Did you not read the very next sentence? It said that it wasn't based on facts & just my opinion. I base it on my overall observation of Clinton as a person. I'm not saying Clinton didn't want to protect the country - just that he would have preferred to attempt it without using the military (some people think this is a problem with republicans - too happy to use the military, a judgement call i suppose) & that he used the military because not doing so would be bad for his image. I know Clinton took military action, but what was accomplished with his actions? How far did they go in protecting America/stopping terrorism? I said he did nothing, but that was exaggeration, I just don't think he did enough. Of course this is hindsight after 9/11 & might not have felt the same way before seeing what was eventually to come. I'm not saying that I'm entirely subjective. I'm not. I was just saying that I came to this conclusion trying to be subjective & not based on things like his party. No, I don't think Bush went after terrorism for PR. That's because 9/11 was a situation that warranted a much bigger response than anything Clinton had to deal with. The inherint difference is what I take away from the two individuals' personalities & characteristics. Bush doesn't have a problem using the military and seemed all to happy to do so. IMO, Clinton did. He didn't like the military & did so sparingly - only when not doing so would mean political suicide. Bombing empty caves made people feel better & let them get on with their lives. Clinton came out looking relatively good. The situation worked out in the short run, but ultimately if more would have been done then 9/11 could have been stopped. This isn't entirely Clinton's fault. Bush is partially at fault. My opinions on Clinton's just effect how much blame I put on Clinton because I think that someone more pro-military would have done more in his position. Again, hindsight is 20/20 & much of this is spurned by looking back at what eventually happened.
Yeah. He wasted a few million bucks by slinging cruise missiles at empty targets, and destroyed a factory that made Flintstones chewables. All timed very conveniently to take his grand jury testimony off the front pages. That's really doing a lot more.
The disrespect between Clinton and the military mostly went the other way. The military disliked Clinton, not because he cut the military drammatically . . . he didn't. But like him or not, the military did their job well under Clinton. They disliked him because he was a champion of women's roles in the military and he allowed "no tell" gays to remain in the service. Women are now so thouroughly integrated into the military that we litereally cannot deploy without them, and they have served well, even as combat pilots. Women have been captured, over 30 have been killed in action, and hundreds have earned their Purple Hearts. Time has proven Clinton was right about the women (we should have known! :lol: ). No doubt a lot of closet queens are serving their country well in Iraq, but we don't know about it, because they can't tell. One woman in Iraq has even received the Silver Star (I hope she never runs against George Bush! :hihi: ) "Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester of the 617th Military Police Company, a National Guard unit out of Richmond, Ky., received the Silver Star, along with two other members of her unit, Staff Sgt. Timothy Nein and Spc. Jason Mike, for their actions during an enemy ambush on their convoy. Hester's squad was shadowing a supply convoy March 20 when anti-Iraqi fighters ambushed the convoy. The squad moved to the side of the road, flanking the insurgents and cutting off their escape route. Hester led her team through the "kill zone" and into a flanking position, where she assaulted a trench line with grenades and M203 grenade-launcher rounds. She and Nein then cleared two trenches, at which time she killed three insurgents with her rifle. When the fight was over, 27 insurgents were dead, six were wounded, and one was captured."
"Flintstones" chewables? Really G-man, you can do better than that! Clinton hit Al Qaida and suspected WMD sites in Iraq and Somalia. Bush invaded Iraq to try to do the same thing. He didn't kill Osama either. Did he discover any Flintstones vitamins in Iraq? And speaking of wasting money, all of Clinton's air strikes cost less than a billion dollars total. Bush is wasting a billion dollars a week in Iraq. And still no Osama and no WMDs to show for it.
we never should have gone to somalia. but if we go, we cant let a couple downed choppers and dragged corpses make us leave. i have seen radical islamic madmen say things like "we can beat america, like our brothers in somalia, the americans are weak". their strategy is to make us wimp out. they figure if they keep the violence up, we will pull out. and they are right, if we think like red. when they realize we are not going anywhere, fighting will be pointless. everyone knows the US can defeat anyone if they fight, so you have to make them give up. thats what our enemies do. bush was wrong in 1991, he should not have freed kuwait, and when he did, he should have finished the job. he should have taken baghdad. he was also wrong to ever allow any americans to go to somalia. the problem is starting jobs we are not willing to finish. the problem is people that quickly lose their resolve when a few americans get killed, as if that were unexpected. correct strategy: 1. never get involved 2. if involved, kill everyone. for every american killed, kill 10 non-americans. in somalia, we should have killed aidid, and anyone who even looked at us wrong. and not left until the place was stable. i realize that is a huge commitment. that sucks. maybe we can realize that and not get involved at all next time. running home scared means you are gonna have problems later. the bad guys know they can send us packing if they kill enough. they should be taught that killing us will directly result in their own deaths, never a withdrawal.
I wasn't asking you to reveal facts, as I know that there are none that would support such a claim. Is there anything wrong with doing it that way, provided that it would nopt result in more severe consequences? Military action should be a last resort. If the man can resolve a situation peacefully, then more power to him (literally). Considering that he thwarted an attempted attack on (or larger than) the scale of 9/11, I'd say he did more than our current president. So then you are admittedly drawing an unequal comparison. You can't just assume that Bush would have reacted a certain way had he been faced with the same situations as Clinton. Similarly, you can't assume that Clinton would not have reacted a certain way had he been in office when 9/11 took place. But you already admitted that the two have been faced with much different scenarios. And what empty caves are you talking about? Done more when? I understand that he did not support certain anti-terrorism bills when in office. But the Bush admin ingored their fair share of warnings leading up to 9/11.
We are actually safe, because we still have alot more nukes then Kim Jong Il does... deterence is the way we do that.
