I would be utterly fascinated to hear what you think any of the Democratic presidential candidates would do to make "lemonade" out of this.

As for your example of Yugoslavia, I see a lot of the same problems currently being dealt with in Afghanstan: warlords, corruption, failure of peace agreements, etc. But since this is a Clinton foreign policy effort, the problems won't be pounded into our heads on a daily basis. Had you even heard of ANY of these issues over there before you looked at my link?

For an additional 100 points: describe to me the exact reason (the "effective case") Clinton gave us that made it necessary to bomb the hell out of Eastern Europe.

Did they attack us? No. Were they supporting terrorists? No. Did they invade Austria? No. Did the U.N. sanction the NATO actions? No. Did anyone say that the many deaths resulting from the bombing invalidate any possible future good that may have come from it? No.

What did I miss?

The cost of the first year (1999) of peacekeeping in that area was about $50 billion. About $4 billion a month. Sound like a familiar number? Still waiting to hear Democrats bitch about the costs of this effort.

Save it for the rubes. This entire media crapfest has one single goal: the political destruction of George W. Bush for the crime of having beaten the Democrats not once, but twice. The Left in England is after Blair for its own reasons.