Hypocrisy in action

The linked article from the Weekly Standard details a number of flip-flops by dems who supported action against Saddam, but today criticize President Bush for taking the same stance.

Isn't this clearly hypocritical? Doesn't it increase the danger to our security by causing us to look weak in the eyes of the enemy?

My answer to both is yes. Even more than hypocritical it is immoral and if it's not un-American it most certainly is an example of being a bad American. One who should hang his head in shame.

Do you actually want us to debate anything or are you just flaming the democrats again?

I posed a couple questions to open the discussion. Would you care to contribute?

No it is not immoral or anti American to be concerned about going into a war. It seems impolitic and dangerous to push for a war that does not clearly have the support of the American people. Then people who speak their convictions can be subjected to accusations by super patriots and arch-conservatives who claim to be the true voice of the "average" American.

Countries that risk a confrontation with the united states should realize that we are a democracy. But they will be heartened by their position if there is a good deal of dissent or criticism.

An effective leader might have convinced the citizens of his country, the elected representatives of his country, and the leaders of allied countries of the righteousness of his cause and the appropriateness of his proposed solution (war) before putting much of the world in this situation.

It's not the dissent, it's the fact that the dissenters' motives are purely political. I can't respect someone who speaks out against taking action when its proposed by President Bush, but who loudly supported it when it was Clinton at the helm.

Gawd, look at the way Daschle called for uniting in the face of the enemy then. Byrd, same thing. Now listen to them.

Pretty clear who their true enemy is.

There are members of Congress who are consistent in their positions, no matter who is in the White House. They deserve the utmost in respect. But those liver-lillied weasels who try to make political gain at the expense of the safety and security of their own country are a different breed altogether.

MM,



Agreed. This sort of behavior was displayed by Republicans while Clinton was in office. If you don't acknowledge this, then your position is as bad as those you criticize.

While the Republican Congress was on its witch hunt for Clinton, and while law enforcement/military types dragged their feet on terrorism--well, need I go into that well-documented history?

By the way, the expression is "lilly-livered." It is a disease associated with partisan politics, no matter what party is engaged. Back last year, Democrats chickened out on criticizing Bush's push for war on Iraq. The Senate was lost, and now the Demos won't make the same mistake twice.

No, they'll make some brand new mistakes

BTW, here's a Republican guy I do admire:

Pete Domenici

I think your premise is flawed, because you're starting from a position that assumes that the primary reason Senator X's vote and voice changed about Iraq is because of who holds the office of the presidency. The truth is, you don't know the reason. Neither do I. While it may be true, it may also be a little more complex than that.

I would wager they originally believed that Bush really had some proof but could not show it yet. He made them believe that he would be able to get the U.N. on board. He lied and instead of critisizing his complete failure at proving his case it's easier just to shout down the dissent.

I imagine that none of the people now running that gave him those powers has a chance of winning a democratic nomination unless they stand up to their mistake and show some spine. Leiberman has no chance just for this reason.

Kerry has some credibility being an actual Viet Nam vet and not some AWOL drunk but I still think he would have done better to understand the Constitution and not vote to give up power for war to any one President, much less this one.

Sen Lieberman is one of the few who have been consistent. He recognizes the danger we face and stands ready to do something about it.

I agree with you though, he has no chance. He is far too principled for this bunch of today's dems.

Sign me up for quark's point. A good representative will make a decision based on all of the factors of a certain situation. The situation in 1998 was different than today's situation. I expect votes and opinions to be different. Do you have proof of politicians saying they will not vote for bills or support executive decisions simply because a republican is president?

Correction; he has no chance because he is working from the same PNAC blueprint with all of the guys that have put us in the mess we are in today. Of course, the voters don't decide the presidency. The vote counters do that.

And here lies the root of all your problems. Every count and recount and re-re-count showed Pres Bush won. So then you went to court. And Bush won there too.

Game....set.....match.

Now.....get over it and get on with your life.

First of all I was talking about the next election not the last one.
Second, you are starting to get a little too personal in your remarks to me and need to back off. If you have a point to make on the topic at hand then do so without including your personal opinion about me or advice to me because they are not welcome.

You're too fixated on Florida: the fact is that most Americans voted against Bush, nationwide, in 2000, & now he's losing in polls to "unnamed Democrat" ...!

http://dailynews.attbi.com/cgi-bin/news?e=...spoliticsbushdc

I'm looking forward to the country getting over this clown & "getting on with life"![I]

Why are we seeing this attitude again and again?

America is touted as the land of the free, the home of democracy, the stronghold of free speech and liberty.

If that is true, how can the expression of opinion and the use of the democratic right to peaceful dissent and protest be 'un-American'?

If America really is the bastion of democracy and liberty, surelt the exercising of these rights is exactly what being an American is all about.

And I would argue that it is those who criticise the lawful and democratic utilisation of freedom of speech who are acting in contravention of the very tenets which America claims to hold dear.

How could you have meant the next one when you talk about 'vote counters' as opposed to voters?

I'm not sure if you are serious or not. Let me be very clear. The manual and especially the new electronic voting machines are easily manipulated and no one would know it because they do not currently print out 'reciepts' which is something that some groups are working on getting changed. Florida taught us that even if you vote it doesn't mean it's going to get counted. The democratic primary in Florida had electronic machines and they still needed a recount. Low and behold they 'found' something like 300 missing votes the second time.

Not to mention the rolls being purged before the 2000 election. Even in N.C. there is a case going on where the G.O.P.'s were buying votes from people for $10 - $25 each.
link

I am sure that there must be some stories out there about Dems cheating too. The system needs to be fixed.

Let's get back to the question:

This guy's picture should be in the dictionary when defining hypocrisy......

"What if [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? ... Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

Clinton 1998

So, MM, you are admitting that Clinton was right way back in 1998 when all the Republicans were ignoring Iraq and terrorism and concentrating on irrelevant issues. No wonder the GOP suffers from horrendous guilt.

BTW, direct quotes are usually accompanied by a citation source, JFYI.

Nice try Music Man, but it was more like Clinton was the commander-in-briefs and he only pulled the trigger when he was being spanked for having his trigger pulled.

And I dont think his refusal to accept UBL's capture by Sudan speaks very highly of his anti-terror activities. I wonder how he can even sleep at night. And so close to ground zero at that. You'd think he could hear the screams in his dreams.

His criticisms today of our country's policies are just another example of those endearing democratic flip-flops.

The GOP didn't oppose the strike on Sudan but saw it as a distraction from the real problem: Bill & his affair.

Clinton's the one that is under horrendous guilt because he had a chance to catch the Mastermind of 9/11 just like he had a chance to catch Bin Laden:

I found this article in my weekly Newsweek subscribtion & was thankful to find it on their website:

Clinton could have gotten him

8 Paragraphs down:

goamerica,



Yep. That's my point--terrorism was a distraction from what the GOP saw as much more important: nab Clinton somehow.

That the Clinton administration was nervous about giving the GOP more ammunition is understandable. However, it was chicken-poo politics all around.

MM,

I doubt Clinton feels any responsibility for 9/11. He's really into his own, um, "head."

However, the GOP was putting funding for anti-terrorism on the chopping block before 9/11. After 9/11, the overreaction is telling: Create a whole new set of government agencies and fund the dickens out of them. Typical behavior from guilt, IMO.

Sad isn't it. These type of statements start at the top, any most conservatives are echoing what they hear from the talking heads in their party. I heard a republican congressman call the protestors treasonous. A peaceful demonstrarion treasonous?? WOW They believe that dissent weakens america in its war against Iraq and hurts morale of the troops overseas. First, just beacuse a person has a conflicting view doesn't mean that they don't support our troops. Second, if some want to control debate and independant thaught I would say they are no better than the individuals we are about to go to war with.

Do you have anything besides blanket statements to add? Perhaps something constructive?

I was trying to point out that this disdain for dissent amung conservatives starts at the top, which in my opinion is very sad. I wasn't attempting to write a novel, just trying to put a thaught into a quick statement. Is that ok? I hope there isn't intrusive moderators, I know sites like that and its not very fun.

Exactly what do you mean by "starts from the top?" I have no problem whatsoever with people demonstrating against a war with Iraq, but I fail to see how just chanting "Peace" will solve anything. I do not desire to go to war, but I do see that the inspections are not working so far, and that the only reason S.H. is doing what he is doing because of the pressure from the U.S. I guess you could call me "conservative," but I do not get my ideas from "the top" or "talking heads" and I do not consider protestors to be treasonous, although I fail to see how someone can say they support the troops and then go on to condemn our president and say how the U.S. is the real terrorist. I think that is a bit hypocritical. Just my opinion though.

Yes, it's hypocritical, but that's politics. Their position is their jobs... and they're paid well to do it. We have to realize that these are bought men with not simply the interests of the country at heart, but their own as well. Whether it's Democrats or Republicans doing the flip-flopping (and we all know they both do it), it's hypocritical and in bad taste. But, with the way our system is, I'm not sure how we can expect much more from them.

Does this make our country look weak? I don't think so. It just shows that our government has little to contrast with corporate America. Instead of simply switching stocks, or investing more in this or that corporation to maintain their wealth, politicians swap political issues (war, abortion, education, health-care) to try and keep their jobs and, thus, their incomes (both their salary and their corporate "contributions").

The people that call Bush the greatest terrorist and the people that want to pursue other avenues, such as putting forth a concerted effort to gain some sort of international support, these are two different groups of people with vastly different trains of thought. One is on the extreme, the other is more logical. My own opinion of the situation is that this administration stumbled through what they called diplomacy. I think the world community needs to be on board, not because we need them militarily but because the backlash of such negative world opinion could be devastating for the US. Does my disagreements make me a bad American? Does it mean I will not support our troops overseas, four of whom were my high school classmates. I sure do not think so. You cannot deny the fact that republicans try to tie disagreement with Bush with being unpatriotic.

I'm listening to a local talk show as I write this. Our local congressman are being asked for their stance on the war, today. I am taking heart in the fact that most are saying the time for debate is over. Actually, up to this point all have said that. These reps all voted against the original authorization for force.

Now, compare that to Daschle. He votes for the autorization and now that our troops are in harm's way he's whining about how 'saddened he is that ........blah, blah, blah.

I hope that he, and every dem that fails to speak out against his despicable actions, goes down to defeat in their next election.

We will not forget.