justme: I am presuming your silence indicates that you’re off doing scholarly pursuits, or frantically searching Huffington Post or the Daily Kos for proof of Bill Clinton’s divinity.
To that end, I’ve decided to start answering my own questions regarding the sainted Bill Clinton and his noble policies.
Apparently, not only did Bill Clinton believe that Iraq had WMD, but quite a few leading Dems did as well, along with the French and Russians, to name a few. Here is an interesting article tracking the chronology of the WMD issue, starting in 1998 and going right up to the eve of war. Granted the author is right wing, but the quotes are all real, as is her close following of the narrative, beginning with then President Clinton: http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/11/02/where-did-the-wmd-intel-come-from/
Clinton not only used extraordinary rendition (the practice of sending suspected terrorists to friendly foreign countries that allow torture), he also was the one who brought the practice into existence. That’s a doozy, isn’t it? Not only could he “feel our pain”, apparently he was pretty adept at causing it, too. The article is from Mother Jones and, dude, even you would have to admit, it don’t get more lefty than that: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/03/exclusive-i-was-kidnapped-by-the-cia.html
And if you want to step back further, look at President Carter’s 1978 FISA program. Does it then follow that all Dems are freedom hating fascists bent on destroying American civil liberties? Or, would it be more accurate to say that the gradual erosion of our civil rights is sadly non-partisan and enjoys the tacit approval of a silent American public?
Clintonian diplomacy versus Bush’s jingoism. Let’s look at a supposed Clinton triumph: The 1994 Framework Agreement with Kim Jong-il and the North Koreans: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06288/729839-373.stm
The point being that apparently bribery and moral suasion aren’t as effective as we were led to believe. Which is not to make the argument that Bush’s policies are necessarily any better. For the most part, they are not. However, the constant trumpeting of Clinton’s supposed foreign policy triumphs, multilateral interventions (with the UN) for humanitarian reasons and respect for American civil liberties does stand in stark contrast to the truth.
Bush, by your lights, is a “war monger”, “war profiteer” and “liar”. Without the same sort of proof that you demand, that is nothing more than name calling, and it ignores not only the actions and policies of the Clinton Administration, but the Bush I Administration, the Reagan Administration and the Carter Administration. Every one of those Presidents contributed, positively and negatively, to the present state of the world.
Lastly, as to selective reading and arguments that leave out large, and important, pieces. A conservative argument runs that Bill Clinton’s “cut and run” withdrawal from Somalia emboldened Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Clinton, under the spell of Murtha (the right wingers favorite whipping boy) and appalled by the sight of Somalis dragging the body of an American helo pilot through the streets of Mogadishu, decided to get out of there post-haste. The truth is somewhat more sanguine, however, in that leading conservatives were also urging withdrawal and, in point of fact, Clinton not only stayed another six months, he tried to send an additional 650 US troops. http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/reconstructing_murtha_iii_its.html
My point? Get the entire story. This “Republican Bad” and “Democrat Good” drivel not only insults our intelligence, it reduces the entire argument to a schoolyard ad hominem shouting match.
Lastly, I don’t know when, where or how you were raised, but if you call a man a liar be prepared to say it to his face. You’re either prepared to stand behind what you say or you are not. And that, Cool Breeze, is the ultimate test of character, not hiding behind your keyboard and tossing out fictive little missives.
