Power Line News

When Clinton botched it, the GOP wanted to leave.

Thanks for the thorough documentation, Curmudgeon. You made it quite clear that if a military mission fails in its objective, it’s perfectly fine for the opposition party to propose removing the troops.

vladimir estragon - 15 May 2008 04:21 PM

When Clinton botched it, the GOP wanted to leave.

Thanks for the thorough documentation, Curmudgeon. You made it quite clear that if a military mission fails in its objective, it’s perfectly fine for the opposition party to propose removing the troops.

But the military objective Bush laid out did not fail.
Bush’s objective was to bring in relief suppies and prevent starvation. Mission accomplished.
Clinton changed the mission to warlord hunting and nation building then put US forces under UN command. Disaster ensued when he did not give commanders on the ground the equipment they requested.
It got a lot of good men killed in a place where the US had no national interest.
Under those circumstances the opposition has a duty to object.

It got a lot of good men killed in a place where the US had no national interest.
Under those circumstances the opposition has a duty to object.

Thanks, that’s just what I wanted to know.

vladimir estragon - 15 May 2008 04:41 PM

It got a lot of good men killed in a place where the US had no national interest.
Under those circumstances the opposition has a duty to object.

Thanks, that’s just what I wanted to know.

Every fallen empire in the world has sought its own self interests.  Hoped this country stood for principles,human life and freedom, ahead of our own selfish interests. When you stand on principles not self interest you gain the grudging respect of even your enemies.

Empty platitudes combined with narcissistic fantasy results in:

Every fallen empire in the world has sought its own self interests.  Hoped this country stood for principles,human life and freedom, ahead of our own selfish interests. When you stand on principles not self interest you gain the grudging respect of even your enemies.

wrapper - 14 May 2008 10:37 PM

It’s true that AQ rose during the 90s.  It’s true that American embassies in Africa were bombed.  It’s true that an American warship was attacked and nearly sunk by a small boat in Yemen.

It’s true that the perps of WTC were captured and imprisoned.  It’s true that Clinton ordered an attack on OBL that just missed him.  It’s true that the Clinton admin fought back against terror in a number of ways with varying results.

It’s true that the boy king admin was not involved nor particularly interested in fighting terror for it’s first 8 months.  Star Wars was the priority.

Are you talking about the same Clinton administration who failed to give the go ahead to a CIA shooter to put a bullet in OBL head. You know the Sandy Berger hand up on the CIA. That Clinton??

vladimir estragon - 15 May 2008 04:41 PM

It got a lot of good men killed in a place where the US had no national interest.
Under those circumstances the opposition has a duty to object.

Thanks, that’s just what I wanted to know.

You’re welcome. And in Iraq, the national interest at stake is obvious.
You libs don’t like war unless the US has nothing at stake.

claim

“...since losing American military prestige to the benefit of UN military prestige was a stated goal of his administration.”

Hmmmmm.  Are you stupid or a liar or a combination of both?

I think that rather applies to somebody who refuses to remember Madeline Albright, Warren Christopher, William Perry and Les Aspin doing interviews where they stressed Americans would be fighting under a UN or NATO banner, not as the United States itself, and that our military would serve under foriegn commanders.

Apparently the answer is yes.  Those people never stated that losing prestige was a goal.