Monday, September 25, 2006
Kay the Cut-and-Runner
You've probably heard of or seen President Clinton take Chris Wallace to the woodshed on Fox News Sunday. It's a performance that non-Republicans can stand up and cheer about; I highly recommend it.
In it, Clinton mentions several times how the same neo-cons who are trying to pin bin Laden's ascendancy on his administration wanted him to pull out of Somalia the day after the "Black Hawk Down" incident.
That's right, the very same gung-ho warmongers who claim it's treasonous to "cut and run" from the quagmire in Iraq wanted to do exactly that in Somalia. And thanks to details dug up by the excellent Glenn Greenwald, we have these words from our very own Kay Bailey Hutchison on Oct. 6, 1993 (emphasis Greenwald's):
So we see the same obvious double standard Sen. Hutchison displayed in the perjury double standard incident She has one clear set of standards for Democratic Presidents and wars, and a completely different set for Republican Presidents and wars. For matters of such importance to the country, it'd be nice to have a Senator who can rise above these kinds of politics every now and then.
In it, Clinton mentions several times how the same neo-cons who are trying to pin bin Laden's ascendancy on his administration wanted him to pull out of Somalia the day after the "Black Hawk Down" incident.
That's right, the very same gung-ho warmongers who claim it's treasonous to "cut and run" from the quagmire in Iraq wanted to do exactly that in Somalia. And thanks to details dug up by the excellent Glenn Greenwald, we have these words from our very own Kay Bailey Hutchison on Oct. 6, 1993 (emphasis Greenwald's):
I supported our original mission, which was humanitarian in nature and limited in scope. I can no longer support a continued United States presence in Somalia because the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the scope of our mission is now limitless. . . . Mr. President, it is no small feat for a superpower to accept setback on the world stage, but a step backward is sometimes the wisest course. I believe that withdrawal is now the more prudent option.
So we see the same obvious double standard Sen. Hutchison displayed in the perjury double standard incident She has one clear set of standards for Democratic Presidents and wars, and a completely different set for Republican Presidents and wars. For matters of such importance to the country, it'd be nice to have a Senator who can rise above these kinds of politics every now and then.
Comments:
<< Home
I'll just guess that she has one set of standards for a war that is at least arguably in our national interest and a different standard for a humanitarion mission gone awry.
Tom Maguire
P.S. Contra Greenwald, Bob Dole helped lead the Senate fight in *support* of Clinton's plan.
Tom Maguire
P.S. Contra Greenwald, Bob Dole helped lead the Senate fight in *support* of Clinton's plan.
Tom, you'll have to let me know which one is in our national interest and which one's a humanitarian mission "gone awry". Because I'm not sure which justification - of the many offered to date - you're thinking of with regardsd to Iraq. Is it the fictitious weapons of mass destruction? Or is it the nonexistent ties to Al-Qaeda? Maybe it's the argument that Saddam's an evil torturer who cannot be allowed to stay in power? (That one's getting shaky lately, as the Bush Administration and Republican Congress continue to undermine and circumvent the Geneva Conventions.) Perhaps it's idea of setting up a beacon of democracy in the Middle East? (I'm afraid that's not turning out all that well, either.) Oh, I know - it's to have a counterbalance to the influence of Iran, right? Oh, wait, the Iranians are the Iraqis' new best friends lately, so that can't be it.
I know! I know! The war that is "arguably in our national interest" must be because of the Flypaper Theory, right? Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here, right? RIGHT?! But wait! What about those pesky global terrorism NIEs? You know, the ones that say things like, "the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse"?
I hate to break this to you, but as long as our country's "interests" go beyond the profits of oil companies and Haliburton, Iraq was never in our national interest. Not from conception (well before 9/11), not when we were lied to about why, not at "mission accomplished", not during the thousands killed in the meantime, and certainly not now.
Post a Comment
I know! I know! The war that is "arguably in our national interest" must be because of the Flypaper Theory, right? Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here, right? RIGHT?! But wait! What about those pesky global terrorism NIEs? You know, the ones that say things like, "the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse"?
I hate to break this to you, but as long as our country's "interests" go beyond the profits of oil companies and Haliburton, Iraq was never in our national interest. Not from conception (well before 9/11), not when we were lied to about why, not at "mission accomplished", not during the thousands killed in the meantime, and certainly not now.
<< Home
