Republicans claim Iraq and Osama weren't worth it (During Clinton's Term)

Here is a story that needs to be told to the world, kick it, nominate it, and/or blast it.

Osama is not worth it, cries the Conservatives

"Osama bin Laden’s camp in Afghanistan consisted of shacks and tents, hardly a fit target for a missile that costs nearly a million dollars per copy"
http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/1999/04/02.htm


The Voice of the Freepers

"Last time it was Iraq, Now we are bombing Afghanistan and Sudan"

"Afgahnistan ought to be our ally"

"Low-risk targets with very little chance of retaliation or casualties for US personnel-how coincidental"

"WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TROOPS TO STAY ALERT EVERYWHERE"

"This brash act by a brash child-man is a direct threat to the security of every citizen inside our own borders for the people against whom he acted are non-forgiving and have no fear of death"

"PLEASE GOD HELP US!!!! I AM THE STUPID1 ----- please excuse me for yelling, but now I'm really scared of the lenghts this man is willing to go"

All from
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a530320.htm


3. Joe Farah's Opinion

"Joe Farah points out in his Between the Lines (12/18/98) that "As president, Bill Clinton has...squandered $5.5 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars on containing the Iraqi threat..." (Bush has spent much more than $5.5 billion)
http://www.conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htm


4. Reasons not to invade Iraq (written by Conservatives)

It is unconstitutional for America to go to war without a Congressional declaration of war.

Given the present set of facts, there is no Constitutional predicate on the basis of which Congress has the authority to initiate war, even with a declaration of war.

In war, there is no substitute for victory. Victory, as commonly understood, with respect to an assault on Iraq, has not been defined, let alone declared to be the objective of any such attack.

The strategic position of the United States in the world may be diminished, rather than enhanced, by an attack on Iraq. Many regimes friendly to the United States will be placed at severe risk if they are seen to assist, or even favor, the U.S. attack.

If we "succeed", what have we gained? If we don't begin a war, what have we lost?

War has consequences which are often unintended and almost always beyond comprehensive anticipation. If we and our "allies" join to attack Iraq, Iraq and its allies may combine to attack us in ways which cannot be fully foreseen. How many planes will crash? How many water supplies will be polluted? How many nuclear weapons will be detonated? How many civilian targets will be made subject to terrorist assault? Will chemical weapons be deployed?
http://www.conservativeusa.org/iraq-war.htm

:evilgrin:

There they flip again. Maybe somebody should send them some waffles --oops no need. They have plenty.
hee-hee

to go w/their waffles

Seems like they forgot to check in with their PNAC cronies before posting. I wonder what they'd tell us if we brought this up when we argue against this war? Like, how would they respond to their own arguments?

Such a mess.

It goes to show how stupid their logic is.

or Iraqis. It was attacked mostly by Saudis with the blessing of Bin Laden. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, contrary to what Cheney etal. would have us believe.
The "9/11 changed everything" bullshit does not apply here. This was a war that "*" wanted for retribution of a personal grudge. Let us not forget that the real perps of 9/11 are still at large.
The Cons were correct for once. It WAS a stupid idea to attack Iraq, as STILL IS! The only difference is that these Conservative lab rats who call themselves "patriots" have become conditioned to follow every bone headed idea this awful Administration can dream up.
Their entire agenda is destroying this country, but as long as it's a Resluglican destroying it, it's alright. :wtf:
Assholes, complete and total assholes!

"Osama bin Laden’s camp in Afghanistan consisted of shacks and tents, hardly a fit target for a missile that costs nearly a million dollars per copy."

Bush and his bunch of clowns ARE NOT CONSERVATIVES!!! They are right-wing radicals and ideologues. So yes, conservative Republicans seem downright sensible compared to the BushCo incompetents.

Funny how they care about that back then:

"Chm.JCS Shelton also said even though it was bomber 7:30pm and 10pm to limit "collateral damage" READ: CIVILIAN CASUALITIES! there would be a "number" of them! These are innocents for Clinton's reign of terror! CLinton is a terrorist!!!"


From the same forum as above. Just thought it's nice to highlight.

There's a lot of fun quotes in there about how Clinton was trying to cover up a BJ by attacking the "phantom" Osama & company . . .

the Indian Ocean tsunamis ? :P

Osama Bin Laden. They were to busy reading the BJ stories.

can tell us.

we should teach the freepers to Google.

Freepers + Google? That's some scary stuff right there.

vast bombardment of information cooked up by those algorithms.

not patriots....not worried about saving democracy. They must have changed their brand of kool-aid. I've saved this thread to rub it into some repug noses. My how things change because * is in the WH.

I try to scan the opinion piece of the day and put a liberal vote in their daily poll.

The tin foil hats could not be on any tighter over there. There is always a "liberal" around any corner to get them.

wonder how they would feel today, reading their words about needing to impeach a president over a blow job?....sheesh...

it's the republican way.

A totally and completely not surprising paradox. Hypocrites abound in the land of the anti-flip floppers (as hypocritical is just too long a word for them to understand.)

:grr:

for the link to Howard Phillips' rant about Clinton. I sent the link plus a link of his website, along with the current cost of the war in Iraq, to my conservative and non-conservative friends and family.

"He's banking on a "rally-around-the-flag" (and the president) response from the sheeple. Will it work?? Maybe for a short time!"

To: Wil H
The real question is what we're NOT hearing is if the strikes were conducted with the approval of Afghanistan & Sudan; and IF those other soverign states KNEW of our intention to launch attacks inside their territory. If not, slick has now marked America as a terrorist nation and committed an international act of war. This absolutely AIN'T no coincidence, folks. BC is dangerous and must go NOW!
From: weasel (pricefam@creative-net.net) *
08/20/98 14:56:45 EDT

but this was what...6 years ago?

to personally email each and every poster on this particular thread and ask them if they remember their remarks.

I'm not going to, though. I am afraid one of them might actually have the same email address and reply!

If a republican launches a war so that he strut around in a flight suit, the freeps will go oh gah goh about what a manly patriot he is. If a democrat launches a war of self defense, it's all wag the dog politics,see WW2. It does not matter, the reaction will be automatic and obvious.

The thing is of course, is everyone will argue that "9/11 changed everything". While the impact of 9/11 will no doubt be felt for decades to come, the change in attitude is one more of usefulness than doctrine. No longer were we able to play Iraq off against Iran, use the Afghani warlords to fight against the Soviet Union, or otherwise play things off in order to get ahead in the middle east.

From the same FR thread: " It's a sad day for America. THE POTUS IS A SOCIOPATHIC SCUMBAG."

Isn't this aiding and abetting the enemy???

Oh yeah, 9/11 changed everything.

Yes. Well spoken and totally agree. However, appears to be "ancient" history now.

Yeah, it put Clinton's actions back then into context.

And 9/11 doesn't help explain why *&Co. ignored all the info Clinton handed over about OBL and al Qaida--nor why we had to invade Iraq after Clinton's threat assessment proved correct.

who will do it?

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/10/27/184031

They are warning Clinton NOT to retaliate against the Cole attacks, and ridiculing him for the 1998 cruise missile attacks against Al Qaeda.

They were concerned with how a retaliation for the Cole attack might affect the Gore/Bush election.

He was against IWR with the Bush admin. as well in 2002.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/7/23/194358.shtml

There is no war on terrorism. Congress has not declared any such war.”

With those words, a three-time presidential hopeful told a weekend seminar sponsored by Accuracy in Academia that President Bush should not go to war with Iraq without the constitutional blessing of a formal declaration of war.

War with Iraq, hotly debated within conservative as well as left-wing circles, would best gain the necessary legitimacy if the president and Congress follow their constitutionally proscribed duties before such an undertaking, according to former "third party” candidate Howard Phillips.

Phillips, whose bid for the presidency in 2000 was under the banner of the Constitution Party, reminded his audience the Constitution of the United States plainly says the Congress shall have the power to declare war.

Republicans make all kinds of excuses whenever they go beyond the unimaginable. And the American people are so dumb, dumb, dumb.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Situational ethics refers to a particular view of ethics, in which absolute standards are considered less important than the requirements of a particular situation. The standards used may, therefore, vary from one situation to another, and may even contradict one another. This view of ethics is similar to moral relativism, and is contradictory to moral universalism, and moral absolutism.

The term situational ethics has been broadened to include numerous situations in which a code of ethics is designed to suit the needs of the situation.

The original situational ethics theory was developed by Joseph Fletcher, an Episcopalian priest, in the 1960s. Based on the concept that the only thing with intrinsic value is Love (specifically agape), Fletcher advocated a number of controversial courses of action.

Opponents are usually moral universalists who view situational ethics, in its purest sense, as inherently contradictory, and argue that the very term "situational ethics" is an oxymoron. They argue that ethics and morality are fundamental and cannot be based on practical, functional, or ethno-centric values; therefore, ethics must be based on something more persistent than one group's assessment of their current situation.

Situated ethics is an entirely different theory in which it is the actual physical, geographical, ecological and infrastructural state one is in, determines one's actions or range of actions - green economics is at least partially based on that view. It too is criticized for lack of a single geographically-neutral point of view from which to apply standards of or by an authority.

In short when the other guy does it he is wrong, when I do it I am right. Remember "ethics must be based on something more persistent than one group's assessment of their current situation."

Oh yes, I do not advocate situational ethics.


see link for source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics

"situational ethics". He wrote a book, "Man's Search for Mraning" about his experiences in the Nazi death camps. If I recall correctly, one of his examples were Catholic nuns/doctors who were performing abortions on pregnant women on the camps. Pregnant women were sent directly to the gas chambers, so this procedure saved lives in the camps.

But the point is, the Freepers are moral relativists. Their whole decision tree on starts with...."Is the person a Republican or a Democrat"? That fact determines their ultimate response.

I heard a similar story involving the Catholic church. At one time late 1960's they were giving birth control to nuns in Africa. Definitely racist.

There is almost no way short of deprogramming to have a dialog with a moral relativist

But these repukes weren't making these statements out of the blue. They were talking about this because many Dems at them time were talking about the threat of OBL, Iraq, and WMDs. It seems that times have changed but there's flip-floppers on both sides of the aisle here. I imagine that many people on DU were consistant throughout (though I don't think I signed up here until 2003, so I'm not sure), but certainly some of the democratic spokespeople were not.