<strong>Facts? Facts like Clinton ignored the CIA. Or did you miss that fact?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I still don't see why the CIA is that terribly important. I don't think you've read a single one of my posts. And the only evidence I have that Clinton didn't meet with George Tenet is your statement. I'm still wondering how exciting it was for you to stalk Clinton for 8 years to find out that he only met with Tenet once. C'mon now, you currently have no factual basis for that claim.
Bombing of Army barracks in Saudi Arabia, 19 soldiers dead.
Action taken: none.
Bomb in Riyadh kills 5 Americans.
Action taken: none.
224 people killed in dual embassy bombings.
Action taken: Aspirin factory in Sudan is blown up (and that perhaps only to get a little attention of of himself at the height of personal controversy).
I'm not someone who whines about Clinton or even has animus against the guy, but he was completely and totally ineffective as a commander-in-chief and guardian of our nation.
He might have done a good job re:9/11. I don't have a crystal ball so I don't know, but Clinton has earned most of the blame that falls on him.
<strong>Bombing of the USS Cole, 17 soldiers dead.
Action taken: none.
Bombing of Army barracks in Saudi Arabia, 19 soldiers dead.
Action taken: none.
Bomb in Riyadh kills 5 Americans.
Action taken: none.
224 people killed in dual embassy bombings.
Action taken: Aspirin factory in Sudan is blown up (and that perhaps only to get a little attention of of himself at the height of personal controversy).
I'm not someone who whines about Clinton or even has animus against the guy, but he was completely and totally ineffective as a commander-in-chief and guardian of our nation.
He might have done a good job re:9/11. I don't have a crystal ball so I don't know, but Clinton has earned most of the blame that falls on him.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Granted, but how is this any worse than Reagan's reaction to Lebanon or the handling of the hostage crisis in Iran? Clinton, just like every president before him, was influenced by the popular will. Such is the trouble with popularly elected officials, they must bow to the wills of the populace. And Clinton did show resolve in some affairs: the continued bombing of Iraq (which has apparently been somewhat successful because Iraq hasn't tried to invade any countries lately) and the NATO bombings of Bosnia and Kosovo which helped prevent any greater escalation into Europe. European stability was an important goal, and it was maintained. Love Clinton or hate him, his successes and failings were not unique, they were merely results of the office of the Presidency.
This in general to all the Clinton bashing. I find it interesting that the president gets all the blame for all situations. Congress has equal power in influencing what happens in American affairs, both domestic and foreign. Yet, I see no criticism of the Republican Congress that hobbled Clinton's administration.
Comments
Enron is big trouble for Bush.
[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: wwwork ]</p>
<strong>Facts? Facts like Clinton ignored the CIA. Or did you miss that fact?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I still don't see why the CIA is that terribly important. I don't think you've read a single one of my posts. And the only evidence I have that Clinton didn't meet with George Tenet is your statement. I'm still wondering how exciting it was for you to stalk Clinton for 8 years to find out that he only met with Tenet once. C'mon now, you currently have no factual basis for that claim.
Action taken: none.
Bombing of Army barracks in Saudi Arabia, 19 soldiers dead.
Action taken: none.
Bomb in Riyadh kills 5 Americans.
Action taken: none.
224 people killed in dual embassy bombings.
Action taken: Aspirin factory in Sudan is blown up (and that perhaps only to get a little attention of of himself at the height of personal controversy).
I'm not someone who whines about Clinton or even has animus against the guy, but he was completely and totally ineffective as a commander-in-chief and guardian of our nation.
He might have done a good job re:9/11. I don't have a crystal ball so I don't know, but Clinton has earned most of the blame that falls on him.
<strong>Bombing of the USS Cole, 17 soldiers dead.
Action taken: none.
Bombing of Army barracks in Saudi Arabia, 19 soldiers dead.
Action taken: none.
Bomb in Riyadh kills 5 Americans.
Action taken: none.
224 people killed in dual embassy bombings.
Action taken: Aspirin factory in Sudan is blown up (and that perhaps only to get a little attention of of himself at the height of personal controversy).
I'm not someone who whines about Clinton or even has animus against the guy, but he was completely and totally ineffective as a commander-in-chief and guardian of our nation.
He might have done a good job re:9/11. I don't have a crystal ball so I don't know, but Clinton has earned most of the blame that falls on him.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Granted, but how is this any worse than Reagan's reaction to Lebanon or the handling of the hostage crisis in Iran? Clinton, just like every president before him, was influenced by the popular will. Such is the trouble with popularly elected officials, they must bow to the wills of the populace. And Clinton did show resolve in some affairs: the continued bombing of Iraq (which has apparently been somewhat successful because Iraq hasn't tried to invade any countries lately) and the NATO bombings of Bosnia and Kosovo which helped prevent any greater escalation into Europe. European stability was an important goal, and it was maintained. Love Clinton or hate him, his successes and failings were not unique, they were merely results of the office of the Presidency.