English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Because the republican congress drafted several War funding bills back then which included timetables.

In fact, John McCain led the charge to get our troops out of Somolia after the infamous "Black Hawk Down" incident. His memory must be going, because hes been complaining the most about the recent War funding bill which was Veto'd.

So when we are fighting terrorism in Somolia timetables for withdraw are ok, but not in Iraq? Sounds like hypocracy to me.

2007-05-02 09:03:13 · 15 answers · asked by truthspeaker10 4 in Politics & Government Politics

15 answers

Typical hypocrisy. someone asked about links to prove your claim so here goes:-

Back in 1999, after then-President Bill Clinton had ordered U.S. forces to begin a massive bombing campaign and missile strikes against Yugoslavia, the House of Representatives considered a resolution supporting the mission. The leading opponent of the resolution was Tom DeLay (R-Tx), who dismissed the notion that opposing the war was in any way an affront to the troops.
In a visceral floor statement delivered in March of that year, DeLay declared, "Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world.( isn't that ironic)
As the war progressed, DeLay condemned "(President Clinton's) war," and grumbled in April, 1999, that, "There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today."

Texas Governor George W. Bush told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on June 5, 1999: "I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long (U.S. troops) will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."

Bring on the selective amnesia

2007-05-02 09:21:37 · answer #1 · answered by thequeenreigns 7 · 1 1

Of course you ignore the fact, that Clinton withdrew 30,000 American soldiers from Somolia on his own, before the Somolia mission went to heck.

The whole problem with the war lords, didn't start untill after Clinton, withdrew the bulk of American forces in Somolia.

Then Clinton changed the mission from humanitarian relief, to hunting the warlords.

Not to smart, pull all the troops out, then change the mission to active combat.

Then deny the forces left, the equipment they ask for, to do the job Clinton ask them to do.


Kind of like what the Democrats want to do in Iraq, withdraw most of the troops and change the mission to active combat against the terrorist.

2007-05-02 09:21:48 · answer #2 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 0 2

Well, yeah. A timetable or exit strategy is only required when a Democrat is in charge. If a Republican is in charge, then a timetable obviously 'emboldens the enemy', didn't you know that?

"I think it’s important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they would be withdrawn.”
- George W. Bush, 1999.

2007-05-02 09:10:10 · answer #3 · answered by ck4829 7 · 4 1

maximum Democrats help the Afghanistan conflict. In Afghanistan, there are raiders. Raiders are people in massive fleets of automobiles and that they flow to a village to take each little thing. they are hardened bandits from Afghanistan, to boot, they are people from Pakistan with an excellent-conservative faith. they do no longer in straight forward terms like the Afghans because of fact they are extra liberal. The violence of those adult adult males has been foul. Your different comments are arrogant, ignorant, and fake. you may a minimum of study the matters you're discussing. i attempt to have a stable adventure here yet there's a lot rubbish.

2016-12-28 07:53:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Bush says a phrase re timetables or anything for that matter and his sheeple endlessly repeat it without "thinking" it through.

"...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious.
The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly...it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."
-Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister

2007-05-02 09:22:39 · answer #5 · answered by Raven 5 · 2 0

The Republican Party suffers from memory loss or I don't remember.

2007-05-02 10:52:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Where was the timetable for troops to leave Germany, Japan, and Korea?

Somolia we should have never gone there with no more troops then were alotted.

NATO took over Bosnian/Slovinia.

2007-05-02 09:13:00 · answer #7 · answered by namsaev 6 · 0 5

There seems to be a lot of "I don't recall" on the right. A convenient memory lapse. Anybody else would be diagnosed with Alzheimers.

2007-05-02 09:08:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5 2

Either way its wrong. Wars dont have timetables. Democracies dont have timetables. So why do the Dems want a timetable? They are more interested in whats best for their party rather than whats best for america.

2007-05-02 09:09:21 · answer #9 · answered by Daniel 6 · 1 6

We were never fighting terror in Somalia, just passing out sandwiches to the hungry. We were never fighting terror in Bosnia, in fact we were there to bail out muslims from the righteous wrath of the Serbs. Unlike those two campaigns that had nothing to do with American interests Iraq is pivotal in our war against islamic barbarians.

2007-05-02 09:10:50 · answer #10 · answered by espreses@sbcglobal.net 6 · 0 6

fedest.com, questions and answers