03-28-2006, 07:02 PM
I agree with some of what Schultz is saying here. Clinton certainly would have used force in Iraq. He made other military strikes in foreign countries during his term as president and still managed to come out with a very high approval rating in both the US and abroad.
When I look at the key differences between the way Clinton applied military force and the way that Bush has applied military foce I see much more planning and thought put into the actions commited during the Clinton administration. Bush seemed more inclined to make a very public display of force and to show how tough America is on terrorists and bad guys around the world. Clinton's actions seemed to be more about surgical acts that didn't embroil the US in lengthy wars.
You talk about the current state of the US economy and I would like to point out that the debt was reducing under the Clinton administration and the economy was running better than ever. The 9/11 attacks signaled a year of non-growth pretty much around the world. The bulk of the current economic problems in the US stem from the massive expense of policing a foreign country.
My biggest complaint with the current war in Iraq is that we went in there looking to overthrow Saddam without looking at what would happen after we did that. Now we're left with an even less stable country than before and no clear plan on how to make it stable again. I don't believe that Clinton would have embroiled the US in this situation as deeply as Bush has. I also believe that Clinton would have rallied more support from other countries as well. These are merely speculations though... just as are the ideas of Clinton actually attaking Iraq.
I have more rant in me but I also have a wife that needs snuggling and I don't actually expect to be able to change anyones opinions here.
When I look at the key differences between the way Clinton applied military force and the way that Bush has applied military foce I see much more planning and thought put into the actions commited during the Clinton administration. Bush seemed more inclined to make a very public display of force and to show how tough America is on terrorists and bad guys around the world. Clinton's actions seemed to be more about surgical acts that didn't embroil the US in lengthy wars.
You talk about the current state of the US economy and I would like to point out that the debt was reducing under the Clinton administration and the economy was running better than ever. The 9/11 attacks signaled a year of non-growth pretty much around the world. The bulk of the current economic problems in the US stem from the massive expense of policing a foreign country.
My biggest complaint with the current war in Iraq is that we went in there looking to overthrow Saddam without looking at what would happen after we did that. Now we're left with an even less stable country than before and no clear plan on how to make it stable again. I don't believe that Clinton would have embroiled the US in this situation as deeply as Bush has. I also believe that Clinton would have rallied more support from other countries as well. These are merely speculations though... just as are the ideas of Clinton actually attaking Iraq.
I have more rant in me but I also have a wife that needs snuggling and I don't actually expect to be able to change anyones opinions here.
Gullible isn't in the dictionary.