|
Edited on Tue Apr-18-06 03:09 PM by FrenchieCat
that good for Clinton....and I know it's bad for Bush.
Clinton came into office averting the name calling of the Pukes as "draft Dodger" due to his lack of service in Vietnam (the fact that he was in college and something about visiting Russia, when others were serving).
The GOP assailed Clinton at every turn, and although we were at peace at the time of his election, Clinton cowed from this name calling. He appointed a Republican Secretary of Defense. Not something he had to do, but something he felt he needed to do, to give him credibility with the military and to prove his worth as Commander in Chief. Did it work? Well kind of, but not really.
If you observed Clinton's tenure on military matters, some of the sore points that stick out are Somalia and Rwanda. Somalia was the disaster that kept Clinton cowed to the point of where he allowed 800,000 Rwandans to be machete to death by his non-actions shortly thereafter. In reference to Bosnia and Kosovo, Clinton could have also dealt with those situation with more courage, as he was hamstrung, and due to it, Kosovo was bombed at high altitudes (as to NOT "chance" U.S. military casualties/the Republicans were against going into Kosovo and kept talking about the Somalia soldier casualties) in order to insure 100% no U.S. soldier would be killed...cause Clinton could not afford the bad PR that would come of it (remember "Wag the Dog" and "War for Monica?")
More civilians in the Kosovo bombings were killed than was required (Approx 500). I have researched this......cause I know that Wes Clark felt that the high altitude bombings were NOT really the best war plan (something he learned first hand in Vietnam) and said so at the time. Clark ordered Apaches and "Boots on the ground" war plans (that were never used)and because of his objections over the Cohen led High altitude bombing war plans, was retired early by Cohen. Clinton claims he didn't know that Clark had been retired early until too late....and that may be the case...but what that occurence did show was that Clinton wasn't really that much in charge at all....and it was rather, Sec. of def. Cohen calling the shots.....along with Gen. Hugh Shelton, both who voted for Bush II in 2000 and in 2004.
Also, let's not forget the pressure put on Clinton to pass the Iraqi Liberation act....which was in response to the PNACers famous letter pressuring Clinton to do something about Iraq. The U.N. sanctions levied on the Iraqis with support of the Clinton Administration have been documented for the fatal damage they did to the Iraqi civilian population...
In the case of Bush, he is the exact opposite....arrogant to a fault, as opposed to timid and demure to a "T"....and he and his Sec. of Defense don't and won't listen to anybody.
So there you have it. One president so cowed until it was really someone else running the show, for the most part.....who he backed as long as it helped him present a postive PR picture to the voting public.....
and One President so stubborn and willful until he won't listen to shit, cause he's got an ideology to enforce.
So in this particular case, neither approach of either President was/is a good one, if you ask me. :shrug:
|