Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In their own words: Liberals opposed to war in Iraq, gung-ho about attacking Kosovo
The Congressional Record ^ | Feb. 7, 2003 | Jim Lakely

Posted on 02/07/2003 11:11:26 AM PST by seamus

A little research turned up the following items:

Sen. Joe Biden, Delaware Democrat, opposed the Gulf War, intervention in Somalia, Haiti, and Lebanon. But, he was all for going into Kosovo, drafting a resolution to give Clinton open-ended authority to use ground troops if he wanted, instead of just airstrikes.

The McCain-Biden resolution, brought forth in May 1999, “authorized the President to use all necessary force and other means, in concert with United States allies, to accomplish U.S. and NATO objectives in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).”

Prominent Democratic co-sponsors included: John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Frank Lautenberg, and Chris Dodd. A vote was taken to table (kill) the amendment, and the amendment's opponents won. (They were mostly Republicans who wanted to see what would happen in Kosovo first, or at least wait until Clinton asked for ground-troop authority).

Among those Democrats who voted in support of the McCain-Biden (against tabling it) in addition to the sponsors: Patrick Leahy, Evan Bayh, Bob Graham, and Daniel Inoye.

Exerpts from the floor speeches during the Kosovo debate (these are keepers)...

John Kerry: "I have heard colleagues deeply disturbed--as anybody should be appropriately--about collateral damage and what happens in the bombing. I do not think there is an American, in good conscience, who does not feel pangs or deep reservations about any errant missile or errant bomb and what the effects are. But there is no moral equivalency whatsoever between those errant impacts and what we are trying to achieve and what Mr. Milosevic has been achieving. There is simply no moral equivalency. "

"The fact is that Senator Dodd from Connecticut pointed out, and others have pointed out, that what we do here can have a profound, long-lasting, deep impact on our capacity to negotiate, to pressure, and to speak about and stand for morality and for a standard of behavior that is different from the kind of killing and marauding that has governed so much of this century."

"This is staring us in the face. It is here. It is now. We are at war. The question we must ask ourselves is whether or not we are prepared to win or whether we are going to put obstacle after obstacle in front of ourselves to deprive ourselves of the capacity to achieve the goals that are achievable.

And though Clinton took action without the blessing of the United Nations (he went through the 18 more pliable NATO signatories), Kerry said: “This is not the United States essentially acting alone.”

[And what is the count of countries in Bush's pocket right now? Around 40?]

More Kerry: “We are fighting for the standards of internationally accepted, universally accepted behavior that country after country has signed on to through United Nations conventions and other instruments of international law and through their own standards of behavior. I can't think of anything more right than taking a position against this kind of thuggery and this kind of effrontery to those standards as we leave the end of this century. "

“Some people say to me, ‘Well, Senator, we are going to have some people there for a long time.’ My answer is, So what? If that is what it takes in order to try to begin to establish a principle that is more long lasting, so be it.”

Sen. Joe Biden: “At the time of Vietnam and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, we were essentially alone in the world in concluding that force need be used. With regard to Kosovo, we are in the majority. The entire civilized world, including the Russians, acknowledge that Milosevic is engaged in behavior that violates every notion of civilized conduct. They disagree on the means we should use to deal with that.”

[In other words, although the Russians disagree, we should deal with it as we see fit -- with war].

“There is one remaining dictator in the region. His name is Slobodan Milosevic. He is a bad guy. He is a smart bad guy. He is doing very bad things. The idea that the United States of America, when all of Europe has stood up and said this must stop, will walk away, I think is absolutely bizarre.  Does anybody here truly believe we could stand aside, let this happen, and it not affect our vital interests in the year 2010 and 2012 and 2020 when my granddaughters and their husbands will be sent off? It seems to me we are making a gigantic mistake here to try to hide behind a lot of arguments.”

[Wasn't it just these sort of arguments that Biden was hiding behind until is third flip-flop on this issue the other day?]

Sen. Tom Daschle: “In the first instance, the courageous men and women who make up America's military forces are risking their lives daily in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to reverse the genocidal policies practiced by that country's leader. That is a just cause.“

And Little Tommy had this to say after the Kosovo campaign was over: "The President never wavered in his commitment to the alliance's goals of ending the atrocities in Kosovo , forcing the withdrawal of Serb forces from the region, and ensuring the safe return of Kosovar refugees to their homes. President Clinton's steadfast resolve, together with our NATO allies, forced President Milosevic to back down and accept NATO's conditions for a halt in the bombing campaign."

[Yet Daschle undermines Bush's "steadfast resolve" at every turn.]

"It would appear that some of those who were most critical of the President's Kosovo policies were more concerned with waging a political assault than in stopping the Serbs' military assault on Kosovo . But now that the Serbs have conceded defeat, one can only hope that those who were so harshly critical of the President might concede they were mistaken.

[That's the keeper quote of all time].

Sen. Harry Reid (current assistant minority senate leader): "There are some, who were detractors, who referred to this as Clinton and Gore's war. No, it was not Clinton and Gore's war, but rather a war of those people of good will around the world, and certainly in this country, who detest evil, repudiate ethnic cleansing, and, in short, believe that atrocities by bullies like Slobodan Milosevic should be no more. "

  So, I am confident and hopeful this will send a message to those around the world who feel they can maim and kill and displace those people with whom they disagree for purposes only they understand--the color of their skin, their religion--a message that this will no longer happen.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, March 11, 1999: "I applaud [two congressmen] for their impressive presentation on why we should be supporting the President's policy in Kosovo."

"Mr. Chairman, other speakers this evening have said that Kosovo, is a very difficult decision. Well, Kosovo i s a very difficult and dangerous place, and we are sent here, after all, to make the difficult decisions. I, for one, do not think that we, Congress, has a role in voting on whether the President should send peacekeepers into a region, so I do not think that this debate is a necessary one, and I think again that the timing of it is unfortunate. "

[In other words, let the president do what he wants, any time he wants, in military matters. Funny how that principle applied to Clinton then and not to Bush now.]


TOPICS: Announcements; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: balkans; iraq; kosovo; liberalhypocricy; war
Thanks for getting through all of that. I found it fascinating, and would love to see the media present them with their previous views on the use of force, unilateralism, how much of a coalition is enough to satisfy them that we're not "going it alone," and the morality of going after brutal dictators.

They couldn't have changed their mind this year because there's a Republican in the White House, could they?

1 posted on 02/07/2003 11:11:26 AM PST by seamus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: seamus
Nice work and a bump
2 posted on 02/07/2003 11:14:27 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seamus
Great work! I watched Kerry and the like question Powell and I couldn't believe their arrogance and condenscending attitude toward Sec Powell and this Administration.
3 posted on 02/07/2003 11:15:54 AM PST by PhiKapMom (Bush/Cheney 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Thanks. I just had to know -- for sure -- what these weasels' positions were on Kosovo so I could file it away.

Yes, many Republicans opposed the action in Kosovo, as I did, because I was not convinced that it was in our national interest to bail the U.N. out of its long failed policy in Kosovo. The irony is that our thanks for bailing out the U.N. and re-establishing its credibility is the back of their hand.

4 posted on 02/07/2003 11:23:09 AM PST by seamus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: seamus
It may be much more basic than politics. It may be basic good vs. evil. Remember a divided house doesn't stand. It seems to me that those who I believe are motivated by evil seem to be supporting each other on this proposed war.
5 posted on 02/07/2003 11:30:47 AM PST by VRWC_minion ( Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seamus
They also seem gungho in attacking North Korea now.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/837523/posts

Democrats: Bush Ignoring N. Korea Threat (remember this when Bush goes after N. Korea)
AP ^ | 2/6/03 | KEN GUGGENHEIM


Posted on 02/06/2003 5:47 PM EST by finnman69


By KEN GUGGENHEIM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Democrats said Thursday that President Bush (news - web sites), in a push for war against Iraq, is ignoring a potentially greater danger in North Korea (news - web sites)'s rapidly advancing nuclear program.

The White House, however, said it is has "robust plans for any contingencies" involving North Korea. Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) repeated that the United States has no plans to attack North Korea, but that Bush "has retained all his options."

Concern about the nuclear program has grown after North Korea announced Wednesday it was putting the operation of its nuclear facilities on a "normal footing." That could mean it is about to produce nuclear weapons.

Bush administration officials have said North Korea's program does not constitute a crisis, and Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "I still feel it is possible to find a diplomatic solution."

Democrats, though, said Bush was not taking the threat seriously enough. In contrast with their praise of Powell's presentation Wednesday on Iraq to the United Nations (news - web sites), they pounced on what they saw as weakness and inconsistency in the administration's North Korea policy.

"Mr. President Bush, please, please, if you don't want to enunciate it, in your mind Mr. President, treat this as a crisis because it is, if not contained now," Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) of Delaware, the top Democrat on the committee, said in the Senate.

Added Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota: "The president should stop downplaying this threat, start paying more attention to it and immediately engage the North Koreans in direct talks."

At the committee hearing, Sen. John Kerry (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., accused the administration of having a "fuzzy policy." Kerry, a declared presidential candidate, contended the administration had taken all options off the table, including the use of force and economic penalties.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., accused the administration of a policy of "designed neglect" toward North Korea and on other diplomatic fronts.

Powell said the administration, with its campaign against terrorism as well as stronger relations with Russia and China, had a foreign policy "geared to the problems we have in the 21st century."

Powell said in separate meetings Chinese and Russian foreign ministers in New York, he spent more time discussing North Korea than Iraq.

"We are deeply engaged in these issues. We are in touch with the North Koreans through a variety of channels," he said.

The two countries continue to exchange harsh words. On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld called North Korea a "terrorist regime." North Korea warned that any U.S. attack on nuclear facilities would "spark off a total war."

Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) expressed concern over that threat and said, "This kind of talk only hurts North Korea."

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said this week that the Pentagon (news - web sites) may bolster U.S. forces in the Pacific in case North Korea tries to take advantage of Bush's focus on Iraq.

The administration has few promising policy options in North Korea.

North Korea has one of the world's largest armies and is believed to have one or two nuclear bombs. The United States has been reluctant to start direct talks with North Korea, saying it does not want to submit to blackmail.

Powell said Bush wants to help North Koreans, "who are starving, who are in economic distress, but we have to find a way to do it that does not suggest to the North Koreans that we are doing it because they have this tool, this weapon, that they use nuclearization of the (Korean) Peninsula as a way to get us to do it because we are threatened by them."
6 posted on 02/07/2003 11:32:19 AM PST by finnman69 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seamus
Nicely done!
Paging FoxNews!
7 posted on 02/07/2003 11:33:56 AM PST by jigsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seamus
They couldn't have changed their mind this year because there's a Republican in the White House, could they?

Like Mao attacking the Nationalist Chinese while the Nationalist Chinese are busy defending China from Japanese imperialism.

8 posted on 02/07/2003 11:35:11 AM PST by 537 Votes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seamus; SittinYonder
Good stuff...
9 posted on 02/07/2003 11:39:57 AM PST by eyespysomething
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Ditto...

In a nutshell it is this:

Liberal in White House...War Good.

Conservative in White House...War Evil.

(btw, the social justice..anti-freedom..American hater crowd are in full bliss now that the Pope has stated a war with Iraq would be immoral)...

Me thinks it's about time we as a nation review 101 reality. "If you don't stand for something..you'll fall for anything."

Mustang sends w/Best FReegards.
10 posted on 02/07/2003 11:41:11 AM PST by Mustang
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Ditto...

In a nutshell it is this:

Liberal in White House...War Good.

Conservative in White House...War Evil.

(btw, the social justice..anti-freedom..American hater crowd are in full bliss now that the Pope has stated a war with Iraq would be immoral)...

Me thinks it's about time we as a nation review 101 reality. "If you don't stand for something..you'll fall for anything."

Mustang sends w/Best FReegards.
11 posted on 02/07/2003 11:41:12 AM PST by Mustang
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: seamus
The sad thing is that even a lot of Republicans and conservatives still don't understand what happened in Yugoslavia.

That was the world's first Politically Correct War, fought to help Muslims kill Christians in the sacred name of Multiculturalism. No wonder folks like Biden voted for it.
12 posted on 02/07/2003 11:42:38 AM PST by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Exactly. I wish the pundits would actually ask these Dems what their plan is regarding N. Korea because they constantly bring up that the "threat" of N. Korea is greater than Iraq, but they don't offer a solution or alternative. I know this is usual Dem behavior, but I haven't heard them challenged on it once.
They want us to act UNILATERALLY with N. Korea, but we have to get the whole world on our side to deal with Saddam, brilliant!

13 posted on 02/07/2003 11:45:38 AM PST by labowski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mustang
(btw, the social justice..anti-freedom..American hater crowd are in full bliss now that the Pope has stated a war with Iraq would be immoral)...

I did not know that. I did know that he was meeting with Aziz from Iraq. I have said for years that the Pope should keep his nose out of United States foreign and domestic policy. Clean up his own house before talking about others!

14 posted on 02/07/2003 11:46:04 AM PST by PhiKapMom (Bush/Cheney 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: seamus
THANK YOU so much for posting this!!!! I was trying to do some spade work myself.
15 posted on 02/07/2003 11:48:22 AM PST by 11th_VA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Please pardon the X2 post.
16 posted on 02/07/2003 11:48:32 AM PST by Mustang
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: seamus
"ARE THEY FOR US OR AGAINST US?" (Updated Daily.)

17 posted on 02/07/2003 11:53:07 AM PST by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seamus
How did Teddy The Drunk do? I think he's been opposed to all the actions we've had for many, many years.
18 posted on 02/07/2003 11:54:48 AM PST by GailA (stop PAROLING killers Throw Away the Keys http://keasl5227.tripod.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GailA
Actually, I tried hard to find any comments at all by Kennedy about the Kosovo war and came up with nothing. I find it hard to believe he didn't have a speech or two on war -- since he loves to take to the floor these days to bloviate about 'the greatest responsiblity we have in the Senate."

Actually, several times when people got up to speak about Kosovo, he'd take the floor right after them and give a speech about a "Patient's Bill of Rights" or some education boondoggle. For the record, however, he did vote against the McCain-Biden amendment (by voting "yes" to table it), so it's been hard to catch him in hypocricy -- but i'll keep trying.

19 posted on 02/07/2003 12:02:39 PM PST by seamus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
bump to read later
20 posted on 02/07/2003 12:03:43 PM PST by nutmeg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seamus
You were thorough on this. Try his voting record. That will speak volumes, I'd think. Seen it posted somewhere that he voted NO on most actions to use our military. But don't remember where or exactly which ones.
21 posted on 02/07/2003 12:15:38 PM PST by GailA (stop PAROLING killers Throw Away the Keys http://keasl5227.tripod.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Exactly! Just another way I was duped by the government/media complex. We were never informed regarding what the practioners of the Religion of PeaceTM might have contributed to the mayhem. Damn. Now I wish we had bombed the muslimes.
22 posted on 02/07/2003 12:29:04 PM PST by johnb838 (deconstruct liberalism... you get communism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: labowski
They want us to act UNILATERALLY with N. Korea, but we have to get the whole world on our side to deal with Saddam, brilliant!

Of course you know that if NK were our top priority they would be saying we needed to go after Saddam. They are nothing if not corrupt.
23 posted on 02/07/2003 12:31:56 PM PST by johnb838 (deconstruct liberalism... you get communism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: johnb838
Those muslimes in KosovO are STILL killing and torturing Orthodox Christian Serbs... and still destroying their churches and grave yards. Over 120 houses of worship just since NATO/UN came to power.
24 posted on 02/07/2003 12:38:23 PM PST by crazykatz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: seamus
They were Gung Ho about Attacking Viet Nam, Haiti, Cuba and Somalia as well.
25 posted on 02/07/2003 12:46:56 PM PST by Kay Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seamus; xsmommy; Argh
Thank you!

Great job.....
26 posted on 02/07/2003 1:10:57 PM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (ABCNNBCBS lie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
Exactly. After all,as the Anti-Warriors say, Viet Nam was not an "imminent threat" to us,was it. They never attacked us. Yet Demoncrats were all for it as long as Johnson was leading the charge. If a Republican had been President instead of Johnson, the Dems would have opposed the Viet Nam war from the very beginning. They put the interests of the Democrat Party ahead of the interests of this country. Wake up, America!
27 posted on 02/07/2003 1:21:54 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY (((Get Saddam Now!)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
The RATs did change their minds about Vietnam, once Nixon became president.
28 posted on 02/07/2003 1:27:00 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: crazykatz
I wish we could make up for what we did to the Serbs.
29 posted on 02/07/2003 4:31:58 PM PST by johnb838 (deconstruct liberalism... you get communism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: johnb838
Btt
30 posted on 02/07/2003 4:38:56 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: seamus; *balkans
Bump!
31 posted on 02/07/2003 5:23:46 PM PST by Dragonfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: seamus
"They couldn't have changed their mind this year because there's a Republican in the White House, could they?"

I think the answer is simple...no big "pay day" in it for the libs if they support GW policy and he succeeds. If he succeeds, he probably gets re elected. They always support whitehouse policy when their guy is in the saddle. Why??? There's ALWAYS a big pay day for them. There is no right or wrong where they're concerned. Damn national security. The only thing that counts with them are $$$'s.

33 posted on 02/07/2003 5:56:30 PM PST by kimosabe31
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seamus
Thank you, seamus. The Dems. and their press accomplices choose to say and do whatever will undermine the President and bring them power. Simple. National security is not a concern to them, nor are borders. They choose the UN over the US, PC (failed socialist) fantasies over free trade, liberating reality.
How did the world and the press treat Clinton and America when he chose to bomb Iraq,  before impeachment hearings and after revelations of Monica?
 
President Clinton on bombing Iraq on the eve of impeachment hearings: Clinton said Thursday that air strikes (Reuters Dec. 17) were "absolutely the right thing to do."
 
Newt Gingrich (CFR) strongly (AP Dec. 17) endorsed the military action as he formally passed his gavel to Bob Livingston: "We must carry the burden of leading the world."
 
Madeline Albright (CFR/TC) told Jim Lehrer (CFR) that (News Hour Dec. 17): "I believe that the President did the right thing to make the decision to have this military campaign at this time."

While the Washington Times said (Reuters Dec. 17) that Clinton's attack followed the pattern of the "Wag the Dog scenario," the New York Times said the action "was fully justified." Support for the President and U.S. troops also came from the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Hartford Courant, the Miami Herald and the Chicago Tribune.

James A. Baker III (CFR) of the Baker Institute said (NBC News Dec. 16) there was a need for speed and that Clinton probably was forced to act: "We've diddled around . . . we probably had to act, this is the right thing, I think, for the United States to do . . . Nobody could be so craven as to risk the lives of our military men and women to cover their political backsides . . . "

Samuel R. Berger (CFR), U.S. National Security Adviser, explained (CNN Dec. 16) that the UN Secretary-General had agreed upon five criteria. Iraq has not cooperated. The inspection commission was not able to function. Richard Butler, on Tuesday, reported that due to Iraq's deception, the inspections were ineffectual. There was no choice but to take military action. The object was to take out missiles, weapons of mass destruction and prevent aggression towards neighbors. With the inspections no longer being possible, the U.S. had to make good on its threats of military force. (Clinton admin. KNEW Saddam had WMDs when inspections stopped. Think about that.)

Former President Jimmy Carter (CFR/TC) stated (Reuters Dec. 17): "American leaders played no role in the timing of Iraq's violations, which cannot be related to political events in Washington."

Laurence S. Eagleburger (CFR/TC), however, apparently broke rank, and said (NBC News Dec. 16) that "it smells."

Richard ("Dick") Andrew Gephardt (CFR) opposed holding a debate on impeachment (ABC Dec. 17) in part based on what Saddam Hussein would think.

Paul Gigot (BB) said there could be no debate while Americans are in harm's way (PBS Dec. 16) while Mark Shields said that Saddam Hussein had ran out his string.

Lott said he had been briefed by the administration (NBC De. 17) and stated: "I am going to take their word for it."

Rep. Porter Goss (R-Florida) , House Intelligence Committee Chairman, said (CNN Dec. 16) that he had not been briefed: "Bringing Saddam Hussein to justice and dismantling his regime is what this is about."

Joseph Lieberman (CFR) (D-Conn.) supported (PBS Dec. 16) Clinton's actions "absolutely." It was made clear to Senators three weeks ago that if Richard Butler was frustrated, the U.S. would strike Iraq without delay or warning.

John Forbes Kerry (S&B 1966) said that Clinton was doing the right thing (K-Eye News Dec. 16).

Senator John Warner (PBS Dec. 16) said it was imperative to join together "to enforce the rule of law." He said England was "bravely participating" and that there was clear and convincing proof in the Butler report to the UN. Timing was an issue but now we must back our troops.

Mohammed Said Al-Sahaf, Iraq Foreign Minister, said (News Hour Dec. 17) that rather than "Operation Desert Fox," the operation should be called "Villians in the Arabian Desert."

Wednesday night (AP Dec. 17) Iraq, Russia and China called to an immediate halt to the attacks. Iraq's UN envoy, Nizar Hamdoon, said that the uproar over weapons of mass destruction was "nothing more than a big lie" like the claim that Iraq was a threat to its neighbors. He said that Richard Butler, the head of UNSCOM, had cited only five incidents in 300 inspection operations. In an almost unanimous resolution (Reuters Dec. 17), the lower house of the Russian Parliament, said that the U.S. and Britain were engaged in "international terrorism." Yeltsin said the strikes "crudely violated" the UN charter and should be halted immediately. Russia is furious (Reuters Dec. 18) that the U.S. bypassed the UN Security Council which gave it no chance to use its veto.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/763425/posts

34 posted on 02/07/2003 6:24:35 PM PST by Ragtime Cowgirl (History will record our response and judge or justify every nation in this hall.- GWB to the UN.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Thank you.
35 posted on 02/07/2003 6:42:39 PM PST by sarasmom (I will journey to the grave of Jimmy Carter in order to spit on it.May my journey be soon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: johnb838
Go to this site....look I am no good at posting links...but here is the web site to find out more about Christian +Kosovo.

http://www.kosovo.com/default4.html

You can find out what is going on there now and, IF YOU LIKE....how to make a donation to help Christian Serbian Children in Kosovo through Decani Monastery.

Thanks!!

36 posted on 02/07/2003 8:29:01 PM PST by crazykatz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SickOfItAll
BUMP
37 posted on 02/07/2003 8:29:59 PM PST by crazykatz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: seamus
Very nice job. I commend you. I especially enjoyed Demon Pelosi:
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, March 11, 1999: .... I, for one, do not think that we, Congress, has a role in voting on whether the President should send peacekeepers into a region, so I do not think that this debate is a necessary one, and I think again that the timing of it is unfortunate. "

Wonder how her supporters spin the change...?

39 posted on 02/07/2003 10:29:30 PM PST by AFPhys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seamus
I've considered this, but my observations of liberals and even some conservatives aren't consistent with the dualism proposed,....there seems to be something more.

I tend to believe that there is something behind conspiracy theories with regard to Freemasons, Satanists, or Luciferians, which might actually lead or guide some of the groups which influence events. IMHO, not the majority of any one poitical party,..probably less than 1 %, but diversely linked interests with some unity between them.

I'd then say 30% of the populace consider events similar to how we might discuss them here on FR. Perhaps liberal, perhaps conservative, not in any conspiracy, but by acting reasonably can easily be played by some with ulterior motives.

IMHO, there's another 5% out there that is strictly anarchist, amoral, or criminal. and probably a large percentage of apathetic, people with varied other interests who might support one cause or another simply because of some particular individual interest they hold.

But with all of this said,...some things don't seem consistent. Clinton and many who support his ideology, for lack of a better descriptor, for instance. This fellow and his entourage don't seem to represent the American people, but rather some sick organized crime syndicate. Perhaps not in official power now, but nonetheless they remain, defiantly in the shadows and not so powerless.

The national climate seems to have returned to normalacy, yet Clinton and those of his ilk are still defiantly out there, possibly engaged in things we will never be heinous enough to even detect as the tip of their iceburg.

I can understand some Senators gaming international events so as to gain more national political party power, or to position themselves or their party for future conditions, but there still seems to be underlying agendas beyond simple partisan politics.

IMHO, I don't believe all persons are involved in conspiracies, but they do seem to remain incredibly consistent for all of their complexity, even after taking simple human character into account.

Many things are explained by laziness, stupidity, desire for comfort, greed, lust, (every sin under the sun), desire to win, refusal to lose, rebellious will in general,....but still there seems to be something more significant at hand.

I consider this everytime I board an aircraft and fly across the nation. Looking down upon cities and subrban areas where millions upon millions of people lead very rigorous lives and yet, the numbers of familiar faces in media and politics seem resiliently consistent. There must be a metric to discern the odds of such persons remaining in authority while so many of equal, greater, or more current skills are ignored.

And this in a land of freedom, compared to someplace like Cuba, where the same dictator has remained for a lifetime.

I have't figured it out,...maybe when somebody does, they'll let me know.
40 posted on 02/07/2003 10:52:44 PM PST by Cvengr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seamus
Leftwing hypocrisy will never be exposed in the mainstream media. Party loyalty exists above all else.
41 posted on 02/08/2003 3:12:44 PM PST by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnb838
We owe the Serbs big time.

Their enemy,militant islam, became our enemy effective 911.

42 posted on 02/08/2003 5:30:53 PM PST by gitmogrunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson