It hasn’t taken long for some of those on the left who heralded Barack Obama as the long-awaited savior of the U.S. to begin asking, "Why has he appointed the same people from the Clinton and Bush II administrations to positions?" The answer is that he never promised huge changes. If any of his leftist supporters took the time to research his voting record and speeches, he/she would have come up blank with reasons to support Obama. He has taken some old names — like Daschle, Clinton, and even Colin Powell — thrown them in a bag, shook it up, and thrown the names on a table, some with new positions. Obama even is thinking of keeping Gates as the Secretary of War.
A year ago, I wrote the following article and prompted those who were desperate for a change in U.S. imperialistic policy to think again before they put their eggs in the Democrat basket. Names and dates may differ, but the actions of the Democratic Party have not.
A year ago, I wrote the following article and prompted those who were desperate for a change in U.S. imperialistic policy to think again before they put their eggs in the Democrat basket. Names and dates may differ, but the actions of the Democratic Party have not.
DEMOCRATS SPEAK WITH FORKED TONGUES
Tuesday-Thursday, November 6-8, 2007
Tuesday-Thursday, November 6-8, 2007
To listen to Democrats today, you would think they all opposed George Bush’s illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq. Bush, now at his lowest in public opinion polls, is open game for his Democratic opponents. He is being portrayed as a lying warmonger while the Dems are extolling the virtues of their anti-war philosophy.
All this posturing is false. Five years ago, the Democratic Party jumped on board the war bandwagon. Many voted to go to war and gave resounding testimony to the evil of Iraq. However, if you believe the messages being sent by Democrats, you would think that not one supported the war.
The Boston Globe of April 22, 2006 carried an op-ed piece written by 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. He mentioned his 1971 appearance before the U.S. Senate and how he spoke of opposing the Vietnam War. Then, he added:
Thirty-five years later, in another war gone off course, I see history repeating itself … Again, we must refuse to sit quietly and watch our troops sacrificed for a policy that isn’t working while Americans who dissent and ask tough questions are branded unpatriotic.
Just as it was in 1971, it is again right to make clear that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves the American people and our principles.
Good stuff, but there some minor omissions on Kerry’s part. He supported the invasion of Iraq, and, at times during the presidential campaign, called for more troops in Iraq than the Republicans sent. Here are a few quotes from the past John Kerry, not the "enlightened" one speaking today:
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." (Oct. 9, 1998)
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." (Oct. 9, 2002)
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … And now he had continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." (Jan. 23, 2003)
This does not sound like the Kerry of today. It is possible for one to change opinions. However, when the person does, there is a usual explanation of how he/she was previously misled or made bad judgements. Not so with Kerry. For years, he supported military action against Iraq. Then, he shows up speaking of a misguided Iraq war and policy.
Madeleine Albright is another one who is changing her tune in the same manner as Kerry: just give a speech that is opposite from your years-long stance without an explanation for the change in course.
Al-Jazeera News published an article called "Albright Warns of Iraq Disaster" on April 23, 2006. Here is the beginning of the piece:
Madeleine Albright, the former U.S. secretary of state, has warned that the invasion of Iraq may end up as one of the worst disasters in American foreign policy.
In an interview with the New York Times, published on Sunday, Albright said she did not think Saddam Hussein had been an imminent threat to the United States.
"You can’t go to war with everybody you dislike," she said.
"I think Iraq may end up being one of the worst disasters in American foreign policy
"I’m for democracy, but imposing democracy is an oxymoron. People have to choose democracy and it has to come from below," she said.
Remember, this is the same Albright who told Leslie Stahl in an interview in 1997 that the deaths of more than 500,000 Iraqi children at the hands of the embargo was a worthy result of U.S. foreign policy. Here are a few statements from the old Albright:
"Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." (Feb. 18, 1998)
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." (Nov. 10, 1999)
Poor Saddam. In the space of a few years, he was relegated by Albright from being the "greatest security threat we face" to not being an imminent threat to the United States. They’ve even taken accusations for Saddam being a sonofabitch away from him. The U.S. talks out of both sides of its mouth.
Before and after the invasion of 2003, anti-war Democrats have argued with me about the merits of the Democratic Party. I have heard, and continue to hear, every lame excuse in the book about the party acquiescing to the warmongers from "They had bad information" to "That’s not their real position." Facts are facts. The Democrats allowed George Bush to invade Iraq for one reason: they were afraid that if the U.S. attacked Iraq and that the soldiers were welcomed with flowers and candy, they would have been on the wrong side of the issue and would have been considered anti-American. No matter how they talk today, Madeleine Albright, John Kerry, and many other Democrats allowed the invasion to occur. Integrity, research and truth went out the window.
Despite all their current anti-war talk, there is one aspect missing from the hollow mouths of the Democrats: not one has mentioned the plight of the Iraqi people and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths and the destruction of the country that came about because of their silence.'
All this posturing is false. Five years ago, the Democratic Party jumped on board the war bandwagon. Many voted to go to war and gave resounding testimony to the evil of Iraq. However, if you believe the messages being sent by Democrats, you would think that not one supported the war.
The Boston Globe of April 22, 2006 carried an op-ed piece written by 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. He mentioned his 1971 appearance before the U.S. Senate and how he spoke of opposing the Vietnam War. Then, he added:
Thirty-five years later, in another war gone off course, I see history repeating itself … Again, we must refuse to sit quietly and watch our troops sacrificed for a policy that isn’t working while Americans who dissent and ask tough questions are branded unpatriotic.
Just as it was in 1971, it is again right to make clear that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves the American people and our principles.
Good stuff, but there some minor omissions on Kerry’s part. He supported the invasion of Iraq, and, at times during the presidential campaign, called for more troops in Iraq than the Republicans sent. Here are a few quotes from the past John Kerry, not the "enlightened" one speaking today:
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." (Oct. 9, 1998)
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." (Oct. 9, 2002)
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … And now he had continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." (Jan. 23, 2003)
This does not sound like the Kerry of today. It is possible for one to change opinions. However, when the person does, there is a usual explanation of how he/she was previously misled or made bad judgements. Not so with Kerry. For years, he supported military action against Iraq. Then, he shows up speaking of a misguided Iraq war and policy.
Madeleine Albright is another one who is changing her tune in the same manner as Kerry: just give a speech that is opposite from your years-long stance without an explanation for the change in course.
Al-Jazeera News published an article called "Albright Warns of Iraq Disaster" on April 23, 2006. Here is the beginning of the piece:
Madeleine Albright, the former U.S. secretary of state, has warned that the invasion of Iraq may end up as one of the worst disasters in American foreign policy.
In an interview with the New York Times, published on Sunday, Albright said she did not think Saddam Hussein had been an imminent threat to the United States.
"You can’t go to war with everybody you dislike," she said.
"I think Iraq may end up being one of the worst disasters in American foreign policy
"I’m for democracy, but imposing democracy is an oxymoron. People have to choose democracy and it has to come from below," she said.
Remember, this is the same Albright who told Leslie Stahl in an interview in 1997 that the deaths of more than 500,000 Iraqi children at the hands of the embargo was a worthy result of U.S. foreign policy. Here are a few statements from the old Albright:
"Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." (Feb. 18, 1998)
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." (Nov. 10, 1999)
Poor Saddam. In the space of a few years, he was relegated by Albright from being the "greatest security threat we face" to not being an imminent threat to the United States. They’ve even taken accusations for Saddam being a sonofabitch away from him. The U.S. talks out of both sides of its mouth.
Before and after the invasion of 2003, anti-war Democrats have argued with me about the merits of the Democratic Party. I have heard, and continue to hear, every lame excuse in the book about the party acquiescing to the warmongers from "They had bad information" to "That’s not their real position." Facts are facts. The Democrats allowed George Bush to invade Iraq for one reason: they were afraid that if the U.S. attacked Iraq and that the soldiers were welcomed with flowers and candy, they would have been on the wrong side of the issue and would have been considered anti-American. No matter how they talk today, Madeleine Albright, John Kerry, and many other Democrats allowed the invasion to occur. Integrity, research and truth went out the window.
Despite all their current anti-war talk, there is one aspect missing from the hollow mouths of the Democrats: not one has mentioned the plight of the Iraqi people and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths and the destruction of the country that came about because of their silence.'
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten