Opinions wanted

[j2k4]

How do/did you feel about Bill Clinton's foreign policy as compared to that of George W. Bush?

How did you perceive America under Clinton, as opposed to Bush?

[ram82082]

proof is the puddin.... look at the US now and compare its state to the Clinton admin.

lol what is Bush's policy, blow shit up?

[vidcc]

I don't think the US has had a good foreign policy in my lifetime, just varying degrees of badness.


Clinton felt we were safe with his policies, and I'm guessing you disagree with him.

Bush felt we were too safe, so adjusted the policy to change this

[j2k4]

proof is the puddin.... look at the US now and compare its state to the Clinton admin.

lol what is Bush's policy, blow shit up?

proof is in the puddin?

What proof?

What "puddin"?

Clinton really liked to blow shit up, too, but never anything worthwhile.

Odd that Clinton's foreign policy was criticized in much the same terms as Bush's, but no one seems to remember.

I don't think the US has had a good foreign policy in my lifetime, just varying degrees of badness.

Foreign policy vis a vis the U.S.S.R. under Reagan was perhaps our finest hour in the international arena.

I will agree the U.S. is akin oft times to a bull in a china shop, but the bull is the role we have to play.

If we didn't do it, maybe, oh....China, France...maybe Iran would try it, huh?

Clinton felt we were safe with his policies, and I'm guessing you disagree with him.

I did indeed disagree with Clinton's foreign policy; what do you mean, though, when you say, "Clinton felt we were safe with his policies"?

Bush felt we were too safe, so adjusted the policy to change this

This last is not clear at all.

[ram82082]

b4 u jump the gun... first let me say iam not at all familar with either "policy". what i do know is that with Clinton we had no fear of bin laden or terrorism, and i do remember clinton shakin alot more hands than Bush. i remember my econ prof talkin of repression with Bush in office. i remember how much "we" liked Clinton. i remember the rest of the world hating us alil less. lol, shit i remember we had a prez that could f*ckin read

[Skiz]

b4 u jump the gun... first let me say iam not at all familar with either "policy". what i do know is that with Clinton we had no fear of bin laden or terrorism, and i do remember clinton shakin alot more hands than Bush. i remember my econ prof talkin of repression with Bush in office. i remember how much "we" liked Clinton. i remember the rest of the world hating us alil less. lol, shit i remember we had a prez that could f*ckin read

With Clinton we had no fear of terrorism? WTF are you talking about?

First WTC bombing.
Oklahoma City bombing.
Al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole. I'll never forget the sight of that ship afterwards.
3 (maybe more) embassy bombings in Africa, etc.

Clinton failed miserably at defending this country from not only terrorists, but al Qaeda itself. After those attacks, Clinton ordered one attack on a single building, and I think we all remember how that turned out.

In a letter to President Clinton, a CBS jounalist asked him about the attck on the USS Cole, and Clinton's reply was:

....I have absolutely no doubt that President-elect Bush will continue to pursue the investigation and when the evidence is in will take appropriate action. And when that happens, I will support him in doing so.

Their "clean hands" solution?

These days, the best the former Clinton aides can say is that, at the end of their time in office, after they failed to adequately respond to the growing threat, they came up with a really great plan to strike back at al Qaeda. As they walked out the door, they handed it to incoming Bush officials and said, "Here — do this."

On a side note, are you insinuating that it is Bush's fault that Bin Laden is a threat by stating, "with Clinton we had no fear of bin laden or terrorism"? If not, what are you saying??

[ram82082]

WTC "bomb" in which u speak of was like 92 n had no terror in it. it was in the fucking garage. dunno about u but i was scared n there was no so-called "war on terrorism. if a car bomb in a garage and blowing up a boat count as terrorism, then what was it laden did?

i aint insinuating shit, im stating what the post asked MY OPINION. the current admin is just as bad as al queda, they're fearmongers.

and i c u left out the part about how many countries we were enemies of pre-bush and present.

[j2k4]

One of the things we've heard over and over again, ad nauseum, is the complaint that the U.S., under Bush, has developed this nasty habit of pre-emptory and unilateral foreign policy.

The overarching message is that this "tendency" began with Bush.

Well, the message is bullshit.

Read, with special attention to the parts I have emboldened:

Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright
Interview on NBC-TV "The Today Show" with Matt Lauer
Columbus, Ohio, February 19, 1998
As released by the Office of the Spokesman
U.S. Department of State

MR. LAUER: On "Close Up" this morning -- the showdown with Iraq. As UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan heads to Baghdad in a last-ditch diplomatic effort to end the standoff, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is traveling around the United States making the administration’s case for a possible strike against Saddam Hussein. Madame Secretary, good morning to you, good to see you.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Good morning, Matt, nice to see you.

MR. LAUER: Thank you. To put it bluntly, you were heckled yesterday. What was your reaction to the reception you received?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, actually, I thought it was a very interesting meeting. There were a couple of dozen hecklers. But for the most part, there were some very serious people in the audience who had serious questions that we tried to answer. And we’ll continue to do so.

MR. LAUER: That’s true. You did have people who stood up and expressed their concern over military action against Iraq. Did you walk away from the meeting, Madame Secretary, with a different point of view, a different perspective on the situation?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Absolutely not. I think that we know what we have to do, and that is help enforce the UN Security Council resolutions, which demand that Saddam Hussein abide by those resolutions, and get rid of his weapons of mass destruction, and allow the inspectors to have unfettered and unconditional access. That’s what we have to do.

Matt, we would like to solve this peacefully. But if we cannot, we will be using force; and the American people will be behind us, and I think that they understand that.

MR. LAUER: I’m just curious. Do you think yesterday’s session helped or hurt your case? I mean, back in the early 1990s, Madame Secretary, you used to appear on this show as an analyst for foreign affairs with William Hyland. And you’d come on and talk about the Administration’s reaction to foreign affairs. If you were analyzing yesterday’s performance by you and your colleagues, how would you rate it?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I thought our performance was great. But I think that the issue here is that there were people who disagree. I would probably say that there were a few dozen hecklers who disagreed. But what I would have said, actually, is that there were more people that asked questions and directed their thoughts about the fact that we ought to send in ground forces.

That’s what I found interesting -- that there are more Americans who really would like us to go in and finish off Saddam Hussein. That was the message that I got from that meeting.

MR. LAUER: And you lead me right into my next question, because one man you heard from yesterday was a retired serviceman named Mike McCall, whose son died during the Vietnam War. Here’s what he said.

(Audio clip.)

Madame Secretary, Secretary of Defense William Cohen attempted to answer that question yesterday. Why don’t you give it a shot for me today.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, we had a half-a-million troops there in 1991. And the decision was that they could not take out Saddam Hussein. And I don’t think, frankly, that if we got into it, that the American people would want us to send in huge numbers of forces. So we are doing what must be done.

First of all, we would like to have a diplomatic, peaceful solution and have him give unfettered access to these places, so that we could tell what is happening with his weapons of mass destruction. But otherwise, the purpose of a very substantial strike will be to substantially reduce his weapons of mass destruction threat and his threat to the neighbors. We think that is an appropriate goal, and our goal -- and we’ve said this, Matt -- may not seem really decisive; but what we’re trying to do here is contain Saddam Hussein. We’ve managed to do that for seven years. This has been a successful policy. Whenever he puts his head up, we push him back.

MR. LAUER: Let me bring in the man who asked that question in Columbus yesterday, Madame Secretary. Mike McCall, good morning to you.

MR. MCCALL: Good morning, sir, how are you?

MR. LAUER: Oh, thank you, I’m fine. It was a bit impersonal and somewhat raucous in that room yesterday, so let me give you a chance to ask a question one-on-one to the Secretary of State.

MR. MCCALL: Good morning, Madame, how are you?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Good morning, good to see you again.

MR. MCCALL: Thank you, kind of early in the morning. My question is, actually, more of a statement. I’m not a warmonger; I don’t want to see a war; and I don’t think there was any man in that room that was in uniform yesterday, if I’d have asked the question, who wants a war, who would have stood up.

My thought was, if we send in troops after a saturated bombing run and get this thing neutralized to where the troops could almost walk in there in parade formation as more or less of a police force to support the inspectors that come in; get those weapons; destroy them and then turn around to Saddam Hussein and say, "Hey, run your country now, run it like a human being, take care of your people, we’ll buy your oil, we’ll give you money for your oil, and make this country for your people." I don’t want to hurt those people.

MR. LAUER: Let me ask the Secretary of State, is that feasible?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, let me say how much I admire the gentleman who asked the question; I did yesterday; he is clearly a great patriot.

I think the problem with the idea is that we would have to end up being an occupying force. The Americans don’t want to do that. I don’t think the American people would want us to do that. But after the substantial strike, I think we have a much better chance of having the inspectors go back in or make sure that these weapons are not reconstituted by being willing to do another strike.

This is a very serious problem. None of us are saying that there are easy solutions to it, but we have to contain Saddam Hussein. And, as I’ve said many times, we are prepared to deal, ready to deal with a post-Saddam regime.

But I appreciate what he’s saying, because I think he’s a very brave American and a patriotic American who understands why we have to do this.

MR. LAUER: Mike, let me ask you to stand by, and let me ask a couple more questions to Madeleine Albright.

Madame Secretary, your trip to the Middle East several weeks ago was not as successful as I think you would have liked, in building a coalition against Saddam Hussein at this point -- certainly not as successful as the coalition in 1991. Have you spoken to President Bush or former Secretary of State Baker and asked for any advice on gaining support from the Arab world?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: First of all, I think my trip actually went pretty well, because this is a very different situation from ’91, when there was a cross-border invasion of one Arab country into another. And frankly, I got a lot more support than is publicly visible, because these people live in the region.

MR. LAUER: So they’re saying one thing in public, and saying something else to you in private?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Yes, yes. And we feel comfortable that should we have to use military force, that they will be very cooperative.

And as a matter of fact, I did talk to both former President Bush and former Secretary of State Baker; and they both agreed that we have a much more complicated situation than they had on their hands. And they were very supportive, and I especially enjoyed -- well, I enjoyed talking to both of them, because they do have some very good points.

MR. LAUER: Will you speak for me, Madame Secretary, to the parents of American men and women who may soon be asked to go into harm’s way, and who get the feeling that many countries in the rest of the world are standing by silently while their children are once again being asked to clean up a mess for the rest of the world?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, let me say that there are, a couple of dozen countries that are with us on this that are providing a variety of equipment, support and are willing to be with us. So there is a misunderstanding about saying that there is no coalition; there is. And the truth is that in the Gulf War, we did most of the work, too. There’s no question that we, with the British and French, did a large proportion of the work.

Let me say that we are doing everything possible so that American men and women in uniform do not have to go out there again. It is the threat of the use of force and our line-up there that is going to put force behind the diplomacy. But if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us. I know that the American men and women in uniform are always prepared to sacrifice for freedom, democracy and the American way of life.

MR. LAUER: Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Thank you so much again.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Thank you.

[ram82082]

lol bullshit it is, we get bombed by bin laden and go after sudam.... lol now i know they all pretty much look alike, but c'mon.

and it always trips me out when politicians talk about use force, like they're the ones that are gonna lead our young men/women in battle.

i pose a ? --- do you think we'll ever have another prez that will actually fight? like g.w. crossin the delaware or .... to me that a leader. yea he could die but thats why we have VP's and cabinets. if our prez did sumthin like that man! u'd see me on the next ship talkin bout sum "whoo-raaah"

f*ck it, can we get a leader that'll admit when he's wrong?

and wtf's up with this we can weapons but u cant bs?

[Busyman™]

With Clinton we had no fear of terrorism? WTF are you talking about?

First WTC bombing.
Al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole. I'll never forget the sight of that ship afterwards.
3 (maybe more) embassy bombings in Africa, etc.

Clinton failed miserably at defending this country from not only terrorists, but al Qaeda itself. After those attacks, Clinton ordered one attack on a single building, and I think we all remember how that turned out.

In a letter to President Clinton, a CBS jounalist asked him about the attck on the USS Cole, and Clinton's reply was:

....I have absolutely no doubt that President-elect Bush will continue to pursue the investigation and when the evidence is in will take appropriate action. And when that happens, I will support him in doing so.

Their "clean hands" solution?

These days, the best the former Clinton aides can say is that, at the end of their time in office, after they failed to adequately respond to the growing threat, they came up with a really great plan to strike back at al Qaeda. As they walked out the door, they handed it to incoming Bush officials and said, "Here — do this."

On a side note, are you insinuating that it is Bush's fault that Bin Laden is a threat by stating, "with Clinton we had no fear of bin laden or terrorism"? If not, what are you saying??

Bush then attacks Iraq and can't show Bin Laden after 6 years.

Uh yeah.

I feel much safer.