Wednesday, June 6, 2012
A Challenge
Please, name me one elected Democratic official or mainstream liberal talking-head who ever opposed the Afghanistan War during its early stages (the first 4-5 years or so). One. ONE. I think that what you're far more likely to uncover is a bunch of liberal politicians and pundits who didn't think that Mr. Bush was operating vigorously ENOUGH in that particular theater. But, please, feel free the need to prove me incorrect here...............................................................................................And, yes, to be totally fair, one could also throw out this very same challenge to Republicans. This, in that you also have screechmeisters such as Ann Coulter saying that they now oppose the Afghanistan War as well (this, when they never opened their mouth one iota when it was Bush who was doing the nation-building). But, still/and, in my opinion, it's the far-left that has been far more hypocritical on this one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Your best bet is probably Dennis Kucinich. He did vote in favor of the Afganistan War originally, but later turned against it. Was it within the first 4 or 5 years? I don't know.
Also, it is very possible that Ron Paul turned against the war within the first few years.
There was no vote. Congress authorized bush to "hunt down the terrorists" but not specifically to invade Afghanistan. Nor was there any vote regarding whether or not the Taliban's offer to turn over bin Laden should be considered.
And, regarding these far-left "hypocrites"... since when is it hypocritical to oppose a war? How has the "far left" been "far more hypocritical"? I don't know what the heck you're talking about on this one.
'Name me one..'
There was only one; Barbara Lee , congresswoman from California.
Kucinich and Paul, that sounds just about right, Jerry.......It's not hypocritical to oppose a war, wd. It's hypocritical to say that we never should have fought it when there was complete and total silence THEN. And NOBODY would would have ever voted to turn bin Laden over to that kangaroo court. Nobody. Not Kucinich. Not Paul. Not Sanders. NOBODY......Good research, BB Idaho.
Hell, wd, name me one Democrat even now (other than Mr. Kucinich) who's been speaking out against the Afghan War, now that it's clearly become Mr. Obama's War......And it was a war crime for Mr. Bush to blow up those terror cells in Afghanistan but it isn't a war crime for Mr. Obama (with quite equal parts collateral damage) to be doing the exact same thing in Pakistan (never mind the fact that also surged in Afghanistan)? Great moral consistency, wd.
Will: And NOBODY would would have ever voted to turn bin Laden over to that kangaroo court. Nobody. Not Kucinich. Not Paul. Not Sanders.
Wrong. You say this with no proof at all. A vote was never held, so you have no idea how everyone would have voted.
Voting in favor of the Taliban's offer would have been consistent with the efforts of both the Clinton and bush administration's efforts prior to 9/11.
The Washington Post: Over three years and on as many continents, US officials met in public and secret at least 20 times with Taliban representatives to discuss ways the regime could bring suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden to justice.
Talks continued until just days before the Sept. 11 attacks, and Taliban representatives repeatedly suggested they would hand over bin Laden if their conditions were met... [but] throughout the negotiations, the US never recognized the Taliban need for aabroh, the Pashtu word for "face-saving formula"...
...Milton Bearden, a former CIA station chief who oversaw US covert operations in Afghanistan in the 1980s [says] "We had no common language. Ours was, 'Give up bin Laden'. They were saying, 'Do something to help us give him up'". [end excerpt from 10/29/2001 article]
Conclusion: The Taliban did not want to be bombed and were willing to turn over bin Laden... but they couldn't because the conditions we were placing on them ignored their need for "aabroh".
Also, the offer was to turn him over to an Islamic court. It wasn't kangaroo. The court wasn't "kangaroo". This is another claim you make with no proof at all.
Will: ...And it was a war crime for Mr. Bush to blow up those terror cells in Afghanistan but it isn't a war crime for Mr. Obama
I never said blowing up terror cells was a war crime. You're lying. And Obama didn't invade Pakistan and overthrow their government.
Will: Great moral consistency, wd.
At least I have some. Your "consistency" is that you're consistently lacking in them.
a) Again, name me one Democratic elected official who opposed the Afghan War early on. b) Name me one Democratic elected official who has ever, EVER, said that we should have handed bin Laden over to an organization that had as its members, Saddam Hussein, Hafez al Assad, Muammar Gadaffi, the Iranian Mullahs, yasser Arafat, and the Saudi Royal family (never mind the handing over of sensitive evidence to the Taliban). ONE!!!!! c) You're a weaselly little partisan with ever so shifting goal-posts. One of your criticisms of Mr. Bush's bombing of those terrorist training camps was the fact that many civilians perished. I point out that THOUSANDS of civilians have died because of Mr. Obama's bombings in Northern Pakistan and all that you can fucking do is change the fucking subject (I should hope that Mr. Obama wouldn't want to topple the government in Pakistan - the alternative being something akin to the Taliban - duh). d) Face? Fuck face. e) How am I lying? You didn't say that you were opposed to Mr. Bush's bombing of the terrorist camps? My God, I thought that that's what this was all about.
Will: Thank you for providing the bad details on the terrorist tribunal WD favored. Maybe he will let that bad idea rest now. You proved that it was not only a kangaroo court, but that it was stacked with terrorists also. WD is slandering Clinton to claim that Clinton would have turned Bin Laden over to a theocratic terrorist court to be judged under oppressive religious law (Shi'ah). If Clinton would have done this, he would have been impeached again, and this time bounced out of office in shame. While WD thinks that terrorist justice is good, hardly any Americans agree with him.
WD said: "Also, the offer was to turn him over to an Islamic court"
This court was stacked with terrorists. And it goes against every concept of justice.
As I said, what next, turn anti-abortion terrorists like Eric Rudolph over to a kangaroo court made of Operation Rescue members?
The Afghanistan War was a totally bipartisan war. If anything, the Democrats (probably in an effort to differentiate themselves from Bush) seemed to favor it more so (recall the 2004 and 2008 Presidential elections). For wd to try and spin it strictly into a Republican screw-up is most unfortunate.
Post a Comment