Conservatives now back nation-building missions(against it during Clinton)

[sabra]

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20051215-110947-8942r

Conservatives now back nation-building missions

WASHINGTON -- Conservatives who criticized President Clinton for sending the military on scores of overseas missions in the 1990s now are supporting nation-building as a major role of the U.S. armed forces.

Much of the conservatives' criticism was based on the fact that the Clinton administration cut the defense budget and depleted readiness while sending troops on 48 combat missions, humanitarian relief efforts and peacekeeping forays from Somalia to Kosovo to Haiti.


The Pentagon announced Tuesday that rebuilding a country would become a top military mission so that al Qaeda terrorists do not take control of ungoverned areas or failed states.

"I was publicly critical of Clinton for neglecting our military -- leadership and budget share -- and then using it as 'meals on wheels' missions such as Kosovo and Rwanda," said Robert Maginnis, a retired Army officer and prominent military analyst. "Clinton never linked these nation-building missions to our national-security interests. Today, in the wake of the attacks on September 11 and the war on terrorism that has roused so many of the terrorist rats out of places like Afghanistan and Iraq, we have no choice but to help rebuild those nations and plant democracy that will vaccinate them against Islamist radicals in the future."

[SpiralHawk]

1. The Big Difference now: Repubs are placed to make Billions

on Nation Building, because BushCo Cronies and Cabalists get the fat, and the people of the nations get the shit.

That's the only reason the NeoCons have flip-flopped so skankily on the Nation Building issue.

Neocon flip-floppers -- when there is booty to be had.

[Coastie for Truth]

4. The Big Difference Now is Classic Neocon-PNAC Doctrine

1. , i.e., projecting US military power to assert hegemony over oil.

2.

National Energy Strategy

It's taken years for the U.S. to conclude that a National Energy Strategy is of paramount importance. The oil and natural gas industry welcomes the opportunity to work with government decision-makers to shape a fair and effective National Energy Strategy.

Current Oil and Natural Gas Supply Situation Makes Clear that a National Energy Policy is Needed

Until recently energy has not been an overriding government priority. Past supply interruptions and price fluctuations showcased the problems for the failure to develop an effective national energy strategy.

U.S. energy producers have general guidance for policy makers aimed at increasing the nation's energy supplies.

IT'S ALL ABOUT OIL

[yurbud]

5. good link. We have to move this to CENTER of debate

[Cha]

2. Well, Fuck them and their

Lyin' Flip Floppin' elephants they rode in on.

[KansDem]

3. "...the Clinton administration cut the defense budget"

Much of the conservatives' criticism was based on the fact that the Clinton administration cut the defense budget...

The Berlin Wall fell in 1989, so why keep the same military "readiness?" The willful ignorance of Neo-Cons never fails to amaze me...