Clinton's War v/s Bush's War

[Nie Trink Wasser]

I really want to understand something.

I'm so sick of hearing almost everyone I know demand that when Bush went ahead without UN approval it was an atrocity never heard of before.

So when I hear this, I ask "so what's the difference between that and Clinton bypassing the UN and bombing Milosevic ?"

typically I get a vague and dismissing respons that doesnt answer the question.

so...........if what Bush did was so horribly wrong, how is Clinton absolved ?

[DrChinese]

The short answer is that the rest of the world supported us in Yugoslavia, but do not in Iraq. Also, we didn't send in troops for a regime change. And Clinton's dad's honor wasn't at stake.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/column.shields.opinion.hypocrisy/index.html



WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- From March 24,1999, until June 10,1999, the United States and NATO waged a military campaign to save ethnic Albanians in Kosovo from Serbian oppression.

On May 4, 1999 -- while American troops were engaged in combat -- two Republican congressional leaders publicly criticized the Democratic president and his policy:

Then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi: "As a matter of fact, you know, I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning. I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."

Then House Majority Whip Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas: "(In the Balkans) we have a (U.S.) president I don't trust who has proven my reason for not trusting him, had no plan."

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by DrChinese
The short answer is that the rest of the world supported us in Yugoslavia, but do not in Iraq. Also, we didn't send in troops for a regime change. And Clinton's dad's honor wasn't at stake.

Also, Bush didn't have an affair with his aides to cover up :D

That's a difference.

Saving Albanians, saving Kurds, saving EU from Chaos, saving the Mideast, saving the Meditaranean trade routes, saving the oil trade. I don't really get the big difference.

-Ben

[schplurg]

There isn't much difference at all.

Bush studied the "How to Illegally Attack a Nation Without Getting Caught", and "How to Circumvent Congress" manuals written by Slick Willy. Clinton was a master politician and he slipped out of office unscathed, partially by passing the buck to NATO (and by passing the "Presidential Phallus" to Monica, as stated above). The media blindly supported Clinton/NATO the whole time, while Congress was left wondering why they were left out.

In my opinion, the Kosovo ordeal was a lot uglier than the current Iraq conflict...so far. I don't know if that helps answer your question at all. I can't believe he got away with it either. But as I said, he was a great politician (I didn't say great president mind you). I do think Clinton would be a fun dude to party and chase chicks with though!

BTW, if Clinton's dad was anything like his son, there was no honor to protect. :p

[subgenius]

When are we going to stop hearing about Clinton? Get over it your guy is in office now.
Watch what you ask (the Supreme Court) for, you might get it.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius
Watch what you ask (the Supreme Court) for, you might get it.


HAhahahaha. Always with the "selected president" myth. Priceless Sub.

Originally posted by subgenius
When are we going to stop hearing about Clinton? Get over it your guy is in office now.
Watch what you ask (the Supreme Court) for, you might get it.

No kidding. There is a large piece if the right wing that is simply obsessed with Clinton. I didn't even hold a grudge against Reagan the Antichrist that long.

What is so hard for you people to understand? In "Clinton's war" as you insist on calling it, world opinion was overwhelmingly with us. Now it's overwhelmingly against us, and getting worse daily. Duh.

[corplinx]

I will say this. There was a slight difference in these wars. In one, you had the war in a region that _should_ have been able to handle things themselves. I am still skeptical of why we had to get involved in a european matter. This was the moment for the european members of NATO to shine.

As far as Iraq goes, the only country who can take care of Saddam and his terrorist government is Israel. Of course, we have kept Israel on a short leash for years out of fear that an Israeli/Iraqi conflict could escalate into regional war drawing in Syria and possibly others.

So yes, there is a big difference between the two wars. One of them we really shouldnt have had to fight.

Someone earlier mentioned Kosovo wasnt about regime change but I think Slobo would disagree. He sure aint in charge no more chico.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by sundog


No kidding. There is a large piece if the right wing that is simply obsessed with Clinton.

I think that may be more myth than reality. Except for Newsmax, who cares about the guy? It seems to me that some people can't stand _anyone_ being critical of Clinton and when soemone mentions him they go blue in the mouth talking about how "right wingers cant leave him alone".

Thank you for illustrating that point.

Have you had your coffee today? Are you under the impression that I brought him up in this thread?

Thanks for illustrating the effectiveness of the Right-Wing Blinder Effect.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by sundog
Have you had your coffee today? Are you under the impression that I brought him up in this thread?



I prefer a cup of english breakfast tea and I am having it now. I went back and read the first post which basically was not very critical of Clinton at all. Instead, it was critical of some of the "anti-war" people who are more likely just anti-bush. (no, not all anti-war protestors are simply anti-bush, dont even try to say i meant that).

Originally posted by corplinx


I prefer a cup of english breakfast tea and I am having it now. I went back and read the first post which basically was not very critical of Clinton at all. Instead, it was critical of some of the "anti-war" people who are more likely just anti-bush. (no, not all anti-war protestors are simply anti-bush, dont even try to say i meant that).

You must be reading a different thread. Here's the first message in THIS thread:


I really want to understand something.

I'm so sick of hearing almost everyone I know demand that when Bush went ahead without UN approval it was an atrocity never heard of before.

So when I hear this, I ask "so what's the difference between that and Clinton bypassing the UN and bombing Milosevic ?"

typically I get a vague and dismissing respons that doesnt answer the question.

so...........if what Bush did was so horribly wrong, how is Clinton absolved ?



Not a word about "anti-war people."

The point is that no one but a few on the extreme right have any doubt that we did the right thing in that circumstance. If a Republican president had done the same, you'd have supported him to the hilt.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by sundog

The point is that no one but a few on the extreme right have any doubt that we did the right thing in that circumstance. If a Republican president had done the same, you'd have supported him to the hilt.

For the record, I only became convinced that Gulf I was worth it this past year when I realized what Saddam's regime would be capable of today with those extra oil revenues. If we hadn't intervened back then, I am not sure what the mideast of today would be like. Mind you at that time I was an impressionable high school sophomore who after watching Channel 1, CNN, and SNL weekend update believed we were in a "war for oil".

For the record, I can't say if I was for or against the Kosovo conflict. I was in college at the time, fairly apathetic, and it seemed like a war egged on by the news media that europe should have taken care of themselves. Mind you, I don't mind squashing a genocidal ruler when we get the chance. However, are we always going to be the only teeth in NATO? It seems to me the treaty is worthless if the other signees can't even handle a conflict that small. Like I said, I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand it was a good cause (if what we were told about "ethnic cleansing" was true). On the other hand, I don't mow my neigbors backyard when it sprouts a weed.


"If a Republican president had done the same, you'd have supported him to the hilt."

Whatever you say, slick.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by sundog


Not a word about "anti-war people."



Try to "extrapolate", its a good technique.

Originally posted by corplinx


Try to "extrapolate", its a good technique.

I think the technique you're using is "turn the axe you have into one you'd rather grind."



so...........if what Bush did was so horribly wrong, how is Clinton absolved ?


Clearly wondering why one policy was acceptable to the WORLD AT LARGE, and why the other is not accepted.

Also, he say "almost everyone I know" has this opinion. By extrapolation, using your argument, almost everyone he knows is an antiwar nut.

Your problem is that you visualize hairy protestors when you think about people against the war. Try visualizing virtually the entire world. That's the truth pro-war people refuse to deal with.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by sundog


I think the technique you're using is "turn the axe you have into one you'd rather grind."



Actually, its more likely to be the lack of caffeine you cited earlier. "anti-war people" was a bad choice of words.

Originally posted by corplinx


Actually, its more likely to be the lack of caffeine you cited earlier. "anti-war people" was a bad choice of words.

You are officially on my list of Reasonable People. I hope I make it on yours at some point. :D

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper


Also, Bush didn't have an affair with his aides to cover up :D

That's a difference.

Saving Albanians, saving Kurds, saving EU from Chaos, saving the Mideast, saving the Meditaranean trade routes, saving the oil trade. I don't really get the big difference.

-Ben

This war has absolutely nothing to do with helping out any Iraqis. That is just rhetoric.

And Clinton's intervention was not during the impeachment hearings, if memory serves.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by corplinx
HAhahahaha. Always with the "selected president" myth.Always with the attempted deflection.

[Shane Costello]

originally posted by DrChinese:
The short answer is that the rest of the world supported us in Yugoslavia, but do not in Iraq.

Except the Russians, Chinese, Greeks and usual anti-war suspects.

[headscratcher4]

It seems to me that the real difference between a "Clinton" war and Bush's war, is that there was so much complaining by Republicans that we (the US) should not engage in "nation building" -- efforts like Somalia (started by Bush Sr. I think), Kosovo, etc. were futile because the US had no business intervening or committing to nation building...

Now, of course, we are on a grand crusade (ooops, campaign) to remake Iraq. The neo-Cons want to change Iraq and thereby democratize the region, etc. We also said the same things about Afghanastan...we are today ready to make the financial commitment and the time commitment and the resource commitment to help these states emerge as stable, democratic entities.

If it is true, I don't have any real complaint against such a commitment...even if history has not shown that it can be done, or at least done well. However, I do note the Hypocracy of Bush and Rice, et. al. who specifically ridiculed the Clinton Administration foriegn policy because it was wrong...i.e. their campaign wasn't that the Clinton/Gore people weren't doing it right...it was that we (the US) had no business "nation building".

But, I suppose, Rice and Rove will come up with another name for what we are going to be doing in a post-Saddam Iraq. Nation building is out, as is "colonialism"...maybe there is something clever like perfect popular participation planning ....:rolleyes:

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx



HAhahahaha. Always with the "selected president" myth. Priceless Sub.

Read any books on the subject?
I'll make a deal with you: I'll read all the books supporting your position if you read just one:
Betrayal of America by Vincent Bugliosi.
Deal? I'll look forward to your list.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
It seems to me that the real difference between a "Clinton" war and Bush's war, is that there was so much complaining by Republicans that we (the US) should not engage in "nation building"

Yes, it seems the isolationist republicans have learned a hard lesson. It seems terrorism and tyranny go hand in hand since one shelters and supports the other. Sometimes you can't even tell the difference between the two.

[Baker]

Originally posted by subgenius
When are we going to stop hearing about Clinton? Get over it your guy is in office now.
Watch what you ask (the Supreme Court) for, you might get it.

The thread is Clinton's War v/s Bush's War what else are supposed to discuss should we not post on any view’s against your personal political belief’s.
Because that’s all it appears you are saying.

[subgenius]

Details Given on Contract Halliburton Was Awarded
By ELIZABETH BECKER


WASHINGTON, April 10 — The Pentagon contract given without competition to a Halliburton subsidiary to fight oil well fires in Iraq is worth as much as $7 billion over two years, according to a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers that was released today.

The contract also allows Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary, to earn as much as 7 percent profit. That could amount to $490 million
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/business/11REBU.html?ex=1050638400&en=8e3c238766503e7b&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

[Troll]

Originally posted by DrChinese
The short answer is that the rest of the world supported us in Yugoslavia, but do not in Iraq. Also, we didn't send in troops for a regime change. And Clinton's dad's honor wasn't at stake.

Milosovich's departure wasn't a change in regime?:confused:

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
so...........if what Bush did was so horribly wrong, how is Clinton absolved ?
He isn't. Clinton bypassed the UN because he knew that Russia would veto the idea. However, the folks in the Clinton administration were much, much, much more skilled at diplomacy than the heavy handed amateurs in the Bush League administration, and they got NATO to unanimously go along with the idea (including France and Germany). That doesn't morally justify Clinton's actions, however.

Here is an interesting comparison (http://slate.msn.com/id/2080262/) between the actions Clinton took and those by Bush.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
It seems to me that the real difference between a "Clinton" war and Bush's war, is that there was so much complaining by Republicans that we (the US) should not engage in "nation building" -- efforts like Somalia (started by Bush Sr. I think), Kosovo, etc. were futile because the US had no business intervening or committing to nation building...

Daddy Bush started the humanitarian effort in Somalia. That was a good decision. It was supported by and appreciated by the Somalis. It was Clinton who changed the mission to nation building and that's when things went wrong.

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Yes, it seems the isolationist republicans have learned a hard lesson.

There is a difference between being isolationist and non-interventionist. The Republicans are only non-interventionist when it's a Democrat doing the intervening. Both parties are hypocritical.

The Bush administration is both isolationist (shown by its antipathy towards the UN) and interventionist (shown by its desire to wage war against many countries not to its liking). The idea that the wars are being waged to promote democracy is naive. The Bush administration is hostile to democracy. For evidence, consider its support for the abortive overthrow of democracy in Venezuela last year and its actions in the US (unprecedented secrecy, faith based initiatives, the Patriot Act, etc.).

Interventionism is what has fomented terrorism against us. That hard lesson has not been learned yet.