They’ll go to war at the drop of a hat. If only we had a nice Democrat president, like Bill Clinton…
OOOPS:
“Ronald Reagan, often decried by the liberal media as too war-like, committed our military to ten overseas military operations. George Bush, the man who built a 38 nation coalition to free Kuwait, used our military force 20 times. But, in the six years and two months of the Clinton-Gore administration, they have conducted no less than 61 overseas military operations that placed U.S. personnel in harm’s way. Quite a record for a man who once professed to be a pacifist.”
Did anyone tell you that the republicans won the election and that you guys don’t need to spin anymore? You’ve gott a couple years yet before you need to start defending your positions again.
Surprise, surprise, Pres Clinton was a liberalist, and believed in sometimes using military forces for peacekeeping and humanitarian purposes. I’m not sure I see the disconnect here. Both Pres Reagan and Pres Bush used force less numbers of times, because they were focused on the Soviet union, and on Kuwait. You can have a large number of smaller operations or a smaller number of larg operations. This quote doesn’t really say very much.
“Better question, how many have died becasue of Bush?”
Because of Bush? I think the number is zero. Because of Hussein, because of inaction and stupidity at the UN, because of terrorists… Now there are some numbers.
don’t those quotes show the duplicity and hypocrisy of the right? remember–the left is weak on defense. weak on security. the left won’t protect the country. yet, they apparently are more willing to use military force when deemed necessary…
“the left is weak on defense. weak on security. the left won’t protect the country.”
Defense and security? Like shootin’ fish in a barrel, my friend!
Let’s see, what was our pressing national interest in Bosnia? Kosovo? I never could figure out why we were fighting AGAINST the native Kosovars in favor of the muslim invaders, could you? When it came to actually “fighting” as opposed to the video-game war of Tomahawks from 500 miles, Clinton turned tail and ran (Somalia).
Also, it’s interesting that the left loses so much sleep over “colateral damage” in Iraq, which is a natural consequence of war, but didn’t seem to get their panties in such a wad when when we “accidentally” bombed embassies… I say accidentally, because those were huge intelligence failures that dwarfed the WMD/no WMD debate. The freakin’ embassies were on the map ferchriesake…
"Problem is very little of what Clinton did defended America. "
Really guys, you need to quit with the jokes. Somehow Pres Clinton’s use of force to spread democracy wasn’t in the defense of the U.S., but Pres Bush is good to go when he proclaims that the spread of democracy is essential for our security? You guys kill me.
– On the other hand, at least Bush’s escapades are based on a precept of national defense. None of Clinton’s were, as far as I can remember.
9/11…different times…still as you know, many can argue that what we are doing in Iraq isn’t doing anything to make us more safe at home. The plotting continues elsewhere…
9/11…different times…still as you know, many can argue that what we are doing in Iraq isn’t doing anything to make us more safe at home.
Hey, I’m not disagreeing with that. But I think it’s fair to say that Bush and Clinton viewed military force very differently- and Bush at least views it as something to be used in the interests of America’s defense. However incomprehensibly that view is expressed in reality.
Geez. . .I cannot believe I allowed myself to get involved in a discussion comparing Bush and Clinton. . .I need help.
– Hey, I’m not disagreeing with that. But I think it’s fair to say that Bush and Clinton viewed military force very differently- and Bush at least views it as something to be used in the interests of America’s defense.
Its also fair to say we have no idea how Clinton would have viewed the military if he had been around for 9/11. You can’t compare the two as circumstances were so different.
