Opinions wanted

[Busyman™]

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.

If you want your post not to be read, make it blue, lengthy, and with multiple word bricks.

Nice going.

I dunno this ad nauseum complaint and whatnot but most people I know complain about Bush leading the charge to attack a country that had shit all to do with terrorism or 9/11.

Pretty simple.

[ram82082]

[Barbarossa]

As a foreigner, I can't tell the difference between the two.

[j2k4]

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

Uh yeah.

I feel much safer.

Funny, huh?

Clinton has multiple shots at Bin Laden but can't pull the trigger, and Bush can't find him now that Bin Laden is actually hiding from us.

It would be even more embarrassing for Clinton's legacy if Bin Laden had been hiding from him, too, I suppose.

As to the "safer" thing?

To the extent we haven't suffered any attacks since then, it should be plain the reason is not that we've deterred them by dint of new policy (witness airport "security"...witness our porous borders), but because they've found us willing to "return fire", as it were.

There is no other reason.

[j2k4]

As a foreigner, I can't tell the difference between the two.

I'd say this is the proper objective response.

Thank you, Barbie.

[manker]

I think Clinton made some bad choices, like bombing Sudan for, what seemed to me, no good reason. The US led coalition also killed thousand of civillians in response for Iraqi planes violating no fly zones in the latter years of his tenure.

This, however, pales with Bush's seemingly idiotic policy of completely alienating whole countries. Of course, I mean his 'axis of evil' soundbite. Invading Iraq citing one reason at the time and then justifying it with another is also much worse than any foreign policy faux-pas commited by the Clinton administration.

The whole Iraq war was a debacle - and I'm pleased to see in recent elections that the American people agree with me.


The general apathy displayed by the US public during the Clinton years concerning his foreign policy irritated me - under Bush, the groundswell of displeasure has influenced my perception of the American people for the better.

We are talking about perception of American people as a whole, rather than basing an opinion of a whole country on one man, I take it.

===

Clinton has multiple shots at Bin Laden but can't pull the trigger

That's a clever trick.

[Skillian]

If it's just an opinion you're after, mine is that Clinton tried to make a few friends and gave some thought to the point of view of other countries.

Bush just couldn't give a shit what anyone except the USA thinks.

That's the overriding difference between the two.

[vidcc]

As to the "safer" thing?

To the extent we haven't suffered any attacks since then, it should be plain the reason is not that we've deterred them by dint of new policy (witness airport "security"...witness our porous borders), but because they've found us willing to "return fire", as it were.

There is no other reason.

We shall ignore the anthrax thing then and just say that nobody has been blown up (on US soil).

How many years passed after the first WTC attack and the next terrorist attack on the US? Could it just be a matter of time?

But it's funny how you say they have been deterred when worldwide terrorist attacks are way up. I would say that we are less safe because of Bush's policies simply because we are hated more.

We are also more at risk from terrorist attacks from right wing bloggers


hold on, I've just been handed my fauxnews internal memo.........



Seems we can stop blaming clinton now and instead blame pelosi..... that will be a refreshing change

[100%]

It didn't seem so "in our faces" during clinton.

[vidcc]

Clinton failed miserably at defending this country from not only terrorists, but al Qaeda itself.

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?

He had no confirmation as to who did it until he was about to hand over to Bush. I know you repubs like to attack (well get the troops to attack) anyone because they "look suspicious", but had clinton attacked at that point then you would be blaming him for handing a war over.
On the other hand Bush had all the evidence confirmed, just what did he do?

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??

You have to look at timescales to say he was a threat. I mean at one point we not only armed him but provided training. A habit the US has.