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

To: Peach
Clinton wasn't "strong" on foreign policy? What exactly do you mean? He toppled a government in Haiti, intervened in Bosnia, bombed Kosovo, intervened in Somalia, and bombed Iraq on an almost weekly basis for his entire term.

He was also a liar. He claimed that there was genocide in Kosovo (there wasn't). There may be WMDs in Iraq but Clinton the liar is hardly a credible source, no matter how matter anyone spins it.

136 posted on 06/01/2003 11:54:17 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]


To: Austin Willard Wright
So in your view Clinton WAS strong on foreign policy because he bombed places? Places we didn't have a national interest in, places he lied about, bills he promoted such as the Iraqi Liberation Act and got everyone whipped up about WMD but did nothing about? That's strong on national policy?

He also allowed how many attacks by AQ but did nothing about? Although our military asked for tanks on the ground to protect themselves during the Black Hawk down incident, he refused to permit it.

How often was he offered OBL's head on a platter and refused because "he didn't have enough to indict him". Indict him - hell - fry him.

I think our opinions on a strong national defense differ greatly and I'd be willing to bet that more Americans feel Clinton was strong domestically but weak on foreign policy.

Is giving North Korea your idea of a good foreign policy, too. Sheesh.

142 posted on 06/01/2003 11:59:31 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | 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