happythoughts 0 #26 November 17, 2004 QuoteAnd Bush ignored clear evidence that Hussein's WMD program was not all it was cracked up to be. I don't necessarily think that SH is any more, or less, dangerous that most of the leaders in the Middle East. Given enough weapons and money, most would be doing the same things. The region is generally unstable. QuoteHe sent in an inadequate number of troops, and they paid the price. An obvious mistake, one that's clear in hindsight. When fighting against a guerilla-tactics group, I am unsure if there is a "right number" of troops. There are areas of the world that may never have a level of peace. Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Belfast... quite a list. QuoteFace it, both presidents play politics, think about themselves first and often screw up. In other words, they are both politicians. I trust this doesn't come as a suprise. This thread is a discussion of Clintons ability to function in a foreign policy arena. I can't think of any successes and his blunders/omissions have caused a lot of havoc. He weakened the perception of the US abroad and did not defend it. That emboldened the attackers to continue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #27 November 17, 2004 QuoteThe same advantages O'Reilly attributed to Clinton also belonged to Powell. The change of Secretary of State had nothing to do with Powell not being up to the task and it had everything to do with his disagreements with his boss. With Rice, there will be no disagreements. Rice will agree with anything the President asks her to do without question. To a -certain- extent, I understand GWBs feelings on this, however it's usually a good idea to have at least a few people around that have a different point of view than your own. Dr. Rice is not a yes-woman as I've seen floated in the press coverage. As NSA, her job was to provide an "observers view" and was good facilitating point during any disagreements between State, Defense or even foreign governemts.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #28 November 18, 2004 Quote At one point, he could have killed OBL but chose not to, because of the Lewinsky scandal at the time. No OBL? Maybe the WTC would still be standing.. yup - there was the fear of being suspeceted of wagging-the-dog. Still there was also another side that was more interested in pursuing a moralistic vandetta than having a functional govt. The guilt is certainly not on just one side. whichever - one thing is a fact: In Jan 2001 Clinton told GWB strainght to his face that UBL is the greatest foreign threat to the US that he will be facing. Number one, numero uno, nummer eins..., absolutely unambiguous. Retaliations for the USS Cole attacks were left to GWB. (The connection to UBL became clear after GWB was already presid elect) What happened - nothing. What was number one priority - Saddam right from day one - obsessively. Where did UBL and intl terrorism rank? - low enough that the issue was puhed out of the principals meetings into the deputy meetings (which never happened) - a marignality. Why? - cause those guys hated and defied everything that Clinton said - even it was that the US will be attacked by UBL. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #29 November 18, 2004 QuoteDr. Rice is not a yes-woman as I've seen floated in the press coverage. As NSA, her job was to provide an "observers view" and was good facilitating point during any disagreements between State, Defense or even foreign governemts. and in that role she seems to have always taken the view of her President to defend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
