--- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Still, it's
> possible that even a true effort would have been
> stymied by France, Russia or Germany; maybe that's one
> of the factors that prevented Clinton from acting on
> Iraq
Rowanda etc. etc. As presidents go Clinton was a good one. (Top halph of
class) They guy had balls, but he didn't have balls.
Good lead, but no follow through. He wasn't able to *spin* things the way
they needed to be spun so that he could do the right thing. SO it was..."were
going to save these poor people...were getting the hell out....were keeping
the peace...it's none of our buisness."
I am, as of today, looking for some serious bush to sharone brow beating.
Peace is going to work or it isn't.
> sometimes it's the best of multiple lousy choices.
Always!
> As for credible, immediate and significant threat, a
> nation has the right to defend itself -- but it had
> better have hard evidence to back up any pre-emptive
> strike. Which I said in roughly those terms last
> summer.
Well, I think that as the world leaders, we actualy have more responsibility
than that. It IS our responsiblity to respond to any significant threat, not
just to defind oursleves, but to defend those who can not defent themselves.
Otherwise ww have no right to be the world leader,and should give it up to
someonw who is willing to make the hard calls. That is what being a leader is
all about after all.
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
