Verbatim Quotes from Republicans when Clinton was Prez. | 38 comments (38 topical, 0 hidden)
As it happens... (none / 0)
I recently had an e-mail exchange with a friend who tried to "nail" me with a recent GOP talking point about Murtha leading the charge to get out of Somalia during the Clinton years. After skillfully burning down all the strawmen, I find I have a couple of quotes which fit in nicely here. My purpose was to point out that not only was it a BI-partisan issue, it was a terrific example of how a Congress SHOULD act in such a situation. They got together and slapped the President down for over-reaching his authority.

Ah, the good old days....anyway, I submit for your enjoyment:


(This was the original article link and comment from my friend - who detests everything Clinton and is just a tad sarcastic in this)

As I read this article and thought about what a terrific job Bill Clinton did in handling the situation in Somalia I couldn't help but notice the VERY LAST SENTENCE of the article.  It really made me think that we should have continued to let the UN take care of Iraq.  Things would be calm, peaceful and eden-like.  There certainly wouldn't be any civil war like activity and most certainly, no civilian casualties!
(name omitted)
P.S. I am sure you know WAAAAAY more about the situation than I do, but this is main stream media, not Rush!

(my reply)

That was a pretty damn good article. Here's another, also from A.P., but it has a quote from the US Ambassador to Kenya which is interesting in a "Huh?" kind of way. Also, I have (linked to) a brief recent history of Somalia to give you some background on what's been happening there the last few years. It was written in 2005, so it's got an info gap between then and now. In the long run, I would rather we stay out of it altogether, but at least Bush is using Ethiopians as cannon fodder instead of U.S. Troops.

One thing you failed to note in your bit about letting the U.N. stay in charge in Iraq - there was no civil war already going on in Iraq. Saddam was an asshole, but the country was calm.

Yup, Clinton removing U.S. troops as Congress instructed him to do was a smart thing.
Or...don't you remember it was Congress who forced Clinton's hand when they passed an Amendment to the 1994 Appropriations act which read:

Gilman Amendment, H.Con.Res. 170 

Sec. 1. Finding that the United States Armed Forces in Somalia are engaged in hostilities.For purposes of sections 5(c) and 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)and 1546), the Congress finds that the United States Armed Forces in Somalia are engaged in hostilities without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization..

Sec 2. Removal of Armed Forces from Somalia.Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), the Congress hereby directs the President to remove the United States Armed Forces from Somalia by January 31, 1994. (Tim Note- the date was extended out to March 31, 1994)

*********This is a brief exchange from the House floor at the time. It starts with comments by a Democrat, Rep. Hill of Ohio, then a few words from Rep Solomon of N.Y., a Republican. I have highlighted a couple of passages I find extremely relevant.

HALL: Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 170 as reported by the House Foreign Affairs Committee directs the President to remove the United States Armed Forces from Somalia by March 31, 1994. The recent death of Somalis and U.N. forces, including United States military service men, has generated controversy over the Somalia operation. The Foreign Affairs Committee action is in keeping with the requirements of the War Powers Act that pertain to the use of U.S. Armed Forces engaged in hostilities overseas. This resolution will afford us the opportunity to discuss and debate our actions with respect to Somalia as well as our overall policy objectives concerning United States troops abroad. The people of our country, including the families of servicemen and women stationed in Somalia, deserve to know when and under what conditions our troops will return from their original humanitarian mission.
 
The carefully crafted rule before us received bipartisan support on the Rules Committee and passed unanimously in a voice vote. I urge my colleagues to support it.
 
SOLOMON: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
 
Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my friend, the gentleman from Ohio, in urging all Members to support this rule.
 
This is one of those rare occasions when I ask the Members to support a rule which is less than open.
 
But I can do so today because this rule meets the two criteria that are necessary to gain Republican support.
 
First, this rule is the product of genuine negotiations between the majority and minority leadership.
 
A great deal of effort went into finding a format that would be fair to all sides concerned.
I believe this rule does provide for a balanced debate, and the leadership of both parties have agreed to it.
 
Second, this rule does not freeze out Republicans.
 
One Republican-sponsored amendment is made in order and one Democrat-sponsored amendment is made in order
.
Each side is given one shot, and the difference between the two is clearly drawn.
For these reasons, then, I urge support for the rule.
 
Mr. Speaker, I need not reiterate the entire explanation of the rule given to us by the gentleman from Ohio, I would simply say that the issue before us boils down to a clear-cut choice:
 
Should the House adopt the Gilman amendment, which would bring United States troops out of Somalia by January 31, 1994?
 
Or should the House adopt the Hamilton amendment, which adheres to the President's deadline and would bring the troops home 2 months later than that, by March 31, 1994? (Tim note: The Gilman amendment was accepted with the Hamilton date - notice that the argument wasn't "IF" but "WHEN")
 
For my own part, I strongly support the Gilman amendment--indeed, I would like to bring the troops home even sooner, and I know there are a lot of Members of this House who feel the same way I do.
 
I do not believe any purpose is being served by keeping our troops in Somalia for a single further day. The time to begin an orderly withdrawal is right now, today.
 
Mr. Speaker, I must also say that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] deserves special commendation from the House for his tenacious efforts in keeping this issue on the front burner, as does the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
 
The Senate has devoted more than 3 full legislative days to debating the questions related to United States involvement in Somalia and our participation in United Nations peacekeeping missions.
 
So far, the majority leadership of the House has denied the Members of this body from engaging in a similar comprehensive debate.
 
And we would not be here today were if not for the persistence of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], who even had to go so far as to invoke the Wars Powers Resolution in order to bring this issue to the floor here today. So he really deserves our thanks.
Mr. Speaker, I myself might be more flexible in supporting the timetable the administration proposed for getting our troops out of Somalia if I could be convinced that the administration has a coherent foreign policy, but I am not so convinced.
 
I served for years on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and Mr. Speaker, I have never seen such a situation as we have today. I know I speak for many Members on both sides of the aisle when I say that the Clinton administration's commitment to so-called peacekeeping as the centerpiece of its foreign policy has not been thought through.
 
It is, in fact, threatening to distort and derail any kind of realistic and bipartisan consensus that might be reached concerning America's strategic interests and role in today's world.

Members may recall that when the first rule for the Defense authorization bill was considered here on the floor more than 3 months ago--early in August--many Republicans took to the well to criticize the majority leadership for not allowing a debate and appropriate amendments on the subject of peacekeeping.
 
Those calls for debate were renewed by Republicans and concerned Democrats throughout the month of September, when the Somalia operation looked to be going seriously wrong and even spinning out of control.
 
Finally, on October 3, 18 more Americans were killed, and more than 70 were wounded in an ambush in the streets of Mogadishu.
 
The worst fears that many of us had were confirmed several days later in the most disastrous and chaotic briefing I have ever attended in 15 years as a Member of Congress.
 
Secretary of State Christopher and Secretary of Defense Aspin could neither explain, defend, nor even confirm the existence of a coherent peacekeeping policy in Somalia.
 
We have watched the U.N.-led mission in Somalia apparently evolve from humanitarian relief to law-enforcement.
 
Then it became nation building.
 
Then it became taking sides in a civil war situation and going after the bad guys.
 
When all of that failed, it was back to the barracks.
 
Now, evidently, it has gone back to law enforcement, and American troops are once again pounding the beat on the streets of Mogadishu where they have no business being.
 
Mr. Speaker, I have said it before and I will say it again: This is madness!--This is mindless folly!

 
**************** And he was right. It WAS madness and mindless folly - just as Iraq is. Or would you rather a U.S. presence had stayed in Somalia all these years?

by MedfordTim on 04/26/2007 12:29:56 PM EST

back, by invitation (none / 0)
“Wow, this thread is a quiet place (if you don't count all those noisy quotes from talky republican hacks).  Truth is a lonely place, I guess. Where is the scorching rebuttal? Troll TX should be all over this one as well right?”

I was just waiting for someone intelligent to show up, so we can debate the issue as gentlemen. (I’m not really interested in provoking more exchanges with Tiny, so we can listen to him screech like a tiny fairy.) But now that Tim’s here, we can get started.

“It really made me think that we should have continued to let the UN take care of Iraq.”

We tried to get the UN to take Iraq after the invasion was over, and they wouldn’t touch it.

With respect to Bosnia, a Republican controlled Senate and House was allowing the President to conduct a war in which America had absolutely zero national interest at stake. They grumbled about it, but they let Clinton have his ridiculous war. I don’t recall Democrats protesting that war?

“My purpose was to point out that not only was it a BI-partisan issue, it was a terrific example of how a Congress SHOULD act in such a situation. They got together and slapped the President down for over-reaching his authority.
Yup, Clinton removing U.S. troops as Congress instructed him to do was a smart thing. Or...don't you remember it was Congress who forced Clinton's hand when they passed an Amendment to the 1994 Appropriations act which read:”

Clinton’s military action in Somalia made much more sense than Clinton’s military action in Bosnia. At least we were fighting an enemy of America named al Qaeda.

Harry Reid has already declared Iraq a lost cause. “America has been defeated.” The Democrats are demanding immediate withdrawal, and they have the power to defund the war. Go ahead and do it.  And while you’re at it, why not pull all American forces out of the Middle East? Why is it a good idea to battle al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but run from al Qaeda in Iraq?

"And he was right. It WAS madness and mindless folly - just as Iraq is. Or would you rather a U.S. presence had stayed in Somalia all these years?"

If Somalia was sitting on top of the world’s largest pool of energy, and we were fighting al Qaeda for control of the region, I guarantee you we would still be there today.

by KenTX on 04/26/2007 02:06:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You can't fight Al Qaeda with tanks. (none / 0)
That's really all I wanted to say.

by jarett on 04/26/2007 02:22:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Just dont get it (none / 0)
That's funny, Bush NEVER mentions the fact that " we are fighting Al Qaeda for control of the region" . He says things pertaining to stabilizing a country that is in the midst of  a  civil war  so they can  stand on their own etc etc etc.

The problem of al qaeda and international terrorism in general is not being solved by Getting involved in a civil war in Iraq.  Its odd how that 32% just cant fucking understand that.

The difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is the fact that terrorist where there BEFORE we invaded the country.

by Left Is Right on 04/26/2007 03:26:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Remedial help for the logic-impaired. (none / 0)
"The difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is the fact that terrorist were there BEFORE we invaded the country."

Try as hard as you can to follow the next sentence. Al Qaeda is currently operating in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Did you get that?

So why would we run from the fight in Iraq while continuing to wage war with al Qaeda in Afghanistan?


by KenTX on 04/26/2007 04:40:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Black isnt white.. and American guys are dying (none / 0)
Trying to tie what is happening is Iraq to defeating global terrorism. Is a real stretch. Even for Cheney.


The 32% left are simple minded enough to think that there is going to be a big victory in Iraq  like WW2.. and Global terrorism is going to be defeated once and for all.  Or that a Civil war in Iraq somehow makes America safer. They will always think that. There is no reasoning with them.

Bush himself does not refer to defeating global terrorism. He is all about "stablizing the country" after the huge mess he made.   


by Left Is Right on 04/26/2007 05:56:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Why Iraq and not Afghanistan? (none / 0)
From now on, whenever a liberal makes a comment about Iraq, I'm going to modify the statement with the word "Afghanistan". Then you can see hear stupid the argument sounds.  Here's an example.

"Trying to tie what is happening in Afghanistan to defeating global terrorism is a real stretch, even for Cheney. The 32% left are simple minded enough to think that there is going to be a big victory in Afghanistan, like WW2, and Global Terrorism is going to be defeated once and for all.  Or that a Civil war in Afghanistan somehow makes America safer. They will always think that. There is no reasoning with them."

by KenTX on 04/26/2007 07:40:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Of courrrrrse they have to change it (none / 0)
 of courrrse the right wingers have to modify anything to do with Iraq. Because thats an argument that they cannot win with more of the same tired ass be scared be very scared rhetoric.  The American people just arent buying it..  like I said the 32% will NEVER get it.

Afghanistan ? Ohhhh btw  where is Osama? You know.. dead or alive?

by Left Is Right on 04/26/2007 10:20:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What would it take? (none / 0)
"Ohhhh btw  where is Osama?"

He's in Iraq. Is it OK with you if we stay and get him?

by KenTX on 04/26/2007 10:21:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I heard Condi got some new shoes. (none / 0)
"Ohhhh btw  where is Osama?"

He's in Iraq. Is it OK with you if we stay and get him?

What is he doing in Iraq, shopping at the market?

by jazzchic on 04/27/2007 04:18:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Everything must go (none / 0)
If I were him, that's exactly where I'd go.  It's as safe there as at an outdoor market in Indiana, haven't you heard?

by OneHitKill on 04/27/2007 12:09:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This is a quagmire now (none / 0)
Bin Laden is wanted alive.  It doesn't mean they want to catch him.  They just want him to be alive.

by OneHitKill on 04/26/2007 10:24:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Right back atcha! (none / 0)
By your logic, Al Qaeda is in Iraq because we are there. Putting aside the inevitable silliness of "them following us back here" (what's stopping them from coming over now? Is there a force field around Iraq? One big cockroach hotel; once you go in, you never come out?) if we went to Afghanistan, wouldn't they go back there? To keep fighting us? All 2000 of them?

(I shit you not - one of the hearings, can't remember which, but I'm pretty sure Leahy said it - one of our senators, in the same pre-question speech quoted 1500, then 2000, then 3000 and finally 5000. It was the fastest growing fighting force known to man. Quadrupled in 10 minutes.)

So, don't think of it as "quitting Iraq," think of it as "luring those bastard Al Qaeda terrorist sumbitches back to Afghanistan where they belong!

America! Fuck YEAH!

by MedfordTim on 04/27/2007 01:11:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You're just lobbing softballs (none / 0)
to make me happy.

"By your logic, Al Qaeda is in Iraq because we are there."
Uh, let’s see now? Why do you think al Qaeda is in Iraq?

"Putting aside the inevitable silliness of "them following us back here" (what's stopping them from coming over now?"
They seem to have their hands full with Marines, Green Berets, and Navy Seals. These guys are slightly better than United 97 passengers, who were truly America’s finest, but they were unarmed and untrained.

"Is there a force field around Iraq? One big cockroach hotel; once you go in, you never come out?)"
That’s why Rumsfield called them “dead enders”. They enter Iraq to engage the Great Satan and die for Allah.

"If we went to Afghanistan, wouldn't they go back there? So, don't think of it as "quitting Iraq," think of it as "luring those bastard Al Qaeda terrorist sumbitches back to Afghanistan where they belong!"
That’s an interesting concept. However, I think al Qaeda might stay in Iraq, just to claim victory, help the Sunnis regain control, and show the world who won the war.

I like the idea of Iraqis killing al Qaeda. This is occurring more frequently, and now even the Sunni tribes are murdering al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda does not dare enter into Kurdistan today, because they are instantly recognized, and immediately killed. This is happening more and more in the southern provinces.

We need to remain in country, at least in a support role, and allow Iraqis to do the rat killing.

As for battling al Qaeda strictly in Afghanistan, I don’t like it as much. The terrain is much more favorable for insurgents, and I don’t trust the poppy growing Afghan tribal leaders.

by KenTX on 04/27/2007 01:35:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I will assume... (none / 0)
...that you were playing some 'shots' game. I can't figure out any other way these three sentences came out the way you wanted:

"I think al Qaeda might stay in Iraq, just to claim victory, help the Sunnis regain control, and show the world who won the war."

I like the idea of Iraqis killing al Qaeda. This is occurring more frequently, and now even the Sunni tribes are murdering al Qaeda. (Actually, they have been for quite some time now - the local mullahs resent ferigners as much as Minutemen do.

Al Qaeda does not dare enter into Kurdistan today, because they are instantly recognized, and immediately killed. This is happening more and more in the southern provinces. (Actually, they never were a presence in the South - the Shia like them even less than the Kurds and Iraqi Sunnis.)

Forget Bill Kristol's wet dreams about Al Qaeda taking over Iraq - they don't have the manpower. Never did. They've been blowing smoke up your ass for five years.

HA! Gravel was great! Got my juices flowing! Tell them lyin' sons a bitches in Washington whut's whut!

We can handle the truth.

by MedfordTim on 04/27/2007 01:54:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Smart Democrat (none / 0)
Ocasionally, a smart Democrat comes along to warn his Party how they are screwing up a perfect opportunity. I don't mind sharing this with you, because liberals are too stupid to understand a good idea when they see it.

If Democrats let Bush have his war, the GOP will pay for it in 2008.

If Democrats are successful at forcing withdrawal, they will pay for what happens in the aftermath.

I think the Democrat leadership might understand this. If so, they will make an effort to give the appearance they are trying to end the war, but they will pull back at the last minute and let Bush keep the troops in Iraq.

by KenTX on 04/27/2007 02:11:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I wonder why... (none / 0)
...the only time you think a Dem is smart is when they're spouting a Rightie talking point?

Us Independents against the war will back anyone who gets us dafuck out of Iraq.

Doug Schoen needs to get his priorities straight.

by MedfordTim on 04/27/2007 12:14:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Watch the straw burn........ (none / 0)
Since you use the word "defeat" I can only assume you are a comedian looking for a laugh.

Ha.

Ha.

What do you say to the 150 million people who understand that there is no freakin' military solution and want the troops home?

You go with the Rightie fantasy of utter collapse. I'll go with "the Iraqis who are angry that foreign occupiers are in their country won't be able to use the U.S. as a scapegoat for their actions. They can't accomplish ANYTHING as long as their country is under U.S. occupation - Iraqis have no faith that their "government" has their interests at heart - they are seen as America enablers. Our presence gives aid and comfort to the "enemy."

by MedfordTim on 04/27/2007 11:42:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
THIS JUST IN! (none / 0)
Sunni tribal leaders killed the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Read what KenTX said just a couple of days ago:

"I like the idea of Iraqis killing al Qaeda. This is occurring more frequently, and now even the Sunni tribes are murdering al Qaeda. Al Qaeda does not dare enter into Kurdistan today, because they are instantly recognized, and immediately killed. This is happening more and more in the southern provinces. We need to remain in country, at least in a support role, and allow Iraqis to do the rat killing."

by KenTX on 05/01/2007 07:08:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nickname impaired (none / 0)
For the record, I get tired of Left Is Right, too.  But BB, what does "Left Is Reicht" mean??  Is that supposed to be some kind of German joke?  If so, did you perhaps mean "Reich?"  Or "Recht?"

by OneHitKill on 04/26/2007 10:21:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It is now unanimous! (none / 0)
"For the record, I get tired of Left Is Right, too."

-Jesse "One Hit Kill" Jace

by KenTX on 04/26/2007 10:23:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Duh, dude (none / 0)
It's been unanimous for weeks, man.  My posts are a veritable font of information if you read them right.

by OneHitKill on 04/26/2007 10:25:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
HA! (none / 0)
Sorry, can't argue tonight! The more I see of Gravel the happier I am! It's like he was channeling my thoughts.

Oh, some of the stuff you were questioning at first were the sarcastic comments from my rightie friend about the U.N. so I can't blame you for being confused - it's what all the righties think lefties think about the U.N. Threw you off.

There's a lot of information about Somalia and what our mission was supposed to be, some of it incredibly interesting because it's written from a historical point of view instead of political. The role of Al Qaeda had as much to do with Somalia as they do in Iraq today. Let something blow up, they'll take credit. Still funny that the administration says it's Al Qaeda when it's a Shia bomber...huh...

"If Somalia was sitting on top of the world’s largest pool of energy..."

Well, I know you Texans always want the biggest and the best, and poor lil' Somalia only has a lot of oil, not the most, but it was enough that Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips were able to get attention back in '91. Don't be so condescending to Somalia, they're keeping Ethiopia employed. (And you're paying for it! HA!)



by MedfordTim on 04/27/2007 12:46:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Verbatim Quotes from Republicans when Clinton was Prez. | 38 comments (38 topical, 0 hidden)