Clinton's Legacy To America - Part 2

United States
April 9, 2007 4:35pm CST
Here is more on how we came to Iraq, and how Bush and Clinton share similar methods. Clinton’s foreign policy could best be described as “cruise missile imperialism”, while Bush is often criticized for his alleged unilateral “go it alone” foreign policy and for invading Iraq on false pretenses. Both were largely a continuation of Clinton’s policies. Clinton increased funding for the military, and he also bombed more countries than any other peacetime president, including Yugoslavia, Sudan, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan. In 1998 he bombed alleged terrorist training camps in Afghanistan (which were built by the CIA for Islamic terrorists in the 1980s) supposedly being used by Osama Bin Laden and a factory in Sudan that Clinton alleged was producing chemical weapons for Bin Laden. Although no proof that this factory was producing chemical weapons was ever found, it was proven that the plant was actually a medicine factory. I personally remember something about a baby food factory being bombed that Clinton claimed was a bomb making factory in disguise. At the time I thought it was just propaganda being put out against the US and Clinton, but now I can't help but wonder about that. When Bush invaded Iraq, he tried to get international support and UN approval to invade Iraq. He failed to get that support and invaded anyway. When Clinton attacked Yugoslavia in 1999 he didn’t even try to get UN approval, he just bypassed it completely in favor of a unilateral assault. Nineteen nations, all of NATO, technically signed up to the war but the US (with UK assistance) took the lead role and did most of the fighting, just like Bush’s “coalition” in Iraq. Most of the world was against the war, with small riots taking place in front of some US embassies. Unlike the Iraq war, the US did have the support of West European governments, but the rest of the world was against it. One of the administration’s slogans was “multilateral when we can, unilateral when we must,” which is virtually the same as Bush’s policy. As you can see, there are many similarities in the way Bush and Clinton handled the wars they were involved in. At the same time there were some differences. What happened with Kosovo is a good example, and I will visit that next time.
2 people like this
2 responses
@piasabird (1737)
• United States
26 May 07
There is so much hate out there for Bush that people are blinded by it. Clinton was just their little darling and could do no wrong in their eyes. They like drinking the kool aid and being in their ignorant bliss. Not to mention that the public has a short memory. Bush is taking a lot of unfair criticism and the bias media keeps hammering all of the negative aspects. I think that most of the younger people on here only get their news from The Daily show. I read some of the writings on other sites and I sometimes wonder if people have lost their minds. At the very least they've been brain washed. They've turned into one enormous herd of sheep. I don't like everything that Bush does, but I don't think that he is the Antichrist like many seem to think he is. And he's not a moron.
1 person likes this
• United States
26 May 07
This is true. I have seen posts where people said that there were no wars while Clinton was in office, yet he bombed more places than any other peacetime president in history. Before Clinton' impeachment, Nixon was held as an example of a bad president because he had lied to the people and impeachment proceedings were going to be started for him. Rather than put the country through that, he resigned. Clinton began his campaign under a cloud...he already had so much baggage from when he was governor of Arkansas that it wasn't even funny, and the voters didn't care. When he got caught in his lies and everything that happened while in office, once again it didn't matter. There is a double standard when it comes to politics and the voters and the press. The media has the power to control public opinion. When all they do is highlight the negative aspects such as this war and how many troops are dying because of it, then that shapes public opinion and the people get angry just like they are now. No one ever talks about the tax cuts that Bush made, or if they do it is that they favored the rich. That is a lie. While some of the cuts did favor the rich, the truth is that Bush's tax cuts favored everyone, and included a new 10% bracket for the poorest taxpayers, and generally cut all of the brackets by 4-6 %, for a tax savings of 1.7 or 1.9 trillion dollars. That's a lot of money, and there is no doubt that the democrats hate seeing all of that good money being wasted on the tax payers. Yes, the people are sheep. They watch the talking heads, tune into youtube or prison planet or some other wacko outfit and figure it's got to be true, or they wouldn't be saying this. They don't realize that the news and media are nothing more than propaganda machines that put the ideas out that they want out. The news you hear is the only news that you hear, and the people eat it up and consider it gospel. Bush isn't a moron, but a lot of the voters are.
1 person likes this
• United States
26 May 07
You may have done a lovely job comparing Bush and Clinton. You in NO WAY showed how Clinton led us into this war.
• United States
27 May 07
My reply has nothing to do with how I feel toward Bush. If you want to start going back into history and putting blame why not start back with Reagan? Clinton did not bring us into this war. We were not attacked by the Iraqi people. We were attacked by Afghanistan. Bush sent us after those that attacked us and then CONVIENTLY forgot who the enemy was and went after Saddam and Iraq for his own agenda. Besides any "fighting" that Clinton led anyone into was over quickly. Bush just wants to drag this out for an indefinite amount of time. Yet he has forgotten who attacked us on 9/11. It was NOT Saddam and Iraq. It was Bin Laden and Afghanistan. Why has he shifted focus off them? Maybe because he and Cheney have financial dealings that would be hurt if we continued to pursue those that actually did attack us!
• United States
27 May 07
We are in Iraq because that is where al-Qaida and company fled to. As far as going back to Reagan, that is not nearly far enough. Go back to WWII and see what our foreign policy has been about. Prior to entering WWII, we were isolationist and didn't involve ourselves in other countries until we were forced into the war by the attack of Pearl Harbor. Our foreign policy since then has been self serving and involved us in a lot of things that we should have stayed out of. Bush is merely the latest link in a chain of actions that basically began with the end of WWII and the creation of the CIA and other organizations. It is not a pretty picture.
1 person likes this
• United States
28 May 07
I agree we have gotten into things we should have stayed out of. So Bush is just a link in this long chain? Then Clinton didn't lead us to war cause it started long before him.