Linda_K
|
posted on March 13, 2003 06:12:07 AM new
Hollywood celebs arent anti-war. They just hate the President
The article points out what some stars were saying when clinton was in office vs. what they're saying now.
Even shows clinton saying the same thing about Iraq that President Bush is saying....but somehow to some it's different now. right....
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110003188
Hollywood celebrities have become the most visible opponents of liberating Iraq. But as proof that where you stand depends on whether your friends are in power, let's look back at how those same celebrities reacted when Bill Clinton deployed U.S. power in Afghanistan, Sudan and Kosovo.
Actor Mike Farrell....has emerged as a leading antiwar activist. This month, he even engaged in a surreal debate on geopolitics with former senator Fred Thompson on "Meet the Press." "It is inappropriate," Farrell declared, "for the administration to trump up a case in which we are ballyhooed into war. "But in 1999, Mr. Farrell defended the Clinton administration's rationale for war in Kosovo: "I think it's appropriate for the international community in situations like this to intervene. I am in favor of an intervention." To avoid casualties, the Clinton administration had bombers fly at such high altitudes that "collateral damage" to civilians was bound to increase.
Hollywood stars were oddly silent when Mr. Clinton dropped bombs on Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in Sudan in 1998 in an unsuccessful attempt to deter Osama bin Laden. They were silent when, also in 1998, Mr. Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law and made regime change official U.S. policy. Andrew Breitbart, who is writing a book on Hollywood, jokes that "to not notice this, the stars would have to have been sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom, or perhaps performing at the White House."
AND THE LIST GOES ON.
I've stated here before than I believe some here are the same way. If clinton were still in office doing exactly the same thing, it'd be alright with many here. But the fact that President Bush is doing so is somehow different in their eyes. ....right
It's the same policy.
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 13, 2003 06:14 AM ]
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 13, 2003 06:16:14 AM new
That is the sad part Linda, people can look past politics to see what is the right thing to do... if Gore had won, then there wouldn't even be any discussion on this...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND... 
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 13, 2003 06:33:18 AM new
Mornin' twelvepole - I agree. They DID support clinton, in these same actions, and they would have supported Gore in doing the exact same thing. After all, clinton made it US policy when in office.....but for Bush to continue with that policy...oh that's somehow different to them now. Yes, very, very sad.
|
bear1949
|
posted on March 13, 2003 07:56:30 AM new
I'm still waiting for all those anti Bush celebs to leave the USA. After all didn't they say that if George Bush were elected president they would leave?
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 13, 2003 08:01:21 AM new
Yes, Alex Baldwin was going to....guess his word means nothing.  Some of them will say anything to get their 3 minutes in front of a camera.
|
DeSquirrel
|
posted on March 13, 2003 08:02:18 AM new
Don Imus was talking about that "debate" between Farrell and Thompson on his radio show. He made it sound like Farrell looked like a complete idiot.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 13, 2003 08:18:40 AM new
DeSquirrel - How could it not do so?
Five years later totally reversing your position would be hard to explain away, especially when the only difference is a democratic president vs a republican one. I'd love to hear them all answer to the reason why or what has changed to make them do a complete reversal on the issue.
|
krs
|
posted on March 13, 2003 08:22:58 AM new
Are you really so stupid as to not see that in each of the cases cited in which Bill clinton sent troops or air power it was as part of an international effort either as a member of NATO or with UN sanction and not as a single go it alone bullying action? It's true that US forces often make up the bulk of those entered into international efforts but the distinction remains: it's one thing to act as a part of a coalition of nations and quite another to make war on our own. Had Clinton ever done what dumbya intends to do there would have been as much, or likely much more, outcry against that as there is against this. Bush's war is NOT the same, dopey.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 13, 2003 08:27:34 AM new
krs - Bill Clinton still supports Saddam being removed AND that a regime change is needed....and has publically been quoted as saying so.
Yes, he has pubically said, recently, that Bush should get more UN agreement. BUT HE DIDN'T do what he's telling Bush to do, did he?
On the UN issue....please enlighten me by providing a link to a site that shows where clinton got UN approval before bombing Iraq in 1998. Or even show me where he went before Congress in 1998 to get their approval/permission to bomb Iraq. He didn't.
|
krs
|
posted on March 13, 2003 08:31:11 AM new
Read the link you provided, idiot. It's sprinkled quite noticably with references to NATO and the UN when speaking of the actions taken.
I'm not wasting the weeks it would take to get you to see even the smallest point of light.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 13, 2003 08:39:04 AM new
oh....more name calling.
You just can't admit he didn't can you? It's a fact....no matter how you try and make it into something else.
Clinton didn't because he knew he'd have faced exactly the same UN opposition Bush is now facing.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 13, 2003 08:56:56 AM new
Taken from the WashingtonPost today:
In a Democratic Party split over the issue of Iraq, the former president remains one of the most potent and compelling spokesmen. And he has generally sided with the party's hawks, endorsing the move to disarm Iraq while promoting the need for more skillful diplomacy along the way.
Last month, for example, Clinton told NBC's "Today" co-host Katie Couric that Hussein is "a murderer, a liar and a thug" who "is going to have to disarm . . . if he wants to avoid war."
To CNN's Larry King, Clinton said Bush is "doing the right thing now." Clinton agreed with the Bush administration that the United States is justified in using military force to disarm Iraq. "I don't think the president needs another Security Council resolution, as a matter of international law," he told Couric.
At the same time, Clinton has urged Bush to try hard for U.N. support. Something he himself didn't do.
Defenders of Bush's Iraq policy have argued that it was Clinton, in 1998, who first argued that "regime change" is the only way to ensure disarmament in Iraq.
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 13, 2003 09:00 AM ]
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 13, 2003 09:19:09 AM new
Nice Slam dunk Linda!
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
|
getalife
|
posted on March 13, 2003 09:35:26 AM new
Linka_K "let's look back at how those same celebrities reacted when Bill Clinton deployed U.S. power in Afghanistan, Sudan and Kosovo."
Talk about hypocrites. What did the Republicans say when Clinton bombed the Sudan and Al Quaida in Afghanistan? They certainly didn't congratulate him on his war on terrorism.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 13, 2003 09:36:51 AM new
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17886-2003Mar12.html
Linda, You missed this statement by Clinton in that article.
"I'm not so sure we can't still avoid war and disarm Saddam Hussein," Clinton said, "but we've all got to be together. We can't waive the option of using force, but we ought to do this in a way that brings the world together, not divides it."
The goals may be similar but the policy in achieving the goal is so different between Clinton and Bush.
As Reamond so accurately predicted just a few years ago, "Let Bush take office- it will be the biggest failed presidency in our history. No mandate, no respect, no power of office, no reason to be there. A laughing stock at home and abroad."
Helen
ed. to bold.
[ edited by Helenjw on Mar 13, 2003 10:04 AM ]
|
junquemama
|
posted on March 13, 2003 10:09:45 AM new
Helen,.. ...Reamond said that?
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 13, 2003 10:18:11 AM new
Helen - How easy of clinton to say that, when he himself didn't go via that avenue. He did it without getting Congressional approval NOR UN approval. Him say Bush should is un-excuseable when he didn't.
What in the world do you think Bush HAS been doing? He has been trying to find a workable way around war. But when several countries have financial interests in the country that BOTH he and clinton believe should have a regime and leader change in that's pretty hard to fight that. Clinton wasn't facing these same issue 5 years ago.
I read today on CNN that talks are going on for Saddam to step down. If that does happen we won't be going to war. If not we most likely will....even if alone.
-----------
Getalife - Not the same at all. Republicans were upset that Clinton had - ALL BY HIMSELF - decided to take the nation to war. They wanted to debate it in Congress....but Clinton didn't.
And clinton and carter shouldn't be giving advice to Bush. Other presidents have remained silent while the new administration is in office....a courtesy they have not provided Bush. Shame, shame.
It's Bush's call as to when and if we go to war.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 13, 2003 10:28:55 AM new
Linda, He needs all the advice he can get.
Junquemama 
http://www.auctionwatch.com/mesg/read.html?num=28&thread=37306&id=37306
Reamond also recognized Clinton's superior leadership ability when he said in the same thread, "He has done more for this country than the last three presidents combined."
Clinton was also a world leader and that is what we need now.
Helen
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 13, 2003 10:34:51 AM new
I've mentioned that before. At least Reamond can detach from his dislike of Bush to put his countries best interest first. Unlike some of you who still can't admit clinton said the same thing in 1998 that Bush is saying now.
|
reamond
|
posted on March 13, 2003 11:01:58 AM new
Clinton had a wonderful presidency, but as Linda said, I am not so simple minded to put politics before my country.
But there is yet another problem with all this UN business.
All these quasi-patriots claim that invading Iraq is OK if the UN goes alongs.
There are two huge problems with this view.
First; if it is the right thing to do, it is right regardless of the UN going along. There is nothing to add to the argument if the UN approves use of force. This position is clearly a tangent with rationale thought. IN FACT, EVERY MILITARY ACTION DONE WITH UN APPROVAL HAS BEEN A FAILURE. KOREA AND IRAQ ARE TWO GLARING EXAMPLES.
Second, most of you insisting on UN approval are also conspiracy theorists. If the United States can not act in its own interests without UN approval, we have lost our sovereignty.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 13, 2003 11:03:50 AM new
Clinton did not alienate nearly every country in the world before making his statement, Linda.
"I'm not so sure we can't still avoid war and disarm Saddam Hussein," Clinton said, "but we've all got to be together. We can't waive the option of using force, but we ought to do this in a way that brings the world together, not divides it."
Helen
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 13, 2003 11:08:34 AM new
Starting to repeat yourself Helen?
I can do the same....
Clinton said Bush is "doing the right thing now." Clinton agreed with the Bush administration that the United States is justified in using military force to disarm Iraq. "I don't think the president needs another Security Council resolution, as a matter of international law," he told Couric. Get it now? Your boy doesn't think Bush needs another Security Council resolution....by the UN before going to war.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 13, 2003 11:10:09 AM new
Something else, Helen. Are you now stating that IF Bush did get UN approval you'd support the war in Iraq? ...
I didn't think so. So your argument is really a moot point.
|
Tex1
|
posted on March 13, 2003 11:14:19 AM new
"Clinton did not alienate nearly every country in the world before making his statement, Linda"
Please, name all, or most, of the countries that we have alienated. There are a lot more countries in Europe that support us than oppose. France and Germany do not make up the world. Truth is, most countries couldn't give a rat's azz what happens in Iraq...one way, or the other.
|
reamond
|
posted on March 13, 2003 11:15:36 AM new
Hey Linda- go look at the thread about the destruction of 9-11 memorial. I left you a message and a link that updates the situation.
|
DeSquirrel
|
posted on March 13, 2003 11:57:04 AM new
"Clinton did not alienate nearly every country in the world before making his statement"
They are "alienated" in about the same way your neighbor is when you find out he offers you something at twice the regular price. They become "unalienated" when YOU cool off.
|
Julesy
|
posted on March 13, 2003 12:07:44 PM new
Talk about hypocrites. What did the Republicans say when Clinton bombed the Sudan and Al Quaida in Afghanistan? They certainly didn't congratulate him on his war on terrorism.
Oh, I remember how Republicans reacted when he authorized those bombings. They had no time to care about terrorism, between their drooling shrieks of "Wag the Dog" and their incessant whining about blow jobs and cattle futures.
|
NearTheSea
|
posted on March 13, 2003 12:15:39 PM new
Helen, how long does it take to find posts from that long ago?
posted on November 10, 2000 06:34:49 AM
That was over 2 years ago.
Not being smart (like I usually would be ) but dang, how do you find these things?
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 13, 2003 12:24:56 PM new
Julesy - Yep....somthing about him pointing his finger at the TV camera and saying to the WHOLE country I NEVER had sex with that woman. Then lying under oath...that kind of bothered me too. I don't do well with liars. Do it...fess up...but don't lie. But there are too many other reasons I won't mention.
You still voting for a third party canidate next time?
On a little more friendly note:
Hope the girls are well...and that things are going well for you too.
|
clarksville
|
posted on March 13, 2003 12:56:20 PM new
Linda if I may, I have the opinion that some of the "hollywierd" folks are too proud to say they either were "wrong" about Bush and/or too proud to say they support him, particularly those who were so outspoken against him. <g>
|
