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." (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/crossette)
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
Back to Bartcop.com
to Bart | Discuss
it on The BartCop Forum | Comment
on it at the BartBlog