Current Issue
Back Issues
 Subscribe to BartBlog Feed
How to Read
Members ( need password)
Subscribe to BartCop!
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Link to Us
Why Donate?
The Forum  -
The Reader
Poster Downloads
Shirts & Shots
BartCop Hotties
More Links
BFEE Scorecard
Perkel's Blog
Power of Nightmares
Clinton Fox Interview
Part 1, Part 2
Money Talks
Cost of Bush's greed
White Rose Society
Project 60
Chinaco Anejo


Search Now:
In Association with

Link Roll
American Politics Journal
Barry Crimmins
Betty Bowers
Consortium News 
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
Democatic Underground 
Disinfotainment Today 
Evil GOP Bastards
Faux News Channel 
Greg Palast
The Hollywood Liberal 
Internet Weekly
Jesus General
Joe Conason 
Josh Marshall
Liberal Oasis
Make Them Accountable 
Mark Morford 
Mike Malloy 
Political Humor -
Political Wire
Randi Rhodes
Rude Pundit 
Smirking Chimp
Take Back the Media
More Links


Locations of visitors to this page

Subject: Clintons "zero casualties?"


I've heard you say again and again that no soldiers died under Clinton I. 

The actual statement, when phrased properly is,
"Clinton never sent a man into battle who didn't come home."

The difference is - Clinton didn't start that Somalia mission - Poppy Bush did,
and he waited until after he lost the election to do it. If Bush's motives were pure,
why did he wait until he'd lost before he tried to help the starving Somalians?

Also, Poppy Bush was once head of the CIA, and then president for 12 years.
He should've known better than to involve our troops in an Al Qaeda stronghold.

If someone wants to make the argument that Clinton mishandled Somalia, remember that 
his choices were to stay and try to make it work OR have the whore press brand him as
"The man who said no to the starving little children of Africa."

What then to make of this from the The Nation?

Trust me, The Nation hates the Clintons - always has, as far as I can remember.
people think of The Nation as some "lefty paper," sure - so's the NY Whore Times
and they've hated the Clintons for 17 years now - and they loooooove their Neocons,
but somehow, they're considered "that liberal paper" and that makes no sense.

"The Clinton record on which Hillary is running is anything but stellar in global or even US security terms. 
What would become the hallmark political timidity of the Administration was first demonstrated after eighteen 
American troops were killed in Mogadishu in October 1993 in an ill-fated assault on a Somali warlord. 
Though that operation was entirely American-planned and led, the Clintons let stand (if not promoted) 
the isolationist falsehood that the tragedy was the fault of the United Nations, which also had a 
peacekeeping mission in Mogadishu.

Worse, the Somalia syndrome led to frantic efforts by the Clinton team to prevent any action by the 
Security Council on Rwanda six months later, action that may have prevented or at least mitigated a 
looming genocide. Bill Clinton later "apologized" to the Rwandans, but long after hundreds of thousands 
of people had been slaughtered." (

And after protesting Vietnam for all those years, who can blame Clinton for being hesitant
to use military force when nobody knows how it's going to turn out?

I am genuinely ignorant of much of this, as I was twelve at the time. Am I missing something?

Only that Clinton didn't start that mess and you can't trust the whore media for the truth.

Sorry, I know you hardly ever comment on links, but I think this supports the view that Hillary 
really is as much of an unknown as Obama when it comes to foreign policy. Don't refer to First Lady 
goodwill visits and make me invoke Pickles (as this article does)!

Well, now I think you're talking crazy.
Pickles keeps her opinions to herself and does what the men tell her.
Has anyone ever charged Hillary with being a doormat?

Some Lefties say "I'm sick to death of Hillary" and then call her an "unknown" a minute later
That's illogical.

  Back to

Send e-mail to Bart  |  Discuss it on The BartCop ForumComment on it at the BartBlog

Privacy Policy
. .