Hmmm, in a prime example of partisan extremism, Bill Clinton gave an extremely partisan speech with the central theme of accusing his opponents of partisan extremism.
Projection is one of the most successful tools of the left.
I tried listening to Hillary's speech on the radio yesterday. Except annoying announcers kept breaking in to the speech.
Bill Clinton was probably the single most fortunate president in history. The US was the center of both a computer and internet boom that can happen only once in history. The boom was crowned by an artificial Y2K problem that poured bucket loads of cash into the economy.
Bill Clinton ignored the rise of the Taliban, he turned his back on the people of Rwanda, and on the secod rise of Saddam Hussein.
He is correct that single pary rule under Bush was a fiasco.
The rational style, however, is not determined by the President. The rational style is set by the schools, press and other institutions that are dominated by the left.
Real analysis of the failures of the Bush presidency is valuable. The increased volume of the partisanship was the result the of the left and not Bush.
The wank right after Clinton (Evan Bayh?) just said the most ludicrous thing I had heard in a long time. He praised Obama for supporting a timed withdrawl of American troops when Al Qaeda was winning the war and the Iraq Democracy was at its most tenuous. He then attacked Bush for starting negotiation a time table for withdrawl when it looks like the Iraq Democracy made it through its darkest hour.
For those of you who are into definitions. Withdrawing your forces when you are losing is called "surrender." Withdrawing forces after winning is called "victory."
I opposed the war. However, the way one ends a war is far more important than the way it was started. I applauded Bush's stand that we should not negotiate a timed withdrawl until there was good chance that a democracy would survive in the region.
That means we needed to find a way to draw down during a upswing.
The ending of the war is more important than its beginning. We ended Desert Storm poorly because we left Saddam in power and simply ignored Hussein's atrocities during the Clinton years.
3 comments:
"For those of you who are into definitions. Withdrawing your forces when you are losing is called "surrender." Withdrawing forces after winning is called "victory.""
Pitch perfect, as they say.
Desert Storm ended when and how it did because of strong international and U.N pressure. It had much to do with international relations, and very little to do with what the president at the time felt was right.
I wish the Bush Administration had spent the post 9/11 moral capital on reforming the UN, and not the invasion of Iraq. We had inklings of the Oil for Food bribery going on.
If done correctly, we could have pressed the case that ideological corruption of the UN was causing it to fail at its primary mission ... peacekeeping.
Of course that tact would have been as big a gamble as invading Iraq. After all the intelligentsia likes it corruption.
Post a Comment