Ivo Daalder examines Candidate Bush's critiques of Clinton-era foreign policy with President Bush's foreign policy. You can imagine the result when I tell you that the first item he quotes from the 2000 GOP foreign policy platform is "The [Clinton] administration has run America’s defenses down over the decade through inadequate resources, promiscuous commitments, and the absence of a forward-looking military strategy."
It's like looking in a mirror.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I wonder if he really believes this? If so, he dementia is
worse than I
thought:
href="http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/bush_never_really_thought_abou.html">Bush:
'Never really thought about' war
Posted by Mark Silva on
October 5, 2007
President Bush, interviewed…
Hillary::
So when I hear Senator Obama talk about that, I wonder which fights he wouldn't fight. Would he have not fought to get to a balanced budget and a surplus and help create 22 million new jobs? Would he have not fought to get assault weapons off the street and get them out of the hands of,…
I don't think Democrats should let the Palin fiasco overshadow a great convention: there were some great speeches, one of them by John Kerry. While Kerry did an awful job of responding to the swiftboating, that episode really does mask some of his strengths: he's a terrific debater, and a very…
Slate has a story by John Dickerson about how Obama has rejected the weasel tactic invented, or at least perfected, by Bush for avoiding questions.
To hide the fact that they're hiding something, candidates elevate their refusal to a virtue. "One of the jobs of a president is being very reasoned…
This reminds me of the Daily Show bit where they had President Bush debate Governer Bush.
It's an interesting article, but the comment thread contains quite a bit of exculpatory crap about Clinton and the Serbian bombing campaign.
The facts are almost identical between Iraq and Kosovo. Both campaigns accomplished pretty much nothing in the way of permanent solutions to the problems they purported ameliorate. Both were based on pretexts that were tenuous at best (Clinton came about as close to finding evidence for a "genocide" in Kosovo as Bush to finding WMD's in Iraq), and both were preceded by media blitzes that parroted White House propaganda. In addition, the now familiar buzz-words ("Hitler", "Nazis", "genocide") were also used in Kosovo, as a third rate Communist Party apparatchik who posed absolutely no threat to our security or legitimate interests was made out to be "the new Hitler".
Of course, we can give Clinton credit for one thing: he was smart enough not to send in ground troops and produce a similar quagmire to our current situation in Iraq.
Clinton also acted with the approval and support of much of the world. As for the genocide in Kosovo, a quick search on Google turned up [url=http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Kosovo-Massacres.htm]solid evidence of Kosovar Albanians being lined up and shot[/url].
While it may not have been on the scale of the concentration camps built and filled in the Serb/Croat fighting, I'm inclined to think it's a good thing that violence at that scale was prevented.