Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Bill Clinton on WSJ opinion page

by hh / November 22, 2005 10:57 PM PST

Rather interesting.
Some quotes: "Still, a large majority of the American public opposed my decision. ...........the House of Representatives voted three-to-one against an American troop deployment in Bosnia. Despite this opposition, I felt the United States had to act in order to stop the atrocities........."
"Ten years later, the people of Bosnia have validated those who stood with them. The region is now stable and peaceful......"

I do not have a link to the complete article but if someone can provide it I would appreciate it.

Now, what is wrong with this picture? Ten years later, we are seeing the results of the decision, which was correct. Why don't we give the same benefit of doubt to the current President?

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Bill Clinton on WSJ opinion page
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Bill Clinton on WSJ opinion page
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
I honestly think it's because
by TONI H / November 22, 2005 11:19 PM PST

both the father and the son went up against Saddam....and when the son did it, he was immediately accused of retaliation for the assassination attempt by Saddam against the father or we wanted all that oil (because both father and son are in the business)or the son wanted to repay Cheney/Haliburton by giving them/it lucrative contracts for the rebuilding after the fact.

It wouldn't have made a rat's bit of difference if Clinton or any other Dem was in office, if those chains of events had occurred with them.....those three items of events would have triggered exactly the same reaction politically, I believe.

TONI

Collapse -
With Clinton, it was the Republicans who reacted. With Bush,
by Kiddpeat / November 22, 2005 11:48 PM PST

it is the Democrats. That's the difference between the two parties. All the Dems care about is gaining a political advantage even if that's at the country's expense.

Collapse -
Because Clinton was
by Dan McC / November 23, 2005 2:59 AM PST

not 100% wrong about the reasons for going in. That's a start. Also, Bosnia did not turn into a gas can/flaming torch juggling act that threatened to destabilize the region and beyond. Perhaps because our actions in Bosnia did not attract accusations of torture, that's always something to avoid.

Dan

Collapse -
Nope...but VietNam did
by TONI H / November 23, 2005 3:10 AM PST
In reply to: Because Clinton was

bring all of that and more....under mostly a Dem Pres.

Presidents do what they have to do with their best information and intentions. Sometimes it works well right away, sometimes it works 'in the long haul', and sometimes it doesn't work at all.

It's always going to be a crap-shoot...no matter what party is sitting in the Oval Office.

TONI

Collapse -
Toni you are so right and it is always the ones
by gearup / November 23, 2005 3:13 AM PST
In reply to: Nope...but VietNam did

not sitting who complain the loudest! Something which VP Cheney understands is the way our government works. Unfortunately there are many in here who do not.

Collapse -
How about the 3 to 1 opposition by House of Reps.
by hh / November 23, 2005 3:24 AM PST
In reply to: Because Clinton was

But then again, Clinton, as you say, was 100% right.
Not because he was a Democratic president right?
One major difference that you ignore is that the war in Iraq is directly related to our national interests, where some of the terrorists are based and they are attacking us. Bosnia was more of a European problem, right in their backyard.

Collapse -
I said no such thing.
by Dan McC / November 23, 2005 3:46 AM PST

Take another look at my post and rephrase your reply. I most certainly did not say the Clinton was 100% right.

Iraq was billed as being directly related to our national interests. And it might have been had not the estimates of Iraq's threat capability be so spectacularly off target. But they were and it wasn't.

Which terrorist attacks against the US were launched from Iraq?

Dan

Collapse -
OK, I stand corrected.
by hh / November 23, 2005 3:58 AM PST
In reply to: I said no such thing.

You did not say Clinton was 100% right.

On the other issues though, I do not think that we can say Iraq was all squeeqy clean. We still do not know what happened to the WMD. Can they be in Syria? Maybe transferred there before the start of the war?
Maybe in the hands of some terrorists, maybe somewhere in Afghanistan/Pakistan border region.
Surely you will not deny that they did not possess them.
I think we may still be surprised by what we may find in coming years.

Collapse -
Why would I deny that?
by Dan McC / November 23, 2005 5:41 AM PST
In reply to: OK, I stand corrected.

Iraq wasn't clean, but it was not dirty in anything like the way that it was described.

What WMD?

Dan

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Actually his bombing raids were condemned by the UN.
by EdH / November 23, 2005 4:17 AM PST
In reply to: Because Clinton was
Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

Does BMW or Volvo do it best?

Pint-size luxury and funky style

Shopping for a new car this weekend? See how the BMW X2 stacks up against the Volvo XC40 in our side-by-side comparison.