Certainly you can't. The claim was made that the sniping was hurting the effectiveness and the morale of the military. If we can't have decreased effectiveness and morale under this President, then we can't have it while under one with a D next to their name.
We'll never know because Clinton was risk averse.
That's a straw man argument. We don't know what he would do. Yes, he is more risk adverse than W. But then too so was Reagan. But both W and Reagan are superior to Clinton. But the fact remains, Free Republic would applaud a former general or admiral if they came out against Clinton or his sec of defense. If it's wrong under W it would be wrong under Clinton or any other D, especially if our claim is that these are unique times and we shouldn't be using television and the public press as the forum to discuss the shortcomings that have occurred during this war.
Joe,
There was some dissention on the floor of the house by Republicans while Clinton attacked 6 countries in a two year period. They said their piece and then moved on.
The entire political might and machine of the DNC has been thrown at undermining this war. A big difference. They consciously decided to crack a few eggs with the troops.
Our country is in trouble and we are in a weaker position now because of it. The Iranians and our advesaries know it.