A blast from the (recent) past

Tom DeLay stuck to a predictable and insulting line over the weekend at a banquet for 200 troops and their families. Using the typical right-wing talking points, DeLay lashed out at Democrats and repeated the “stay the course” mantra.

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay told a group of soldiers Saturday night that withdrawing troops from Iraq now would be “a death warrant for Americans in future terrorist attacks.” […]

On Saturday, DeLay said talk of troop withdrawal by Democrats, whom he described as the “cut and run caucus,” was the wrong thing to do. “America is America because we don’t quit in the face of overwhelming odds,” the Texas Republican said.

DeLay is of the opinion that once the United States starts a war, we keep fighting until we can confidently declare victory. Complaints from critics should be ignored, and the critics themselves should be held suspect for disparaging the commander-in-chief while troops are in harm’s way. As far as DeLay is concerned, we never, ever, “cut and run.”

With this in mind, I thought it might be fun to have a quick quiz. Who said the following:

1) A member of the House said, “The White House has bombed its way around the globe. International respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.” About the troops’ mission, the lawmaker complained that “no one wants us to be there” and that the president’s effort “has harmed [our] standing in the world.”

2) A member also publicly called on Congress to consider de-funding the war, while troops are still in battle, and “pull out the forces we now have in the region.”

3) A member also said that once a U.S.-led coalition “starts meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, where does it stop?” The lawmaker added that the United States is “starting to resemble a power-hungry imperialist army” and portrayed our mission as an “occupation by foreigners.”

OK, which America-hating traitors uttered these words after the president sent troops into harm’s way? Who would dare risk undermining troop morale with such hateful rhetoric while these brave men and women are putting their lives on the line?

All three came from the same member of Congress: it was Tom DeLay sharing his insights after President Clinton’s war in Kosovo began in 1999.

It’s funny how perspectives change over time, isn’t it?

Why does DeLay hate America?

or

9/11 changed everything.

Take your pick.

  • Brian is onto it: “why does DeLay hate America” is a great line. I think Dems should realize that they have to stop playing the game of “I can’t say that or they’ll lash out at me.” Well, Dems, I got news for you: they’ll lash out whether you said something moderate or extreme, so you mind as well stop pulling your punches.

    And as a follow-up to that statement, and Dem with a decent pair could lead into the, “but the president’s plan is a bold lie and a PR stunt. He doesn’t care about the troops!” Read CB’s “Feavor” post and what leg does he have to stand on?

  • Tom DeLay is a BIG FAT HYPOCRITE, but the funny/ironic thing is that, while he was wrong then, his statements are correct now.

  • Good old Hot-Tub Tommy, who couldn’t get in the Army during Vietnam despite his strong desire to do so, because all those minorities had already taken the volunteer positions available to the patriotic white boy, so they could “get all those good benefits.”

    Synonyms for “Republican” – coward, liar, cheat, hypocrite. Indicted criminal.

    Ah yes, the Party of Convictions (5-10 for “patriotic theft”)

  • Here’s Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney in a 1992, post-Gulf War I speech at Seattle’s Discovery Institute:

    “I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today,” he said, referring to the decision by Bush I to halt the U.S. advance. “We’d be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

    “And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don’t think you could have done all that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn’t a cheap war.

    “And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? The answer is not that damned many.

    “So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we’d achieved our objectives and we were not going to get bogged down in the problem of trying to take over and govern Iraq.”

    For this and other dark comparisons between this “war” and that war, see today’s excellent column by the Pacific Northwest’s premier political columnist Joel Connolly in today’s Seattle P-I.

  • least we forget Eisenhower took a truce in the face of overwhelming odds (the chinese) and Nixon took “peace with honor” as he cut and ran

  • You beat me to it, Ed. I saw that Cheney
    quotation over the weekend, but don’t
    remember the site. Why won’t the media
    make something of all this hypocrisy? It’s
    like the Bush administration has been
    checkmated 77 times, but nobody notices
    and they just keep moving the pieces
    around the board.

  • Seems like it would be confusing as all get out to be T.D. Your full of s**t self would always be running into your corrupt as hell self and how could you tell if you’re coming or going. Hopefully his convicted self will pull it all together and regroup in a small cell. Give him a taste of how a roach motel works from the inside.

    O’ Bugman, Where art thou? Cuttin’ n runnin’ Lord, cuttin’ n runnin’.

  • Comments are closed.