Replies

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.

Calm down! We pretty much agree on your points. "Strong" is one of those words in this context that provides no guidence. Clinton certainly was not reluctant to use the American military overseas nor was he an isolationist.

Is that strong or weak? The question is meaningless. The more important question is strong or weak for what purpose?