Anyone else horrified their tax dollars buy death?

[Rusty Trichome]

and don't forget that "liberal fascism" was only coined in one book by Jonah Goldberg, a nationalistic reactionary convinced the liberals were responsible for all that was wrong with America, and that it's not taken seriously as a genuine ideology...just a conservative conspiracy, nothing more.

To you it's a conservative conspiracy. To the rest of us...it's an obvious title, but regardless...you disregard the content and the ideology of a book you've never read, simply by reading the reviews? At least you got your info from a reliable sourse, lol.

Well lets see...Clinton (before Bush II took office) saw the same reports, heard the same arguments, Obama's uncle Saddam kept reminding everyone in the world that he had nukes, and was giving the UN the middle finger as they tried to quell the situation with sanctions and embargo's. This all happened before George W Bush was elected to office, or is that just one of those forgettable little facts you keep trying to defend your "insight" with?

A little Iraq-attack timeline: Anyone recognize the players involved and cited...? Seems to me this is a liberal administration actually on the road to making some sense...yet when Bush II inherited the fiasco, Bush has gotten the blame. Childish, inaccurate and revisionist.

(After the election, but just before Clinton was taking office)
January 13, 1993: As Bill Clinton is about to take office, he states: "I am a Baptist. I believe in death-bed conversions. If he [Hussein] (Saddam...not Barack) wants a different relationship with the United States and the United Nations, all he has to do is change his behavior." (The New York Times, January 14, 1993)

January 14, 1993: In the face of criticism, particularly from The New York Times, that he might lift sanctions and even normalize relations with Iraq, Clinton backtracks: "There is no difference between my policy and the policy of the present Administration.... I have no intention of normalizing relations with him." (See The New York Times and Boston Globe, January 15, 1993) Incoming Secretary of State Warren Christopher: "I find it hard to share the Baptist belief in redemption.... I see no substantial change in the position and continuing total support for what the [Bush] administration has done."

January 12, 1995: While inspections are taking place, though not complete, Ambassador Madeleine Albright says the U.S. is "determined to oppose any modification of the sanctions regime until Iraq has moved to comply with all its outstanding obligations." She specifically cites the return of Kuwaiti weaponry and non-military equipment. (Reuters, January 12, 1995)
(After Clinton takes office)

May 12, 1996: On "60 Minutes," Lesley Stahl asks Albright: "We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. Is the price worth it?" Albright responds: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price-we think the price is worth it."

Late 1996: The United Nations begins "oil-for-food" program.

March 26, 1997: Albright, in her first major foreign policy address as Secretary of State: "We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted. Our view, which is unshakable, is that Iraq must prove its peaceful intentions. It can only do that by complying with all of the Security Council resolutions to which it is subjected. Is it possible to conceive of such a government under Saddam Hussein? When I was a professor, I taught that you have to consider all possibilities. As Secretary of State, I have to deal in the realm of reality and probability. And the evidence is overwhelming that Saddam Hussein's intentions will never be peaceful."

November 14, 1997: President Clinton. [During a standoff on weapons inspectors] "What he [Hussein] says his objective is, is to relieve the people of Iraq, and presumably the government, of the burden of the sanctions. What he has just done is to ensure that the sanctions will be there until the end of time or as long as he lasts. So I think that if his objective is to try to get back into the business of manufacturing vast stores of weapons of mass destruction and then try to either use them or sell them, then at some point the United States, and more than the United States, would be more than happy to try to stop that."

November 30, 1997: Ambassador Bill Richardson in the Washington Post: "To the extent Saddam used the inspectors' two-week absence to hide weapons, he has only delayed for Iraq the time it will take the UNSCOM team to ensure compliance, therefore further delaying any possibility of lifting sanctions."


If you'd like...there's more. But I'm fascinated by the left-wing hacks trying to blame everything on the conservatives.

You say I don't tolerate your values, and that I try to paint you as a fascist? Let's cut the irony with a knife, especially with the second part of that sentence. I never said you're racist--I'm sure you're not. My quarrel is not with you as a person, but with certain ideas that perpetuate war.

You slam my religion, my country, my patriotism and my values, and we have never met. Where were your concerns in the 1990's when the Clinton administration was going thru the above-cited timeframe...or was it ok back then because a liberal was in charge? Whatever...

All you did was provide a definition of fascism and then say I fit the bill, as if it's self-evident.

No...all I did was to post the definition of fascism, as some in here are unaware of the ideology, it's goals and it's occational violent nature. You say you abhore violence, and continue to spout psychobabble in an attempt to sway others to your views of the necessity for radical, godless social reforms, regardless of the facts behind your anger. I say again...the education system has failed you tremendously.

All I am advocating is peace, and you have yet to explain to me what is fascistic about recommending we put away the bombs. I know we've gotten WIDELY side-tracked in this thread,

No... And this is the problem I have with your ideology. Because you refuse to put into context the story behind your fooliish words, the facts behind the decisions to go to war escape you, so you must be right, 'eh?

I think you equate me with an oppressive kind of liberalism where speech and thought is severely restricted by political correctness. I'm not politically correct and I don't seek to silence or oppress anybody.

Same here. But my goal is to get you folks that twist and rewrite history at your leisure to understand...I am not sure I've ever been politically correct, but I will call bullshit when I see it, and defend my religion, my country and my philosophy against all invaders.

When something is worth fighting for, I do not roll-over and play dead. I expect my country to do the same. And since I believe every country has the same right to defend itself, as we have to defend our homes and families, it is often a necessary evil.