Replies

I am a firm supporter of GWB on the war and feel Clinton did NOT do enough -- as the Washington Post article linked here suggests.
BUT the headline on this post is VERY misleading.
This does NOT say he wagged the dog. In fact, it says he took weak actions and it also points the finger at some of OUR weak-kneed Republican colleagues at the time.
In fact, go to the link YOURSELF and read it. Here is one section:

Republicans who now line up behind President Bush were in many cases particularly irresponsible; when Mr. Clinton did bomb Iraqi weapons sites in 1998, some GOP leaders accused him of seeking only to distract the nation from his impeachment worries. Through the end of Mr. Clinton's tenure and the first year of Mr. Bush's presidency, Saddam Hussein built up his power, beat back sanctions and found new space to rearm -- all with the support of France and Russia and the acquiescence of the United States.
So this crisis is ONLY due to Clinton waggin the dog? NO. Both parties twiddled their thumbs and Clinton was weak and incompetent.
Read this yourself. I guess from now on I have to read every word of every article linked here to ensure I really find out what it says. Again, go to the link.
I saw this and I thought: WOW! The Washington Post really blasted him.
NO...the Post blasted b-o-t-h parties.
I would include a copy of this to win over people who defend Clinton, unless it is heavily edited, but then we'd be doing what Carville & Co would do.

That the Post "blasts both parties' is precisely my point. That the Post 'blasts' clinton is self-evident. Indeed, by inserting 'only,' the Post is even allowing that clinton wagged the dog!

But what the Post is doing here is trying to spare the DEMOCRATIC PARTY by spreading the blame to the Republicans--sophistry in my view. If the commander in chief is unwilling to take on Iraq (or terrorism, generally), there is litlle that the Congress can do, short of impeachment.

(I would agree with the Post's argument, if by 'Republican irresponsibility,' they means their failure to depose the impotent ba$tard, but I don't think that is what the Post intended.

"Republicans who now line up behind President Bush were in many cases particularly irresponsible; when Mr. Clinton did bomb Iraqi weapons sites in 1998, some GOP leaders accused him of seeking only to distract the nation from his impeachment worries. Through the end of Mr. Clinton's tenure and the first year of Mr. Bush's presidency, Saddam Hussein built up his power, beat back sanctions and found new space to rearm -- all with the support of France and Russia and the acquiescence of the United States."

That is Zackley why Clinton shouldda RESIGNED as he had lost ALL credibility by his second term...and Kosovo was simply Clinton WaggingTheDog...there was no other reason for--and no benefit derived from--KILLING THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT MEN, WOMEN, and CHILDREN 'cept fer Slick Willie and his ButtBuddies in the VastLeftWingMedyuhWhore'd needed to change the subject from the FACT that William Jefferson Blythe Clinton was, is, and will always be a Serial RAPIST, a Mass-Murderer of Innocents, a bald-faced LIAR, an Obstructor of Justice, a TRAITOR and a unrepentant TYRANT and TYRANT-Supporter!!

Slick Willie Shall REPENT Before CosmicJustice is done with him!!

Good to see you agree with Mia T...MUD

I am a firm supporter of GWB on the war and feel Clinton did NOT do enough ---

Has anyone discussed this consequence of Clinton's reputed use of 450 missiles in this effort at 'weapons degradation?'

I believe he did it partially to 'unilaterally' disarm our own Military preparedness. We sure did not get much bang for the buck from those 450 missiles if they were sent to true targets. But he, Cohen, Sandy Berger and those other stellar military strategists did everything they could to destroy our country - and BJC is Still doing it!