I voted for Clinton twice. Regardless of whether you believe me or not, I know you're full of crap on that issue. I voted for him because I disagree with more than half of the Republican's social and environmental policy. I tend to agree with Republican fisacal policy (pre GWB) and foreign policy so I was always skeptical of Clinton foreign policy, but I was not out to find flaws just to bash him.
Your ignorance of American history is rather glaring if you think Presidents haven't gotten around congressional authorization numerous times. As I said it would have cost political capital to respond more strongly which means (since you don't seem to get it) that the public and Congress would have probably turned against him even more. Bad if your ownly concern is politics, insignificant when you know thousands of lives could be at risk IMO. He made political choices that were security mistakes.
Regards,
Mark
Flame » in reply to I'll beg to differ
Your Main Problem Is
The whole thread (92 posts)
- A question for Mark Eby: What is your definition of 'terrorist'?
- Someone who DELIBERTATELY targets non-combatants.
- That's George Bush. Read it again. (n/t)
- Your Definition Is Pretty Good
- Swinging intellectually (and wildly)
- Uh, lemme try: someone with a rag on their head? (n/t)
- My definition is a bit simpler.
- Opposed to.............?
- re: My definition is a bit simpler.
- Differences
- re: Differences
- A seven year old responds
- You're right, as far as it goes.
- Old Trick
- Another Old Trick
- Same Old Anti-war Rubbish
- re: Another Old Trick
- Maybe the point is...
- Same Old Dem Lies And Stupid Posturing
- And what would the same war have cost ten years from now?
- I didn't say there was a better way.
- Maybe the point is...
- Another Old Trick
- re: You're right, as far as it goes. (n/t)
- good bump (n/t)
- Old Trick
- You're right, as far as it goes.
- A seven year old responds
- re: Differences