In their own words: Liberals opposed to war in Iraq, gung-ho about attacking Kosovo

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.

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.”

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."

"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.

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.]

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

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.

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.