Bush supporters' aftermath thread

It's even more comical that you take a challenge to your opinion as infringement on your right to speak. It's more than comical, actually, it's absurd.

I feel free to ignore her, but I choose to discuss her.

Amigo wrote:

Thomas wrote:

JustWonders wrote:

If my actions towards my friends "boss" meant my friend would be harmed, I'd lend my support to my friend, but keep my feelings about my friend's boss to myself.

What if you believed that it's the boss's behavior that is harming your friend, and that you could change that behavior by speaking up against it?

What if the boss was running the company out of business (Arbusto). Would you fire the boss and get a new one or would you say the boss and the business were the same thing and let it go to hell. By the way, the person that called our troops insurgents was in Vietnam I believe.

If the boss was responsible for harming the company, my friend probably wouldn't have gone to work there in the first place. That's the problem. My "friends" don't have a problem with the "boss". It's the mealy-mouthed whiners pitching a hissy fit because their choice for "boss" didn't get promoted.
...

Amigo wrote:

Thomas wrote:

JustWonders wrote:

If my actions towards my friends "boss" meant my friend would be harmed, I'd lend my support to my friend, but keep my feelings about my friend's boss to myself.

What if you believed that it's the boss's behavior that is harming your friend, and that you could change that behavior by speaking up against it?

What if the boss was running the company out of business (Arbusto). Would you fire the boss and get a new one or would you say the boss and the business were the same thing and let it go to hell. By the way, the person that called our troops insurgents was in Vietnam I believe.

If the boss was responsible for harming the company, my friend probably wouldn't have gone to work there in the first place. That's the problem. My "friends" don't have a problem with the "boss". It's the mealy-mouthed whiners pitching a hissy fit because their choice for "boss" didn't get promoted.

So what if the person that called our troops insurgents was in Vietnam. There are Vietnam vets serving in Iraq who don't see themselves as "insurgents" and don't compare Iraq to the war in Vietnam at all. Matter of fact, they say it couldn't be more different. If he wants to call these men "insurgents", fine. That's his right. But don't tell me he's still supporting those serving. He's not.

Thomas wrote:

JustWonders wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Did you ever have a friend whose boss at work sucked? Did your supporting your friend require your supporting the boss too?

If my actions towards my friends "boss" meant my friend would be harmed, I'd lend my support to my friend, but keep my feelings about my friend's boss to myself.

What if you believed that it's the boss's behavior that is harming your friend, and that you could change that behavior by speaking up against it?

If the boss was responsible for harming the company, my friend probably wouldn't have gone to work there in the first place. That's the problem. My "friends" don't have a problem with the "boss". It's the mealy-mouthed whiners pitching a hissy fit because their choice for "boss" didn't get promoted.

And, this is the point where I choose to say--if the worst things said about her are facts--she is the one who is slimey.

Don't slime the messenger.

You are hyperjudgemental and partisan about people. Why the surprise when someone else takes a page out of your playbook?

Republican quotes on Kosovo:

"You can support the troops but not the president" --Tom Delay

"[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." -- Rick Santorum

"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." -- Tom Delay

"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

"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

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

blatham wrote:

Quote:

Republicans relentlessly criticized former President Bill Clinton over his handling of the conflict in Kosovo. Leading the charge was House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, who referred to the allied operation as "the Clinton war," according to the Houston Chronicle on April 20, 1999. Other Republican leaders, the Chronicle reported, took to calling the Kosovo conflict "the Democratic war," and House Speaker Dennis Hastert even referred to U.S. military personnel involved in the NATO operation as "his (Clinton's) forces." According to The Washington Post on April 14, 1999, Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairman Larry E. Craig also referred to the operation in Kosovo as the "Clinton-Gore war."

On March 23, 1999, The Washington Post reported, "Republicans again criticized Clinton's Kosovo policy as the Senate opened a debate on whether to demand that any airstrikes must first win congressional approval. 'We're now picking sides in a civil war where the United States' interests are not clear,' Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) said as the debate got underway. 'Before we go bombing sovereign nations, we ought to have a plan.'"

According to The San Jose Mercury News on April 11, 1999, "Republican criticism of President Clinton's leadership in the growing Balkan war intensified" when Representative Heather Wilson observed in the Republican Party's weekly radio address, "Thus far our strategy in Kosovo has failed to achieve our political objectives... The president owes the Congress a complete picture of the situation in the Balkans -- the effect of the bombing, the military and non-military options available, and the risks of each. What is the vital American national interest at stake in the Balkans?" Wilson asked.

According to the Associated Press on April 27, 1999, Republican Senator Bob Smith said, "[T]he US should pull out now rather than get 'bogged down in wars that are not winnable.'" Smith said, "I don't have a lot of confidence in the President in this matter at all." Republican Representative Charles Bass "characterized White House policy as indecisive and confused." Bass said, "The President needs to advise Congress as to what exactly his strategy is."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405030001

Welcome back, Blatham. And quite a find. Close to brilliant.

If any of us would paraphrase those Republicans' statements in the context of the Iraq war, of course, many of the participants in this thread would be all over him for being unpatriotic and not supporting the troops. Very interesting.

Yep. the mealy-mouthed whiners don't like the boss, so they start pitching their hissy fit, which brings the company morale down, productivity suffers, the company loses some key contracts, and eventually has to lay-off some employees, including JW's friend. Thanks for nothing.

Just Wonders: Were you only referring to Nixon and Goldwater -- or also to the Republican congresspeople who denounced Clinton's way of engaging in Kosovo? The latter would mean more to me, since most of those congresspeople are still sitting.

Dys: I hate to do this to you, but I'd like to gather some empirical input -- when you were in Vietnam, whom did you feel more betrayed by: your commander in chief, or the demonstrators who spoke out against him?

If the boss was responsible for harming the company, my friend probably wouldn't have gone to work there in the first place.

A couple of questions spring to mind: Were these comments made during the Congressional debate over whether to approve the airstrikes? How many members of our armed forces were in danger during the relatively sterile Kosovo conflict, thus placed in greater danger by any such negative remarks?

I'm sorry but I will never believe you can condemn their leaders, their mission, their purpose, and their process and say you are supporting the troops.

Thomas, I really hate to admit to anything but asking me for emirical evidence is tantamount to playing Tarot to predict your future.

Ticomaya wrote:

A couple of questions spring to mind: Were these comments made during the Congressional debate over whether to approve the airstrikes? How many members of our armed forces were in danger during the relatively sterile Kosovo conflict, thus placed in greater danger by any such negative remarks?

Well, Foxfyre set a neat bunch of straightforward enough criteria just now:

Foxfyre wrote:

I'm sorry but I will never believe you can condemn their leaders, their mission, their purpose, and their process and say you are supporting the troops.

Can we say that in the statements quoted by Blatham, the Republican politicians in question were criticising the leader, mission, purpose and process of the Kosovo war?

If so, that means they were not "supporting the troops". According to Foxfyre.