- This topic has 175 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 5 months ago by Allan from Fallbrook.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM #237693July 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM #237495Allan from FallbrookParticipant
Peace: I can’t speak to Kerry or Gore (although I would opine that Gore would probably come up with a pretty good energy policy).
However, Clinton’s record in foreign policy is a matter of public record and the record isn’t good. In the plus column, Clinton did make some positive interventions (albeit very tardily in the Balkans). In the negative column, you have Somalia, North Korea, absolute silence following the two African embassy bombings, first WTC bombing, Khobar Towers (Saudi), and the USS Cole attack. He dithered for years while the Serbs ethnically cleansed the Balkans, but did finally commit to a very effective bombing campaign.
I have friends who served under Clinton, and I lost two friends during Somalia (Task Force Ranger/Operation Gothic Serpent), and all agree that Clinton was an unmitigated disaster when it came to foreign policy. Bush, however, is right there with him.
Wasn’t Kerry the guy who voted for the war, until he voted against it? I think old John would have his own set of issues. And I find his calling those who served in Vietnam “baby killers” grotesque.
July 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM #237628Allan from FallbrookParticipantPeace: I can’t speak to Kerry or Gore (although I would opine that Gore would probably come up with a pretty good energy policy).
However, Clinton’s record in foreign policy is a matter of public record and the record isn’t good. In the plus column, Clinton did make some positive interventions (albeit very tardily in the Balkans). In the negative column, you have Somalia, North Korea, absolute silence following the two African embassy bombings, first WTC bombing, Khobar Towers (Saudi), and the USS Cole attack. He dithered for years while the Serbs ethnically cleansed the Balkans, but did finally commit to a very effective bombing campaign.
I have friends who served under Clinton, and I lost two friends during Somalia (Task Force Ranger/Operation Gothic Serpent), and all agree that Clinton was an unmitigated disaster when it came to foreign policy. Bush, however, is right there with him.
Wasn’t Kerry the guy who voted for the war, until he voted against it? I think old John would have his own set of issues. And I find his calling those who served in Vietnam “baby killers” grotesque.
July 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM #237636Allan from FallbrookParticipantPeace: I can’t speak to Kerry or Gore (although I would opine that Gore would probably come up with a pretty good energy policy).
However, Clinton’s record in foreign policy is a matter of public record and the record isn’t good. In the plus column, Clinton did make some positive interventions (albeit very tardily in the Balkans). In the negative column, you have Somalia, North Korea, absolute silence following the two African embassy bombings, first WTC bombing, Khobar Towers (Saudi), and the USS Cole attack. He dithered for years while the Serbs ethnically cleansed the Balkans, but did finally commit to a very effective bombing campaign.
I have friends who served under Clinton, and I lost two friends during Somalia (Task Force Ranger/Operation Gothic Serpent), and all agree that Clinton was an unmitigated disaster when it came to foreign policy. Bush, however, is right there with him.
Wasn’t Kerry the guy who voted for the war, until he voted against it? I think old John would have his own set of issues. And I find his calling those who served in Vietnam “baby killers” grotesque.
July 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM #237684Allan from FallbrookParticipantPeace: I can’t speak to Kerry or Gore (although I would opine that Gore would probably come up with a pretty good energy policy).
However, Clinton’s record in foreign policy is a matter of public record and the record isn’t good. In the plus column, Clinton did make some positive interventions (albeit very tardily in the Balkans). In the negative column, you have Somalia, North Korea, absolute silence following the two African embassy bombings, first WTC bombing, Khobar Towers (Saudi), and the USS Cole attack. He dithered for years while the Serbs ethnically cleansed the Balkans, but did finally commit to a very effective bombing campaign.
I have friends who served under Clinton, and I lost two friends during Somalia (Task Force Ranger/Operation Gothic Serpent), and all agree that Clinton was an unmitigated disaster when it came to foreign policy. Bush, however, is right there with him.
Wasn’t Kerry the guy who voted for the war, until he voted against it? I think old John would have his own set of issues. And I find his calling those who served in Vietnam “baby killers” grotesque.
July 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM #237698Allan from FallbrookParticipantPeace: I can’t speak to Kerry or Gore (although I would opine that Gore would probably come up with a pretty good energy policy).
However, Clinton’s record in foreign policy is a matter of public record and the record isn’t good. In the plus column, Clinton did make some positive interventions (albeit very tardily in the Balkans). In the negative column, you have Somalia, North Korea, absolute silence following the two African embassy bombings, first WTC bombing, Khobar Towers (Saudi), and the USS Cole attack. He dithered for years while the Serbs ethnically cleansed the Balkans, but did finally commit to a very effective bombing campaign.
I have friends who served under Clinton, and I lost two friends during Somalia (Task Force Ranger/Operation Gothic Serpent), and all agree that Clinton was an unmitigated disaster when it came to foreign policy. Bush, however, is right there with him.
Wasn’t Kerry the guy who voted for the war, until he voted against it? I think old John would have his own set of issues. And I find his calling those who served in Vietnam “baby killers” grotesque.
July 11, 2008 at 11:32 AM #237500PeaceParticipantOK – I’m not too happy with how Clinton handled that either and I do believe that he came into office on a high tide but the whole impeachment was a fiasco.
Now that we have life-and-death issues there is no movement to impeach.
To quote freewayblogger again “Clinton lied – nobody died”
Clinton was/is a naughty boy but 9/11 would have never happenen on his watch.
Actually there has problably been more “naughty boys” in the White House than not. How far would Kennedy gone to deny his naughty behavior?
Maybe what GWB needs someone to step up to the plate and give him a good blow job. Now who could we get to volunteer?
July 11, 2008 at 11:32 AM #237633PeaceParticipantOK – I’m not too happy with how Clinton handled that either and I do believe that he came into office on a high tide but the whole impeachment was a fiasco.
Now that we have life-and-death issues there is no movement to impeach.
To quote freewayblogger again “Clinton lied – nobody died”
Clinton was/is a naughty boy but 9/11 would have never happenen on his watch.
Actually there has problably been more “naughty boys” in the White House than not. How far would Kennedy gone to deny his naughty behavior?
Maybe what GWB needs someone to step up to the plate and give him a good blow job. Now who could we get to volunteer?
July 11, 2008 at 11:32 AM #237641PeaceParticipantOK – I’m not too happy with how Clinton handled that either and I do believe that he came into office on a high tide but the whole impeachment was a fiasco.
Now that we have life-and-death issues there is no movement to impeach.
To quote freewayblogger again “Clinton lied – nobody died”
Clinton was/is a naughty boy but 9/11 would have never happenen on his watch.
Actually there has problably been more “naughty boys” in the White House than not. How far would Kennedy gone to deny his naughty behavior?
Maybe what GWB needs someone to step up to the plate and give him a good blow job. Now who could we get to volunteer?
July 11, 2008 at 11:32 AM #237689PeaceParticipantOK – I’m not too happy with how Clinton handled that either and I do believe that he came into office on a high tide but the whole impeachment was a fiasco.
Now that we have life-and-death issues there is no movement to impeach.
To quote freewayblogger again “Clinton lied – nobody died”
Clinton was/is a naughty boy but 9/11 would have never happenen on his watch.
Actually there has problably been more “naughty boys” in the White House than not. How far would Kennedy gone to deny his naughty behavior?
Maybe what GWB needs someone to step up to the plate and give him a good blow job. Now who could we get to volunteer?
July 11, 2008 at 11:32 AM #237703PeaceParticipantOK – I’m not too happy with how Clinton handled that either and I do believe that he came into office on a high tide but the whole impeachment was a fiasco.
Now that we have life-and-death issues there is no movement to impeach.
To quote freewayblogger again “Clinton lied – nobody died”
Clinton was/is a naughty boy but 9/11 would have never happenen on his watch.
Actually there has problably been more “naughty boys” in the White House than not. How far would Kennedy gone to deny his naughty behavior?
Maybe what GWB needs someone to step up to the plate and give him a good blow job. Now who could we get to volunteer?
July 11, 2008 at 11:44 AM #237505Allan from FallbrookParticipantPeace: Harriet Miers. She seemed pretty dedicated to ‘ol Dubya. He’d have to close his eyes, though. I think if someone gave Osama bin Laden a quick BJ every once in a while, 9/11 would probably not have happened, either.
Given that you have a whole series of terrorist acts under Clinton’s watch that went unpunished or lightly punished (killing that nefarious aspirin factory, for instance), what on earth could possibly compel you to state that 9/11 would NOT have happened on Clinton’s watch? Hell, you have Osama himself saying that the lack of resolve following the attacks on US facilities, ships and personnel was a motive factor and that our hasty and embarrassing withdrawal from Somalia emboldened al Qaeda. You don’t think 9/11 could possibly have happened with Clinton in the White House? Really?
July 11, 2008 at 11:44 AM #237638Allan from FallbrookParticipantPeace: Harriet Miers. She seemed pretty dedicated to ‘ol Dubya. He’d have to close his eyes, though. I think if someone gave Osama bin Laden a quick BJ every once in a while, 9/11 would probably not have happened, either.
Given that you have a whole series of terrorist acts under Clinton’s watch that went unpunished or lightly punished (killing that nefarious aspirin factory, for instance), what on earth could possibly compel you to state that 9/11 would NOT have happened on Clinton’s watch? Hell, you have Osama himself saying that the lack of resolve following the attacks on US facilities, ships and personnel was a motive factor and that our hasty and embarrassing withdrawal from Somalia emboldened al Qaeda. You don’t think 9/11 could possibly have happened with Clinton in the White House? Really?
July 11, 2008 at 11:44 AM #237646Allan from FallbrookParticipantPeace: Harriet Miers. She seemed pretty dedicated to ‘ol Dubya. He’d have to close his eyes, though. I think if someone gave Osama bin Laden a quick BJ every once in a while, 9/11 would probably not have happened, either.
Given that you have a whole series of terrorist acts under Clinton’s watch that went unpunished or lightly punished (killing that nefarious aspirin factory, for instance), what on earth could possibly compel you to state that 9/11 would NOT have happened on Clinton’s watch? Hell, you have Osama himself saying that the lack of resolve following the attacks on US facilities, ships and personnel was a motive factor and that our hasty and embarrassing withdrawal from Somalia emboldened al Qaeda. You don’t think 9/11 could possibly have happened with Clinton in the White House? Really?
July 11, 2008 at 11:44 AM #237694Allan from FallbrookParticipantPeace: Harriet Miers. She seemed pretty dedicated to ‘ol Dubya. He’d have to close his eyes, though. I think if someone gave Osama bin Laden a quick BJ every once in a while, 9/11 would probably not have happened, either.
Given that you have a whole series of terrorist acts under Clinton’s watch that went unpunished or lightly punished (killing that nefarious aspirin factory, for instance), what on earth could possibly compel you to state that 9/11 would NOT have happened on Clinton’s watch? Hell, you have Osama himself saying that the lack of resolve following the attacks on US facilities, ships and personnel was a motive factor and that our hasty and embarrassing withdrawal from Somalia emboldened al Qaeda. You don’t think 9/11 could possibly have happened with Clinton in the White House? Really?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.