voted to cut off funding for the troops fighting in Kosovo in order to end the war? Yet when they did it, it was not anti-American? But somehow as the Dems are getting ready to do the very same thing if Bush vetos the current bill, it IS anti-American? How very hypocritical of you mindless bushbots. It looks like the only ones that are anti-American are those of you that support putting our troops through the meat grinder in Iraq though you supported cutting the funds off to end that last war.
2007-04-04 03:02:53 · 12 answers · asked by bushisamoron1212 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Look at these answers. Wow. It is amazing how Cons can justify their hypocracy.
2007-04-04 03:09:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Well let’s see. First of all I don’t recall the GOP screaming to the media that “Clinton lied and people died” to get us into Kosovo in the first place.
Clinton on 3/24/99: ... By acting now, we are upholding our values, protecting our interests and advancing the cause of peace ... Ending this tragedy is a moral imperative. It is also important to America's national interests ... am convinced that the dangers of acting are far outweighed by the dangers of not acting – dangerous to defenseless people and to our national interests ... 'over a million Kosovars' and had killed and raped 'thousands upon thousands of them.'
According to USA Today on 7/1/99: Many of the figures used by the Clinton administration and NATO to describe the wartime plight of Albanians in Kosovo now appear greatly exaggerated as allied forces take control of the province ...
Months after the bombing has ceased, United Nations and European Union investigations have bolstered what critics had argued: NATO's estimates of Serbian genocide against the Kosovars were greatly overblown. Many observers now think the inflated numbers simply were part of the U.S.-led propaganda effort to build support for the war.
The latest evidence suggests that fewer than 3,000 Kosovars were murdered – horrifying, yes, but not many more than the number of Serbs who were killed by NATO bombing attacks on Yugoslavia, roughly estimated between 3,000 and 5,000 soldiers and civilians.
Does this mean that Clinton "lied, people died"? The intelligence turned out to be wrong, very wrong. Something like this always warrants a serious examination of intelligence failures. But intelligence failures, bad intelligence or failing to properly analyze the intelligence is a far cry from accusing a commander in chief of deliberately and intentionally misleading the American people.
Can we, perhaps, now drop the "Bush lied" nonsense, and pursue the business of winning the war against Islamo-fascism? Perhaps?
Bush is not vetoing funding to our troops. He is vetoing the PORK the DEMS used to BUY their votes. THAT is what is objectionable.
2007-04-04 04:21:15 · answer #2 · answered by Cherie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Congress held the funds down and does no longer permit Clinton get his vast spending courses. Clinton pushed for the housing bubble, that boosted revenues yet ultimately burst decrease than Bush. Clinton have been given a tax strengthen on Social protection by congress, funds to put in a lock field and help stave off the insolvency of this technique, which replaced into right this moment looted and moved into the final Fund to conceal how lots of the funds nevertheless replaced into in deficit.
2016-10-21 00:04:45 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Gosh for a minute there I thought you were going to bring up the fact that it was the GOP congress that refused to give Clinton, the INS, the FBI, and the CIA the funds they requested to counter the Terrorist threats at the time - that could have possibly avoided 911 altogether!
ROFLMAO!
2007-04-04 03:09:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Kosovo was not engaging terrorists who want to destroy this country. I also didn't hear any of you liberals complaining that Clinton didn't get support from our "allies" or that there was no national interest.
2007-04-04 03:07:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Kosovo lasted a couple months. It was a police action, not a war.
2007-04-04 03:06:03 · answer #6 · answered by Captain Moe 5 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Answer my question first.
why were we in Kosovo? you don't even know without googling it. Clinton was busy with his cigars and interns to be concerned with Kosovo.
2007-04-04 03:08:31 · answer #7 · answered by phoenix 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30679-2005Feb16?language=printer
SO this is how the game is played folks , Blame everyone else for everything that goes wrong all the time and try to take cedit for everything that goes right .
2007-04-04 03:13:56 · answer #8 · answered by trouble maker 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
very hypocritical, kind of like the republican led delegation that met with the Syrian president a couple days before Nancy Pelosi did, if Bush isnt going to do his job, then someone has to
2007-04-04 03:09:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
I'm not saying it isn't so but I just looked it up and couldn't find this info, do you have a source?
2007-04-04 03:14:21 · answer #10 · answered by Brianne 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋