Posted on 10/18/2003 11:03:34 AM PDT by Forgiven_Sinner
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (news - web sites), busy plugging her new autobiography, went to Paris to give the French a thumbs-up for trying to obstruct President Bush (news - web sites)'s efforts to depose Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).
"It's difficult for me to be in France and criticize my government," said Albright - who then went on to prove that it really wasn't so hard at all.
"But I'm doing so," she said, "because Bush and the people working for him have a foreign policy that is not good for America, not good for the world."
And she went even further, saying France was "a little bit right" to oppose the Iraq (news - web sites) war.
Now, we understand that controversy helps sell books.
But to declare - in the heart of Weasel-land, no less - that George Bush's foreign policy is "not good for the world" not only sows confusion among our allies (not to mention our enemies), it's patently wrong on the merits.
And Albright herself has little standing to criticize anyone's Iraq policy.
Fact is, the Bush team found itself in the unpleasant position of having to clean up the mess that Albright and her boss, Bill Clinton (news - web sites), made of the Iraq situation.
From Day One, the Clinton folks flip-flopped on confronting Saddam.
And the Iraqi despot continually called the Clinton-Albright bluffs - especially every time the pair threatened "imminent" military action.
In 1998, for example, the Clintonites vowed "no deals" with Saddam - just two weeks before signing on to a deal, brokered by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites), in which Washington backed down on the use of force in return for vague promises of Iraqi cooperation with weapons inspectors.
Later, Clinton drew another line in the sand, declaring that "everyone understands that this is the last go-around." But within days, he backed down again, urging folks not to "overreact."
Albright herself, it turned out, had pressed chief weapons inspector Richard Butler to stop all surprise inspections of Saddam's facilities.
Little wonder, then, that Saddam was hardly quaking in his boots during the Clinton-Albright years.
It would be too much to expect Bill Clinton to publicly disavow Albright's nonsense, even though - unlike most Democrats - he has firmly defended the president's decision to finally move against Saddam.
Instead, Clinton - no doubt with an eye toward the 2004 campaign - is claiming that he warned Bush that Saddam Hussein was a less-compelling threat to America than Osama bin Laden (news - web sites).
It's revisionism at its best.
And reason to be thankful that Team Clinton is no longer around to further muck up U.S. foreign policy.
FMCDH
LOL... The French know a lying coward when they see one.... AND APPLAUD HIM / HER... How long did it take for the appause to die down ?..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.