<p>And I’ll bet you the relatives of the million people killed by Bill Clinton, including the parents of the half a million children he killed in Iraq - a genocide between 2 and 4 times greater than that in Darfur - would be rather less pleased as a result.</p>
<p>i will see your mass murderer and raise you by two (retardus prime and darth vedar).</p>
<p>Nope. Not persuaded. No more Clintons. ;)</p>
<p>The US has not been successfully attacked once since 9/11 and Bush is in charge. If Bush is anything (yep - he’s a lame duck, so arguing against him is also pointless) he is focused. The US has since killed a lot of terrorists while George W. has been president. We’ll need to kill a lot more before we’re finished. They will not stop otherwise. </p>
<p>Good job, George. Stay on the hunt.</p>
<p>A trite campaign-type slogan that, but he’s actually done the work every day since 9/11/01. I actually think the closest we can get to that kind of focus is Rudy. I don’t agree with all his views, but those pale when compared to domestic security.</p>
<p>…and as long as W keeps clapping those cougar sticks, we never will be attacked, either.</p>
<p>Great movie reference, Kluge.</p>
<p>The reports of vandalism by departing Clinton aides was greatly overblown, stirred by Bush aides, and largely discounted when the GAO investigated and reported. Moreover, it was found that the amount of damage (and no, phone lines and computer lines hadn’t been cut, nor Air Force One pillaged) was on a similar scale to that of other transitions. </p>
<p>A few thousand dollars damage incurred in transition vs. the millions wasted on the sham of a crass impeachment investigation trial. Just the shudders that many Republicans would have saying “President Hillary” would be a nice, if awfully small, down payment.</p>
<p>Oh, we’ll get over it, if that day comes. After all, wasn’t the beautiful Mrs. Kerry preparing her Lincoln bedroom guest list in October 2004, and the partisans still crowing the night before Ohio allowed for the election to be stolen. /sarcasm off. </p>
<p>Also, some of us still seem to think that the sound of “Happy Birthday, Madam President” will remain as illusory as it was in the short lived TV series “Commander in Chief.”</p>
<p>Clinton got impeached fair and square. He lied under oath and he gets impeached. It does not matter that it was about an affair he had or sex, if you want to put it that way. </p>
<p>He could have fessed up outside of the grand jury which would have resulted in a little adverse publicity that would have blown over in no time (another “bimbo eruption” like all the others).</p>
<p>Clinton blew it and paid the price. Besides, that is history and it is time to move on. This another reason why I don’t want Hillary as president. It’ll mean we’ll have to re-live the Clinton tenure, moment by moment.</p>
<p>Now that’s a waste. I’d rather see Obama as president than another Clinton, especially one with a Manchurian Candidate attitude.</p>
<p>p2n: The US has not been attacked since 9/11? I think all of the dead soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan would beg to differ.</p>
<p>It’s a simple matter of time until another attack on American soil; repeated testing of the security in place at airports, for example, has shown it to be entirely inadequate. It’s just a waiting game until the terrorists get smart enough to capitalize.</p>
<p>For the moment, though, why would the terrorists attack America? They have a read supply of American targets parading themselves right into the terrorists’ home territory in the Middle East and Afghanistan. With targets offering themselves up so easily, who needs to go all the way to the continental US? That time will come eventually (unless America decides that its temporary safety is worth sacrificing its troops continually abroad, or the terrorists eventually plod their way along and attack at home again, the probability of which steadily increases as time goes on).</p>
<p>As for Clinton’s impeachment, I assume you were equally angry when Libby’s sentence was commuted, since he both lied and actually (in all likelihood) committed a crime as well?</p>
<p>Clinton should have been impeached, but, more to the point, should have been handed over to the World Court for a genocide trial.</p>
<p>
What is it with Republicans and facts: Monica blew it and it was free. </p>
<p>
Yep, the Republicans will try to dredge up every preposterous thing they can, from Vince Foster to “Travelgate,” and keep throwing it. You know, for Hillary in the White House, I think I’ll manage to endure. A few apoplectic seizures among the GOP true believers…eh…collateral damage.</p>
<p>1/42: one of the Busheviks’ major sins from the beginning has been to conflate Islamist terrorism with 9/11. Iraq was insignificant in this regard prior to our invasion. Saddam Hussein was not a good force but his involvement with terrorism was pretty much limited to anti-US propaganda.
The threats to US interests and stability were: Afghanistan (started well, then treated with benign neglect as resources were transferred to Iraq) > Pakistan (a potential new Iran in the making, nuclear armed, with Musharrif in the role of the Shah) > Korea (willing to sell nuclear technology/material) > Iran (mischief making via support of Hezbollah et al) > Iraq. </p>
<p>Of course, to one-up his father and wave his genitals around the Middle East, our so-called President picks on the easiest and least relevant target, over extending American resources, creating a massive new bit of instability, and serving as a massive recruiting tool for radical Islamists like Osama bin Laden.</p>
<p>It should give those who cheer the number of terrorists we’ve killed that the country from which one of the largest numbers has come from is…our good friend and ally, Saudi Arabia, which has been perfectly happy to let the Wahabi zealots have rein as long as they don’t threaten the stability of Saudi Arabia’s stability…the Saudi royals’ grand compromise for their own survival.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, despite the current lowered casualty rates in Iraq, the time bombs keep ticking with no one able to do much but wring their hands. Resolving the status of Kirkuk can’t be put off forever and the Kurds will not be at peace if they do not get it and the Arabs and Turkmen will not be at peace if they do.</p>
<p>The Awakening crowd of Sunnis in Al Anbar, who have been so helpful in damaging the AQ in Iraq operations (AQIZ always being the smallest, if lethal, but least significant factor in the multi-sided Iraq conflict anyway), has no tolerance for a Shiite-dominated central government or its military and the arms that we’ve provided can just as easily be trained upon the government forces–or ours–when the political winds blow correctly. Meanwhile, the Maliki government is an ineffective absurdity (the absurdity being rooted in the US-midwifed Iraqi constitution that guaranteed representation to all groups on the false premise that it would force people to work together instead of gridlock). The “surge” has had no effect on either Muktada al Sadr’s Mahdi Army nor SIIC’s Badr Corps and the Iraqi military, regardless of the administration sponsored puff pieces that appear in the press, is still largely a joke. Those who wish that the Iraqi military not be a joke might be given pause by the notion that, should the Iraqi military become an effective institution and the civilian government continue to be an ineffectual faction-driven gridlocked mess, at some point the a military coup and a strongman to make the country work becomes a real possibility. The last time a strongman took over, the end result was…Saddam Hussein. I bet that doesn’t happen again…the new one would be Shiite. Cheers.</p>
<p>TheDad: You’re right, Iraq didn’t have anything to do with Islamic terrorism. It sure as hell does now.</p>
<p>There was no terrorist-fighting rationale to initially going into Iraq. Saying that there was was the big lie that Bush pushed on America. However, now, there is certainly an enormous terrorist presence in Iraq. America being there attracts would-be freedom fighters and Islamic terrorists like a light bulb attracts moths. Whether that’s good and it’s “keeping them there so they don’t attack here” or whether it’s “just encouraging and breeding more terrorists” is, of course, a matter of interpretation.</p>
<p>I also agree with your assessment of the relatively threats, though I think that NK is in some ways overestimated as to how dangerous it is.</p>
<p>Republicans should be ashamed for trying to re-write the history. Now they are trying to white wash the public with all encompassing terrorism=Iraq.</p>
<p>But we have memory like elephants. How can we forget WMDs and that vile of white powder vile Powell was waving in front of the world?</p>
<p>Yes, 1/42, that’s what I was trying to say: we created a problem in Iraq bigger than the one that there was with respect to terrorism. Moreover, we’ve created such a mess that we can’t quickly and unilaterally withdraw, any more than we should have quickly and unilaterally invaded. If we can get the bulk of our combat forces out in two years without the country dissolving around us as we do so, we’ll be doing good. Even now, you see the evolving theory being pushed by the Busheviks: if the country stays a mess, it’s because the ungrateful Iraqis wouldn’t take responsibility in the manner we said they should. Feh.</p>
<p>I rate NK as high as I do not for the intrinsic threat but due to the capacity for aiding proliferation of nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>Simba, while we can’t take this friendly joust too darn seriously, there is isndded a danger in trying to rewrite the history. Inasmuch as we would disagree on the degree of the ineptitude of Clinton’s foreign policies, I don’t think that an elephant memory would forget what was said and by whom. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interestingly, enough you may want to draw parallels between the cost of trying to eradicate WMD before and after 9/11. I think that this may lead to understand the comment I wrote many times about Albright and seen repeated quite often in this forum. </p>
<p>As one observer wrote, " In preparing the nation for a possible war with Iraq, President Bill Clinton faces a series of obstacles, including a skeptical Congress. So far, Clinton has the public’s backing: two-thirds of the nation approves of how he is handling the crisis. In this public test of wills with Hussein, Clinton has tried to stake out the moral high ground. He has talked about “the chance to do the right thing for our children and grandchildren.” </p>
<p>The only difference is that a spineless and cynical leader seems to be a better leader for the spineless citizens who applaud the launching of missiles from a safe distance, the starving of children, and grandstanding but hollow speeches. </p>
<p>In that regard, Clinton Part Deux would indeed be a better fiit for the nation. Know-nothing or Do-nothing … what a great choice! The only thing that amazes me is that people can be happy about either one of the present choice, let alone gloat about the possible return of the dark side.</p>
<p>“The chance to do the right thing for our children and grandchildren”? Yeah, right!</p>
<p>Better that we fight them there than here. I’d rather not have our fellow citizens as soldiers in combat, but the terrorists are being tied down and their costs of conflict are very high.</p>
<p>In a way, there are some similarities to the Cold War. The costs are high, but we can simply outspend and outlast the other side. It is a terrible waste. I hate it. But I’ll be damned if I’ll tolerate another 9/11-type attack.</p>
<p>Also, it is not just about the US. The terrorists also terrorize the local population. Now many former Iraqi insurgents are fighting against local terrorism and will eventually allow us to draw down our forces.</p>
<p>Will they eventually form a cohesive government with the Shia? Who knows? But they’ll receive a lot more money through peace than war in the long run.</p>
<p>xiggi: You are rewriting history.</p>
<p>
This silly, oft-repeated canard offered by the administration and its Bushevik supporters can not be shot down quickly enough. </p>
<p>There is nothing that says that terrorists would not or could not target the US anyway, regardless of what we’re doing in Iraq. The idea that our presence in Iraq is keeping any terrorist cell(s) anywhere from attacking the US is preposterous. What fighting in Iraq has to do with would-be terrorists in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Western Europe mystifies me…the belief in such a connection should be shelved alongside that of the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and the Kingdom of Prester John.</p>
<p>However, our presence and manner of dealing in Iraq has certainly conformed to Islamist propaganda about the USA being at war with Islam and has served as a wonderful recruiting poster for the gullible and disaffected.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Simba, with all due respect, that IS a very disappointing comment. Are you intimating I rewrote the quotations by Bill Clinton and Albright? </p>
<p>Where did I “rewrite” any part of the history? </p>
<p>On the other hand, it’s pretty obvious that some of us would prefer to erase public records in the most convenient manner, especially when they no longer espouse the views of the focus groups that so dear to Kerry and Clinton’s ilk. When the country “stood up” in the favorite bar and screaming of joy at the sight of Baghdad being lit like a Christmas tree, it was the “thing to do” to speak up against WMD and the threat of Hussein or terrorists. As soon as the tide turned, the positions became as fixed as a weathervane.</p>
<p>Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not to a set of facts. For one who claims an elephant memory, it seems that the selective memory is purely intentional. </p>
<p>But that is OK. I am used to it!</p>
<p>“Better that we fight them there than here.”</p>
<p>this is the most mis-guided republican mantra I keep hearing. But my dear P2N, they never were there to begin with. Retardus Prime gave Osama a country he didn’t have.</p>
<p>Xiggi: I wrote that because now the bushies are reverting to Clinton for their rescue. During the build up for war Clinton was never mentioned/consulted. It was all about WMDs and that white powder.</p>
<p>I am not referring only to Iraq. While Americans may tend to be terrorist magnets at the present time that only means we draw them close and can kill them more easily. When they tire of the bloodletting then the war stops. They came to the United States to kill us, now were are over there killing them. </p>
<p>Frankly, I had misgivings about attacking Iraq originally even though I knew the world would likely be better if Saddam were worm food. I trusted the intelligence like everyone else and in retrospect wish we’d never gone there. At that point in time I wish the Democrats, being loyal Americans too, would have helped slow or stop the war. However, we all believed the intelligence. </p>
<p>Here is where we simply need to stop being bitterly partisan and start thinking of country, not partisan points. We can better approach solutions as Americans rather than Democrats and Republicans. I am not really sure what I am, but I do tend to be conservative on some things, liberal on others. </p>
<p>Together we have saddled this war horse, now we must ride it.</p>