rgr22j

No, instead they jumped the gun on their intelligence and launched missiles on an aspirin plant in the Sudan, bombed Baghdad from the air (Clinton Press Release, December 17, 1998), and snubbed the UN and the EU to go it alone in a high-altitude bombing campaign in Kosovo so ineffectual that NATO Commander Wesley Clark -- yes, that Wesley Clark -- threatened to begin World War III (the Guardian, August 3, 1999).

As for a first-strike policy, "At least once before, the Clinton administration has reacted to perceived threats attributed to bin Laden's associates, and that resulted in the August 20, 1998, cruise missile attacks on sites in Afghanistan and Sudan." (CNN, October 24, 2000) Sounds an awful lot like a first-strike policy in response to "imminent threats."

Look, I supported Clinton's foreign policy in Kosovo and Iraq, including the Iraq Liberation Act, which he signed. I don't believe all this horse manure coming out about "How Clinton caused 9/11" or "How Clinton failed in the War on Terrorism" or other such nonsense. However, it's simply nonsensical to believe that the so-called "Bush doctrine" has inaugurated some new era of American foreign policy.

Had the timing been different, i.e. had Republicans not wasted millions of dollars pursuing a non-issue sex case, had they not distracted the country by turning the Congress into a gossip session, I believe Clinton may have led his own larger campaign into Iraq. As an example, I strongly believe he stopped his bombing campaign in response to "Wag the Dog" accusations. See former Clinton administration official Ken Pollack's "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq."

I also believe that had Clinton done exactly the same things that Bush has done, the world press would be lauding Clinton as the heir apparent to the Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln legacies. It's too bad most anti-liberation critics seem intent on discrediting the Bush administration, to the point of lunacy ("There were never WMD in Iraq!"). Where were the "massive worldwide" protests when Clinton was killing civilians with low-precision, high altitude bombings in Baghdad? How about the calls for "quagmire" in Kosovo, where after four years we still have troops performing peacekeeping? Does not capturing Ratko Mladic somehow delegitimize the whole campaign? We understand that these questions do little to detract from the worth of our objective, the value of which has nothing to do with who happened to be president.

Unfortunately, for some reason it seems to take great fortitude to admit that someone you do not like may be doing the right thing. Because one thinks the leader is stupid or unworthy does not mean that one cannot agree that his course is correct. I, for one, do not think highly of Bush's intelligence, but based on the confederation of dunces the Democrats have arrayed against him, I might be swayed by Jonathan Swift's observation regarding genius. However, that would stretch even my credulity, so instead I defer to Robert Kagan, "Yesterday's liberal interventionists, in Bosnia, Kosovo and Haiti, are today's liberal abstentionists. What changed? Just the man in the White House."

I fail to see how any of the quotes above are any more specific than the "blanket assertions and lies" that Bush is currently being lambasted for. For example, "Is a real and grave threat to our security," "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear" both could have easily been attributed to the Bush administration, and are not particularly detailed in any way that I can see.

Ironically, just recently the US-backed CDMA technology was rejected in favor of GSM for Iraq's lucrative mobile phone market. Or are you referring to KBR (Halliburton's subsidiary), who won the blanket emergency reconstruction contract LOGCAP under the Clinton administration?

You're right. It could have taken another 12 years, at a cost of many Iraqi lives. But at least US soldiers wouldn't be killed. Better to air-mail destruction than to enact real change on the ground.

-- Alvin