Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: UnBlinkingEye
I disagree with this statement by you "I think it would have been better if an Ex-President had come out against the criminal attack on Serbia the disgrace of a President Clinton undertook in support of Muslim terrorists to distract from his own problems."

Though I almost bit my tongue in two during his Presidency,... I know that once our troops are committed, it can only serve to cause GREAT HARM to MORE OF OUR TROOPS if we undermine the role of a Commander in Chief.

EVEN with Clinton as President, there are people who would never obey an unlawful order. The Military has intelligence they gather, and base intervention/action and responses on. I don't doubt Clinton used it to "wag the dog", but it was probably suggested that such action take place WELL BEFORE HE USED IT. Or, he didn't use it the way he was advised to use it. In otherwords, he didn't go far enough. Because he is a coward.

Though we could not stand Clinton, we still stood united in supporting the decision of the "Commander in Chief". We still admired the fact, that despite political differences, the Republicans stood behind him too. Because to do otherwise, endangers our troops. IT doesn't matter if the President is Democrat or Republican. To suggest otherwise would be the epitomy of hypocrisy.

420 posted on 10/04/2002 1:51:06 PM PDT by Vets_Husband_and_Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies ]


To: Vets_Husband_and_Wife
I think that our troops should always be supported and honored, but I don't think we should blindly follow the politicians who send them to war.
422 posted on 10/04/2002 4:31:01 PM PDT by UnBlinkingEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson