Politics: A new beginning

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
In order to answer your question, I think we would need to go hot spot by hot spot, but here is a quick list of those I can remember off the top of my head: Rwanda, Aphganistan, North Korea, the Middle East (i.e., Palestine/Israel), Iraq, Somalia and Haiti. Did I miss any?

My central thesis is that Clinton was willing to act in low risk areas (Haiti) and used a band-aid or ostrich approach everywhere else.

That critique doesn't work for the Middle East, where Clinton worked like two yaks, and took great risks -- but the two sides weren't ready. The Palestinian Leadership, in particular, hadn't bled enough to give up their search for an ideal victory.

As to the rest -- Maybe so, but to make this a credible attack , you'd have to explain what he realistically could have done differently in addition to what you think he should have done. Remember, post -1997 the Arkansas Project was bearing fruit.

BTW -- He did issue an Executive Order authorizing the terminaion of bin Laden and the disruption of al Qaeda.

(Also -- what was wrong with his Haiti policy? It headed off the predicted and feared vast wave of immigrant boat people.)

[sgtclub]

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/372563|top|12-11-2003::17:05|reuters.html

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A missile from a U.S. Navy Aegis cruiser shattered a dummy warhead over the Pacific on Thursday, the fourth intercept in five tests of the sea-based leg of a planned multi-layered missile shield, the Pentagon said."

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Perhaps it originated there, but there was a long hiatus from 1980 through 1992.

Yeah? What about Beirut?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Yeah? What about Beirut?

What was the perception problem in regards to Beirut?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(Also -- what was wrong with his Haiti policy? It headed off the predicted and feared vast wave of immigrant boat people.)

I think the people of South Florida would beg to differ with you on that one.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
BTW -- He did issue an Executive Order authorizing the terminaion of bin Laden and the disruption of al Qaeda.

Gephardt's doing those 'xecutive orders to violate S. Ct. decisions; ain't nothing. clinton was offered Bin Ladin on a platter and walked. The guy blew up 2 embassies and a boat. Why didn't bill do more?

I have grown since my early sock clinton bashing days. I just bash the French, but when Club calls out bs on clinton dodging tough stuff- maybe you guys should ignore that post- just a suggestion!

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What was the perception problem in regards to Beirut?

I thought that the issue originated with SAM saying:

I think that the world perception of lack of American will and principles originates from the funk America fell into in the immediate post-Vietnam 1970s. Nixon and the economy did us no favors in that regard -- sapping energy and attention from world affairs. The Iranian hostge crisis was another horrible example, but the U.S. had little experience at dealing with such events then -- and Carter was not the sort of man to risk killing off a large number of American hostages to avoid a two-year+ humiliation in the eyes of the world.

Wasn't it the case in Beirut that Reagan spoke movingly about staying until the job was done, until the embassy bombing, and then Reagan decided to pull all our forces out?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
the embassy bombing, and then Reagan decided to pull all our forces out?

Marine Corps barracks actually. we've never ran because of an Embassy bombing, they have always triggered a strong shooting of a dozen Cruise missiles into a mountain range. Do you feel lucky Osama?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Marine Corps barracks actually. we've never ran because of an Embassy bombing, they have always triggered a strong shooting of a dozen Cruise missiles into a mountain range. Do you feel lucky Osama?

Wait, so we run when they try to kill a bunch of our soldiers, but we shoot mountains when they bomb our diplomats?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
That critique doesn't work for the Middle East, where Clinton worked like two yaks, and took great risks -- but the two sides weren't ready. The Palestinian Leadership, in particular, hadn't bled enough to give up their search for an ideal victory.

True, but I do at least partially buy in to the notion that Clinton was pushing to get a deal done before his term was up, rather than let negotitations take their own course. Maybe this lead to the intifada, maybe not. My (and the publications) main complaint was dealing with the murderous Araphat to begin with.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
As to the rest -- Maybe so, but to make this a credible attack , you'd have to explain what he realistically could have done differently in addition to what you think he should have done. Remember, post -1997 the Arkansas Project was bearing fruit.

BTW -- He did issue an Executive Order authorizing the terminaion of bin Laden and the disruption of al Qaeda.

(Also -- what was wrong with his Haiti policy? It headed off the predicted and feared vast wave of immigrant boat people.)

Let's start with:

Rwanda - genocide of 800,000. It was the same then as it is in hindsite. You are allegedly the first black president, so do something! If I'm a liberal, I start with the UN, move to NATO + mature African countries that do not present a tribal conflict and, if all else fails, I send in the troops (which would be fully equipped because I would have raised, not cut, military funding).

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I have grown since my early sock clinton bashing days. I just bash the French, but when Club calls out bs on clinton dodging tough stuff- maybe you guys should ignore that post- just a suggestion!

Pipe down. I am not an unscrupulous Clinton basher. There are somethings he did that I fully agree with and have posted about many times (e.g., Bosnia, NAFTA, knowing enough to sign on to welfare reform, etc.).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Wait, so we run when they try to kill a bunch of our soldiers, but we shoot mountains when they bomb our diplomats?

I believe the bomber killed 200 Marines, not sure of why you chose "try."

We didn't have a real goal in Beirut maybe, I don't know- was young. do now that you are right- blow up our embassy we blow up your mountain.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I thought that the issue originated with SAM saying:



Wasn't it the case in Beirut that Reagan spoke movingly about staying until the job was done, until the embassy bombing, and then Reagan decided to pull all our forces out?

You are more or less correct. I had forgotten about that.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Pipe down. I am not an unscrupulous Clinton basher. There are somethings he did that I fully agree with and have posted about many times (e.g., Bosnia, NAFTA, knowing enough to sign on to welfare reform, etc.).

didn't say you were, back in the past there were Clinton bashers, and I was distinguishing myself. a clinton basher is the kind who just rails without much basis about everything being Clinton's fault, I think those guys are gone right now.

edit: rereading the "Club calling BS... you should just ignore" wasn't intended to mean "ignore Club, he is mumbling." No.

I just meant the unwashed really have no answer to what Club said, and the wiser of them should pretend they hadn't read it. sorry for any miscommunication.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I believe the bomber killed 200 Marines, not sure of why you chose "try."

We didn't have a real goal in Beirut maybe, I don't know- was young. do now that you are right- blow up our embassy we blow up your mountain.

I didn't google it, old man, and I wasn't really up on stuff like that during my tender years. So, they kill our soldiers (200?) and we run; they bomb the embassy and we fight.