Do cons remember Bush's no "nation building" and "humbler foreign policy"?

Question

Prior to Bush stepping into office, it was Democrats who were the warmongers and internationalists with their war in Bosnia, attacks against Iraq, and intervention in Haiti, Somalia, and other places. By the way, look up the senate vote and you will see it was the Republicans who voted to take our troops out of Somalia. People like Tom Delay were saying such things as you can support the troops but not the war in Bosnia. That the Bosnia War was "Clinton's War" and that he had no exit strategy, etc, etc.
http://www.jacksonbrowne.com/readings/5289.aspx

Bush ran on a "no nation building" and a "humbler foreign policy" because it was conservatives who believed Democrats had "overstretched the military."

This was just a few years ago. That together with the fact that FDR, Truman, and LBJ were all liberals who waged war (justly or wrongly) leads me to add this question:

What makes cons think all liberals are pacifists?

This wasn't what conservatives thought just 7 years ago.

Answer 1

Circumstances dictate changes-in philosophy and strategy. The sad point is both sides of the aisle know what truth and right are but fail in the translation defending on who is in power. Right and wrong are easy concepts if you live by the precepts of the judeo-christian philosophy that our politicians supposedly adhere to. Take a look sometime at the list of despots and dictatorships that our country has confronted over our history. No credible historian I have ever spoken to has ever intimated that we were on the wrong moral side of the argument in any of the military engagements in the last century. For me that is the bottom line. Strategy will always be debated. But the rightness of our intentions in nearly all these situations is something to be proud of. If you want to act silly and invade your neighbors and kill your defenseless civilians in vast numbers and endeavor to control an entire region that controls the destinies of a large portion of folks around the world, at least there is someone out there to call your move-America. That is something the world should be thankful for. Realizing it later will be of little comfort to entire civilizations that would live in bondage if not for our intervention in the name of liberty.

Answer 2

over the years, the two events have replaced positions. The neo-con Republicans of immediately are in no way like Republicans from the distant, and notably contemporary previous (Lincoln - Reagan). long gone are systems of small government, financial accountability, states rights, guy or woman privateness rights. in actuality there is left / stunning / and center The left and the main appropriate circle one yet another for benefit. the middle tries to maintain stability, yet is often stricken by the cyclical excesses of in spite of occasion is in skill. The political climate determines how polarized and severe the war between the two gets tactically. stunning now, u.s. is as polarized as that's been because of fact the Vietnam conflict. And the tide has been shifting because of fact the "center" has come to align with the concept Iraq is like Vietnam. the two events substitute stance over the years, yet human habit does not. that's in ordinary terms by elections that we the individuals can examine disfunction in government, and by talking out and status up. The turn-flopping assertions of republicans with admire to the democrats remote places coverage moxy you cite is a element of the dance to learn benefit - e.g. "politics". that's in ordinary terms we who vote, and communicate and make contact with issues as we see them that keeps this dance by being perpetually gained by one area. btw - if there replaced into an ultimate "winner", a single occasion "gadget"; it does no longer matter if that's genisis replaced into Republicans or Democrats, is could be fascist the two way.

Answer 3

Someone asked Rush Limbaugh that same question once. Unfortunately, he had a date with an illegal script of Viagra in the Dominican Republic that week and couldn't answer.

Answer 4

No - it doesn't fit with the recent talking points strategy.

Cons love the smear tactic - evidence Rosie and the hysteria they built up around her.

Answer 5

but that was before 9/11 9/11, the terrorist hate us.

Answer 6

Good question. I notice no cons dare touch it for fear of making @sses of themselves!

Answer 7

Excellent question.

Answer 8

cons forget far too much