--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 2/25/2003 12:00:24 AM Eastern > Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > He was playing against Clinton, what did you > expect? > > This is an incredibly cheap shot. Clinton had no > support at home or abroad for a policy to confrount > Iraq. And let us not forget that a president nameId > Bush chose not to take him out when he could have. > He said he did not have a mandate from his allies to > do so. If he didn't have a mandate at that time how > could Bill have a mandate. Face it John the man who > must accept the lions share of the blame is George > senior.
I don't think it was a cheap shot at all. When Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate George H.W. Bush, what was Clinton's response? A cruise missile strike on Iraqi intelligence HQ, _launched at night so that the building would be unoccupied_. What sort of message did that send? Indeed, today is a very good day to think about the consequences of Clintonian inaction - because today is the 10th anniversary of the _1st_ WTC bombing. What was Clinton's response? Nothing. No response at all. Can you think of a bigger foreign policy mistake? I can, actually. How about no response to the Khobar Towers bombing? No response to the bombing of the USS Cole? Not enough? How about what is, in my opinion, the single largest foreign policy mistake _in American history_ - refusing the offer of the Sudanese government to hand over Osama bin Laden, because the Clinton Administration felt that we didn't have enough evidence to try him? This was raising incompetence to an art form, with tragic results. Gautam __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
