It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Quotes from when Clinton committed troops to Bosnia:

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I found this while cruisin around today. I wish I could take the credit, but not so..






"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. 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 over-extended 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"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)





*****Funny thing is, we won that war without a single killed in action.




posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   
interesting thread.

I have a friend from Bosnia, who moved to germany (then eventually the US) because of the war.

he's not a big fan of christians, but I often tease him because of that.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I posted this already this morning:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   
1) Nothing has been "won", we have only delayed a civil war. We are still there as a fighting force, not as negotiators, advisors, or rebuilders.

2) It was/is a civil war, based soley on religious factions vieing for dominance and destruction of the other, better known as genocide.

3) There was no national threat to us, nor any international threat, it was/is a civil war.

4) Clinton needed a cover story to hide his lies...Bosnia became that.

5) All the previous comments are still true, as they concern Bosnia.

6) None of the comments have any relevance to the situation in Iraq, which was not in a civil war, but a threat to it's neighbors and international interests.

7) Any one of those comments can be attributed to any conflict anywhere in the world.

8) How about these comments from "your side", which concern our current situation in Iraq:

journals.aol.com...

Touche'?



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   
You beat me to the political response, Army, but there is the conspiratorial aspect that begs to be offered. As a matter of fact, it is the only reason this otherwise POLITICAL THREAD will not be trashed!
*I hope the vague hint was caught*

There was absolutely no legitimate reason for our troops to go to Bosnia. Period. No threat to us, no intel of WMD's to be used against us, etc. So, why were our troops sent, and why do we have the presence still today?

Simple; because when the NWO plan finally comes to full fruitition, that is one of the areas our troops will police. There are usually reasons why things happen as they do, they aren't always clear to myopic, political-minded Joe-6-Packs. That's why they have us bickering about politics; so we don't see what their other hand is doing.

[edit on 19-8-2005 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 02:07 AM
link   
wow....I must have rattled some cages, thomas crowne!....hint well taken..

As far as Bosnia, is concerned, Im pretty indifferent. The point of me posting it was pointing out that republicans screamed and cried the same way over that, as the Dems are now, yet noone villified them.

Thomas Crowne-- I think your reaching a bit there. Perhaps the presence is there to ensure the citizens safety, not a NWO police station.

Army--



1) Nothing has been "won", we have only delayed a civil war. We are still there as a fighting force, not as negotiators, advisors, or rebuilders.

or is it "peacekeepers"




2) It was/is a civil war, based soley on religious factions vieing for dominance and destruction of the other, better known as genocide.

So is Iraq...point?



3) There was no national threat to us, nor any international threat, it was/is a civil war.

Neither was Iraq. Sounds like the only difference is that Iraq wasnt in state of civil war.



4) Clinton needed a cover story to hide his lies...Bosnia became that.


yes...all his lies...if the man was SUCH a criminal, he'd be locked up by now. But since the only thing he was convicted of was lying about a bj, hes a free man. He didnt start a war to cover up Monica. You need to turn Rush off once in a while



6) None of the comments have any relevance to the situation in Iraq, which was not in a civil war, but a threat to it's neighbors and international interests.

Exactly how was Iraq a threat to anyone? They were incapictated, with embargos set on them. Wheres the stock piles of WMDs. This war wasnt started to bring democracy to Iraq. It was started because Colin Powell held a little vial of anthrax up for the world to see. It was sold on lies.



I wish the republicans would just admit it. I understand that Saddam was an ahole and the world is a better place without him, but Iraq isnt. Saddam probably understood what kind of animals he was dealing with alot more than the average "joe six pack" does.

The point of thread was to point out the hypocrisy of the right. All the antiamerican comments made to anyone who doesnt support Bush. Maybe I was the only one who watched TV before the thing started, because I remember all the reasons. And never was "bringing liberty and democracy to iraq" mentioned.




*touche'.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 02:14 AM
link   
So what did we learn here? We learned that when there may be a political victory to be won, politicians will predict and hope for America's failure if their party is not in power. That way, their party, if they're right, can say, "I told you so", while if they're not, usually political memories are faded enough to forget about what was said when the election comes along.

The Republicans want to be in power just as much as the Democrats do. It just so happens that the Republicans are in power now, so, because both political parties have a win at all costs mentality, the Democrats want America to take a major blow shaking its very foundations so they can get into power. Aiming for what's best for the country? Sure, as long as that party gets to be in charge doing it. It's just like the Social Security issue, when Clinton was in power, Democrats were saying exactly what the Republicans are now saying. However, the Democrats don't want a Republican to get credit, so they flipped on their stance.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join