies to the whole nation about it is morally corrupt and not someone I would want leading our nation.

While I can follow your logic I guess I just disagree with you. I dont pretend to know the interworkings of the clinton marriage to a degree where I can make that call.

What I do know is presidents that cheat of thier wives is a very popular past time.
And what a person does in thier private life I really dont care much about.

Now I am with you on the lying about it, thats just stupid, but I would rather be lied to about Blowjobs that reasons for war.

 

[ProfJohn]

So we are now comparing Kosovo to Iraq? Let?s do a point by point comparison then.

1. There was absolutely NO threat to American coming from Kosovo and what was going on there, as bad as the genocide was. There was no past history of terrorism or WMDs and there was no future threat that people involved with this conflict would in any way shape or form harm or support those that would harm American interests around the world. In short we went into Kosovo on purely humanitarian reasons, to stop the slaughter of innocents. ?Propaganda terms "humanitarian bombing" and "humanitarian war" were employed by the politicians.?
2. President Clinton NEVER went to congress to get permission before launching the war, there was no resolution for Kerry to vote for before he could vote against it. Furthermore, there was no UN resolution of ANY KIND saying that we could take any type of action in Kosovo. Contrast that to Iraq and the fact that Bush went to congress first, and we had a UN resolution threatening severe consequences if Iraq did not comply. (Let?s face it the UN would never have given permission to take Saddam out by force when it comes to doing anything worthwhile the UN is worthless.)
The left on here repeatedly throw out the ?illegal war? line about Iraq, but now they hold up Kosovo as an example of how to do things the ?right? way?
3. The war in Kosovo is much more similar to the war in Kuwait, where an out side aggressor was removed from the area. The end of the war did not mean the end of Milosevic, in fact he remained in power until September 2000, a year and a half after the Kosovo war was over.
4. ?*worse* evidence was found of the atroticities the war was based on, rather than none? Please explain what these atrocities were. A study by Lancet, the same group that claims 600,000 have died in Iraq, estimated 12,000 deaths in the Kosovo War. The biggest issue was the hundreds of thousands of refugees created by the war, not the mass killings we saw in Iraq. 170,000 dead in al-anfar vs. 15,000 in Kosovo? and yet you say there was no evidence of atrocities?
5. Bush lied, people died. A common response we see on here. Please read the following quotes and explain away all the ?lies? given by Clinton and his administration to justify the war. From Wikipedia?

This was, in fact, no pretense at all. President Clinton of the United States, and his administration, were accused of inflating the number of Kosovar Albanians killed by Serbians. Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen, giving a speech, said, "The appalling accounts of mass killing in Kosovo and the pictures of refugees fleeing Serb oppression for their lives makes it clear that this is a fight for justice over genocide." On CBS' Face the Nation Cohen claimed, "We've now seen about 100,000 military-aged men missing...They may have been murdered." Clinton, citing the same figure, spoke of "at least 100,000 (Kosovar Albanians) missing". Later, talking about Yugoslav elections, Clinton said, "they're going to have to come to grips with what Mr. Milo?evic ordered in Kosovo...They're going to have to decide whether they support his leadership or not; whether they think it's OK that all those tens of thousands of people were killed...". Clinton also claimed, in the same press conference, that "NATO stopped deliberate, systematic efforts at ethnic cleansing and genocide." Clinton compared the events of Kosovo to the Holocaust. CNN reported, "Accusing Serbia of 'ethnic cleansing' in Kosovo similar to the genocide of Jews in World War II, an impassioned President Clinton sought Tuesday to rally public support for his decision to send U.S. forces into combat against Yugoslavia, a prospect that seemed increasingly likely with the breakdown of a diplomatic peace effort." Clinton's State Department also claimed Yugoslav troops had committed genocide. The New York Times reported, "the Administration said evidence of 'genocide' by Yugoslav forces was growing to include 'abhorrent and criminal action' on a vast scale. The language was the State Department's strongest yet in denouncing Yugoslav President Slobodan Milo?evic."] The State Department also gave the highest estimate of dead Albanians. The New York Times reported, "On April 19, the State Department said that up to 500,000 Kosovar Albanians were missing and feared dead."

I am not saying that Kosovo was bad and that Iraq was good, I am just pointing out the hypocrisy in holding up Kosovo as an example of a ?good war? As I just pointed out above everything bad that has been said about Iraq can be said about Kosovo as well, it just depends on your view of things.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
The Right or Neocons hate Clinton because he succeeded at being a better Republican then they could ever hope to be.

I loved Clinton. Best president in my lifetime IMO (which has been since Nixon, so that isn't saying much though ).


A little clarification though. The media is neither right-wing nor left-wing. The polarization of all political ideologies into merely "right-wing" and "left-wing" is a false dilemma fallacy reserved for pundits and internet idiots. The media (and Bill Clinton) is strongly "Third Way", but in a decidely pro-authoritarian "New World Order" kind of way (yaknow, what commies confuse as "libertarian" but is anything but).

And one would hope that the OP would remember that the reason the US domestic response over Kosovo was rather muted was because the "war" was unpopular, particularly among "the left," who felt that Clinton had betrayed them by pandering to the warhawks and the military-industrial complex. Only a history-revising partisan hack could change that into blaming entitrely the media (not that the media doesn't deserve its fair share of blame). Next thing you know he's gonna blame Bush for the corporate outsourcing to China when that bill opening trade with China was Clinton's lame duck pride and joy.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: teclado

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: teclado

Originally posted by: Craig234
I think one lesson to be drawn is the power of the 'vast left-wing media' to 'spin' the public views on the news, and another is the hypocrisy of politics in general.

Fixed.

'Left-wing media'? Granted. 'Vast'? You must be seeing something I'm not, son.

Yes, I'm seeing the left-wing biased news.

The only people that claim there is a "vast left-wing media conspiracy" are those that feel that reality is vacant of any moral foundation.

This is odd, when you consider the media has been rather complacent concerning the war in Iraq. If you see such a conspiracy in this media, then you certianly need more help than these forums can offer.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
The Right or Neocons hate Clinton because he succeeded at being a better Republican then they could ever hope to be.

QFT