 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
October 2006
Elsewhere on the WebVictor Davis Hanson’s Private Papers Victor Davis Hanson Archive on National Review OnlineTour Books
A War Like No Other How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War
by Victor Hanson
Amazon.com’s Best of 2001 Many theories have been offered regarding why Western culture has spread so successfully across the world, with arguments ranging from genetics to superior technology to the creation of enlightened economic, moral, and political systems. In Carnage and Culture, military historian Victor Hanson takes all of these factors into account in making a bold, and sure to be controversial, argument: Westerners are more effective killers.
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson, John Keegan Hanson, for those who somehow have missed him until now, is a professor of Classics at California State and also is a part time farmer, both of which have contributed to his writing as a military historian. As a classicist, Hanson is well versed in the sources in their original Greek, and as a farmer he understands how agriculture affected the experience of the Greeks at war.
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson
Hanson relates the life stories of his farmer neighbors, writing that their way of life will likely soon disappear, thanks in part to a federal system of agricultural subsidies that favors large-scale, industrial farm corporations over individual “yeomen.” This is a sobering and eye-opening book. by Victor Davis Hanson On first glance, The Soul of Battle appears to be three different books: biographies of two well-known generals—Sherman and Patton—and one who is virtually unknown today, the ancient Greek leader Epaminondas. Yet Victor Davis Hanson, a classics professor and author of The Western Way of War, makes a compelling connection between these three men. They were “eccentrics, considered unbalanced or worse by their own superiors” who led democratic armies on missions of freedom.
by Robert B. Strassler (Editor), Victor Davis Hanson (Introduction)
|
October 18, 2006 3:35 PM
Darfur—the Good IraqDarfur I am as outraged as the next American about the genocide in Darfur. Both the Khartoum government and its henchmen Arab janjawid militias are conducting a systematic, village-by-village destruction of civilian African blacks and non-Muslims. Nothing since the Rwanda mass murdering highlights more the amoral UN’s impotence than the failure of that world body to act in the Sudan, even as it introduces more legislation to damn democratic Israel and is held hostage by veto threats from oil-hungry China. A multilateral UN force of 30,000 to 40,000 could easily supplement pan-African troops and bring some respite to the area. After reading recent ads in our nation’s major newspapers calling on President Bush to act, and hearing cries of anguish from concerned humanitarians, I am also sure that a single aircraft carrier could enforce a no-fly zone over the country, while a brigade of American troops could shatter the poorly-led and poorly-trained bullies who are killing the innocent. Why We Will Probably Stay Out BUT, and it is a big BUT, I am also just as equally convinced that George Bush would be attacked the minute he put a soldier on the ground by the very humanitarians who are calling him to now act on the implicit premise that since there are no American economic or security interests in Darfur, we therefore should intervene. If Americans were on the ground, then Dr. Zawhri would announce a new jihad, hoping to draw in the normal suicide crowd to knock off some Americans as they fed and rebuilt. And that subsequent bloodletting, not the good we did, would be reason enough for a new outbreak of Bush Derangement Syndrome. With Americans dying in Afghanistan and Iraq, with the United States being ankle-bitten by the Europeans to close Guantanamo (but not send any of its detainees back to their countries of origin in Europe), and crises escalating with North Korea and Iran, we are busy enough. Again, far more importantly, we all suspect of the Sudan that should Americans get ambushed, should a plane go down and its pilot be beheaded on Sudanese television, should a bomb go wide and kill some civilians on CNN, both the world at large, and the American Left in particular, would be the first to turn on the United States for not being perfect when we were still doing a great deal of good. So if there is any American intervention, it will have to wait for a Democratic President, who then, Bill Clinton/Kosovo-style, can bomb Khartoum from 30,000 feet for a few weeks to force the Islamists to desist, assured that either his leftist credentials or the absence of American casualties would quiet opposition. We are developing in America a new reactionary aversion to force, that may soon surprise the UN, the Europeans, and our own left anti-war crowd that clamors for humanism in our foreign policy, even to the point of using arms to stop evil. But given the invective against our efforts first in Afghanistan, and then—and especially—in Iraq, such critics have almost destroyed entirely neo-conservative muscular support for democratic reformers. Full Circle That is, by caricaturing the American idealistic effort in Iraq as ‘no blood for oil’ when petroleum prices skyrocketed after our removal of Saddam, and other assorted slurs, the opposition on the left, along with the failure to stabilize Iraq, helped to bring back the old Scowcroft/Baker realpolitik, and, soon to follow, the “more rubble, less trouble” school of diplomacy. Nowhere is that more clear than in the return of James Baker (“jobs, jobs, jobs” / “F—- the Jews”) last seen on the slopes of Kurdistan promising help for all the slaughtered Kurds and Shiites who took us at our word to “rise up” when we kept back from Baghdad in 1991, and allowed Saddam to retain much of his airpower after his defeat, in hopes we would not offend the Sunni Gulf states, and a defanged Saddam would provide a “stabilizing” role in the region and a “balance” to Iran. Now he advocates talking to Syria as in the good old days that worked so well, and, of course, as before thinks Israeli intrangence causes terrorism—thus its decline after they left Gaza and Lebanon. Last Thursday I debated Lawrence Korb on “Iraq: Accomplish Mission or Withdraw”, taking the position that we must keep some troops there until a stabilized Iraq government can handle its own security needs. My adversary Dr. Korb, the moderator Gen. Ted Oelstrom, the Kennedy School, and the several hundred students in attendance were as polite and professional as could be, and it turned out to be the most hospitable and enjoyable group imaginable. And that says a lot now in this era of political hysteria. Comments (35)Jeffrey S Neher :Denny :The systematic rape, murder and theft against the people of Darfur reminds me AGAIN (as if all the OTHER violence from Muslims against non-Muslims around the world on a DAILY basis doesn't) of what a "peaceful" religion Islam has been since it's inception. Oh, no! Did I just qualify for ANOTHER fatwa?!? I will now go back to being my old Dhimmi self. Buck Smith :The US needs to train an army in Darfur and then use them to take Sudan and then Somalia. Kevin :God bless you, Dr Hanson, for the work you are doing. Roy S. :Sadly, there will come within our lifetime a great backlash against the Muslim world that will make the Darfur and Rwanda killings footnotes in history. It will also make civilian collateral deaths in Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki seems moderate by comparison. Once the West wakes up after a major jihadi attack in the future, all hell will break loose and moderate Islam will wish they had done something before it became too late. Junius :During the American Civil War there were many good reasons for Abraham Lincoln to send an army into Mexico to expel the French. I am sure the Copperhead Democrats would have applauded such a move. Of course the one bad reason to do so was that it would be a distraction from fighting the Civil War. nick foresta :I am equally convinced that if a Democrat were in the Whitehouse and decided to intervene in Darfur, John P :I too am troubled by the issue in Darfur, BUT am lost as to why America is being thrust into the leadership role on this issue. This is the opportunity of the world to show their prowess and initiate themselves on the world stage in a humanitarian manner. I would imagine it's true that the military force needed to squelch such madness as Darfur can be put forth rather easily by many a nation of this world. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't - so, step up to the plate Europe -Asia - Africa - Latin America. Where have all the good people gone? The Sheriff needs a few Deputies. Greg Gransden :I watched the Kennedy School debate, and was pleasantly surprised at how civil the whole thing was. I was also surprised at how many students were supportive of the American project in Iraq... I thought it was great that Prof Hanson was able to respond to Dr Korb's arguments in a way that was forceful and effective, but also with civility and grace. If only more of our public discourse were like this... MadGreek :Ok, let's assume for one reson or another the will of action is inaction. How does one instill pro-active actions? Education? Threats? just do it (unilaterally). Education ought to be the solution but how does one educate morality? What should the goals be? Gabriel Chapman :How anyone can take the UN seriously given its longstanding malfeasance in regards to the Darfur situation boggles my mind. One would hope that the lessons learned by Rwanda and Burundi would have been learned, sadly they have not. Given that the term “genocide” has yet to be uttered by Kofi Annan speaks volumes to his competence. One can only draw the conclusion that dictators, thugs, and petty henchmen can act with impunity to undermine their nations and their regions, arm and train terrorists, and subvert nuclear proliferation treaties with impunity without fear of any meaningful repercussions. Mugabe, Chavez, Jong-Il, Ahmadinejad, Assad, Putin, Mubarak, Castro and Al-Bashir all enjoy legitimate status within the “democratic” UN even though their nations are anything but free. The rank hypocrisy of the various UN councils is nothing short of astonishing, and the uselessness of UN resolutions is readily apparent. With North Korea having only 55 UN resolutions involving their activities and Israel having 976 one can conclude easily that the UN is an utter disgrace. Only the “esteemed” media continues to hold the UN in high praise and continue to prop up this corrupt and morally bankrupt organization as a tool for good. It’s long past time that the US eject this despot coddling corrupt gaggle of anti-American/anti-Israel and discontinue all forms of funding for it. Raze Turtle Bay, and put up low cost housing. TallDave :I'm starting to think a smaller U.S. force might make sense in Iraq, perhaps 50,000 or so, enough for close air support and occasional armored interventions. We don't have much control over whether Sunnis remain so unreconciled to being forced from power as to take up arms, or whether Shia carry out tit-for-tat reprisals to their car bombs and mass murders (I am becoming cynical enough to wonder whether the latter may be the only thing that deters the former). If we define our goal as training and supporting an Iraqi military that is loyal to the Iraqi constitutional government, then I think we are being more realistic without sacrificing our ideals. Ultimately, it is up to Iraqis to achieve a stable, peaceful Iraq. Frederick Bartlett :Darfur is simply not our problem. Both the victims and their oppressors are adherents of Islam, the religion of peace. It makes sense, therefore, for the Organization of the Islamic Conference to lead in making peace in Sudan -- for peace is what Islam is all about. The alternative hypothesis is that killing Muslims is only a crime if the killer happens to be a Jew. Darfur is a costly experiment that will answer one of the great questions of our age: Can Islamic states be civilized? Give the results so far, the answer is clearly "No." Jay McGinley :Your mentioning Darfur in your blogging is imperative. And as doubtless you have noticed, blogging volume regarding Darfur has plummeted. Thank you for your efforts. I have repeatedly written that President Bush has through his leadership on Darfur shamed our timid, token efforts, we-the-citizens. But we-citizens must not abandon Darfur or Bush on this effort. We are hopelessly stalled in Saving Darfur. But it is only hopeless if we-the-citizens continue to be bystanders risking little or no cost to ourselves. Please help promote what must fast become our role models; nothing less will stop the Genocide: More Darfur Heroes at DARFUR Dying for Heroes Thank you, Rosemary, Dave, Mary Rachel, Jay coming up on week three of Mike :I suspect some of the people calling for action in Darfur are only doing it because we do not have the troops to take action. It gives them the opportunity to beat their chest and talk tough and undermine the war effort in Iraq at the same time. We don't have the man power to act in Darfur and it's usually part of the an anti-war strategy to redirect the publics attention from problem to problem. Dudley Smith :There's no contradiction here - both positions involve the criticism of Bush, and that's all the logical consistency needed. This column reminds me of a joke I read a while ago regarding those who ride around with "Free Tibet!" bumper stickers on their cars. If GWB one morning announced the liberation of Tibet through military means, those bumper stickers would be replaced that very day with "War is not the Answer!" ones. Diego :Isn't the violence in Darfur muslim on muslim violence? I may well be wrong but I thought it was an ethnic thing, not a religious one. cf bleachers :It is time for all reasonable and rational people to come to a conclusion whether or not they believe that the President of the United States, (based upon the information given to him and the actions of the Iraqi regime taken previously) believed that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were a threat to the world, sponsored terrorism and that military action was necessary. In the runup to confrontation with Iraq, the President, Secretary of State and National Security Advisor made it clear what they believed the situation was and what needed to be done. WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, December 16) -- The President ...etc...
Let me remind all of you what this whole crisis is about: that is, to "Now, let's imagine the future. What if he [Saddam] fails to comply and "He [Saddam] has started two wars. He has invaded a country next door. "There is no greater challenge to the region's stability and to "Nobody wants to use force. But if Saddam refuses to keep his "The United States remains resolved and ready to secure by whatever
Nikolay :>as if all the OTHER violence from Muslims against non-Muslims Percy Dovetonsils :We are all quite familiar with the "chickenhawk" slur against civilians who support military action in Afghanistan & Iraq. So I ask those on the Left who bemoan the lack of action in Darfur: why aren't YOU forming a version of the Spanish Civil War's Abraham Lincoln brigade to take up arms? Hmmm? (Incidentally, Professor, your comments about the developing "reactionary aversion to force" on the Right is spot-on. I'm not sure the "UN, the Europeans, and our own left anti-war crowd" will find a vehemently isolationist U.S. to be such a welcome development.) Eno :Dr. Hanson: I believe the aversion to using American military force gained credence after the Vietnam War. Of course the left adopted the view for a variety of reasons. The aversion to the use of miltary force was popular in America, however, because many conservatives (paleocons?) believed in an isolationist foreign policy. For example, I supported Reagan's stand against the USSR and the placement of missles in Europe and the invasion of Grenada (our "sphere of influence). But I never would have supported any military incursion in Africa or Asia. Too expensive, and not in our national interest. The left said "Nation building" smacked of colonialism, the right deemed it simply not in our interest economically and in the view of "world opinion." I believe the "reactionary aversion to force" is confined to the extreme left (and right). Most Americans do not want us invovled in conflicts around the world because of the cost in terms of human life and finance. But I think most Americans were shocked out of our 60's attitudes by the 9-11 attacks. A majority of Americans are "against" the war in Iraq, whatever that means. A majority of Americans also believe that the "cut and run" philosophy of the left is juvenile. Although the "reactionary aversion to force" is real, I believe it is confined to one area of the political spectrum. Econ-Scott :If you read an incredibly well documented book from 1969, "On Borrowed Time, How WW II was started" written by the man who witnessed then reasearched the events, Mosley, you will see a broad canvas filled with Characters by different names but Oh so so familiar to a present time. Every generation has it's backstabbing Chamberlains, Wilsons, and reluctant backstabbers Daldiers. And every generation has it's calculating tyrants and enablers, knowing the backstabbing appeasers have no stomach to confront. Al Reasin :I am so angry at the “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” attitude that is prevalent in America today. I judge people/politicians on follow through on their promises/commitments. I have no respect for those that waffle on commitments. I may not like what someone does, but if they do what they say they’ll do, I have to respect them. Obviously, there limits on the acceptability of any action, but when there are reasonable choices I can accept decisions when they are made with rational thinking. Our Captain, when I was in the service, had three choices in order to repair our submarine after an underwater collision. He made the worse possible decision for the crew in terms of family separation but the best for the ship and crew when we set sail. I never heard anyone complain about that decision and to this day, while I didn’t like it, I knew it was the best of the choices for our ship and crew. Likewise, I’m not overly fond of our decision to invade Iraq, but I support the President in his mission to keep terrorism off of our shores even thought my son will deploy to Iraq in December with the Army. worse yet, because his technical MOS is not needed, he will be utilized for convoy duty. He said it is his turn. I would support an American effort in Darfur even if my son is a casualty in Iraq. “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” said Thomas Jefferson. My hope is it is not the blood of my son nor any American son or daughter; just the blood of tyrants. Terry Crane :It is somehow presumed that US must either send ground troops and be responsible for everything, or stay away. Why can't you guys just send a couple of bombing missions, destroy the ports and their Government buildings, and promise to repeat next time they behave badly. Darfur needs guns, not troops :Darfur is the same as it was in Rwanda: the agressors are a band of brutal inhuman thugs, NOT an army. Just as in Rwanda, a determined group of people with guns easily wiped out those thugs. They don't even need US training. Just some basic "click the safety, point at the bad guy" guides is enough to rout thugs. So all the Darfur residents need are the guns to defend themselves. But the Left can't bring itself to admit that guns are an answer. "Let's sit down and talk" is all they want to do. Mike H. :Darfur started in 1983. Where were the people then who have just now discovered the cause? Perhaps they've only recently discovered maps. Improbulus Maximus :Human nature comes in three basic flavors: Those who won't fight no matter what; those who will fight when forced; and those who seek to dominate others by whatever means necessary. It is a sad fact that those in the middle, who are normally peaceful but who will fight when forced, are often put in the position of fighting against bullies, but without the assistance or gratitude of the pacifists. In fact, the pacifists are generally just cowards who, when they do act, generally will take the side that is most aggressive, i.e., the bully's. Petrit :A few thoughts: "Darfur started in 1983." Uh, no. The civil war between the north and south (loosely described) started around 1983. That war has been resolved; Darfur is a separate issue. "So all the Darfur residents need are the guns to defend themselves." No, no and no. Small arms proliferation is the reason why wars (particularly in Africa) drag on for years. "Why can't you guys just send a couple of bombing missions, destroy the ports and their Government buildings, and promise to repeat next time they behave badly." That certainly worked well everywhere else we've tried it, hasn't it? The only way to win in these situations is with boots on the ground. "Nothing since the Rwanda mass murdering highlights more the amoral UN’s impotence than the failure of that world body to act in the Sudan," etc, etc. What do you mean by "the UN"? The Secretariat building? The General Assembly? The Security Council? The UN operational agencies? The Office for Outer Space Affairs? I assume you mean the General Assembly and related councils. Yeah, they suck. But there's no such thing as "the UN" in that context - there's only the members of the General Assembly, who make up those bodies. So what you're basically saying is that the international community sucks. That would be fine, except the US is a member of that international community, and a member of the GA, and a permanent member of the Security Council. So what you're really saying is, why won't the UN do exactly what I want? Which strikes me as being a poor basis for governing international affairs. "The US needs to train an army in Darfur and then use them to take Sudan and then Somalia." Why don't we finish training an army in Iraq first? Although it seems to be taking longer than anticipated, which might or might not be a good reason for not taking your proposal seriously. "A multilateral UN force of 30,000 to 40,000 could easily supplement pan-African troops and bring some respite to the area." Agreed, up to a point. But that's only if the Sudanese government were entirely happy about that, which it doesn't appear to be. If you're proposing to go in without the assent of the government, where are you going to stage 30-40,000 troops from? Chad? "I am also sure that a single aircraft carrier could enforce a no-fly zone over the country, while a brigade of American troops could shatter the poorly-led and poorly-trained bullies who are killing the innocent." Could you explain the basis of this certainty? Look, why don't we just buy all the oil concessions at double the price the Chinese paid for them, then use that to lean on the government to just stop? It would be expensive, but probably less expensive than an ill-conceived war such as the one being discussed here; it would secure more oil that would act as additional leverage on China; and damn sure the Sudanese would listen if the government kickbacks were on the line. William :Find out how other Americans feel. Our foreign policy index is an amazing way to gage public opinion about American foreign policy and the current state of affairs, and from the way things look, the public may just be at a tipping point. Read on… Here at Public Agenda, we’ve created a new tool to track Americans’ opinions on foreign policy issues, providing a basis for political commentary. Similar to the Consumer Confidence Index, the Foreign Policy Anxiety Indicator provides policy makers, journalists and ordinary citizens with the public's overall comfort level with America's place in the world and current foreign policy. An essential tool updated twice a year, the Indicator will consistently provide much-needed information on the public’s perception of more than two dozen aspects of international relations. In a world strewn with violence and highly-charged international issues, Americans are broadly uneasy about U.S. foreign policy. The September 2006 shows the Foreign Policy Anxiety Indicator at 130 on a scale of 0 to 200, where 0 is the most confident, 200 the most anxious and 100 neutral. Eight in 10 Americans feel the world is becoming a more dangerous place for Americans, yet they're also skeptical about most of the possible solutions, such as creating democracies or global development. Only improved intelligence gathering and energy independence have substantial support, with energy firmly established as a national security problem In fact, the public lacks confidence in many of the measures being taken to ensure America’s security. Less than 33% of Americans give the U.S. government an “A” or a “B” grade for its execution of the following foreign policy issues: reaching goals in Iraq and Afghanistan, maintaining good relationships with Muslim countries and protecting U.S. borders from illegal immigration. And these are just a few of the findings of the survey. These are some of the other startling findings: - 83 percent say they are worried about the way things are going for the United States in world affairs (35 percent worry "a lot", with an additional 48 percent saying they worry "somewhat.") - 79 percent say the world is becoming more dangerous for the United States and the American people - 69 percent say the United States is doing a fair or poor job in creating a more peaceful and prosperous world - 64 percent say the rest of the world sees the United States negatively - 58 percent say U.S. relations with the rest of the world are on the wrong track Want to learn more? Go to [www.publicagenda.org/foreignpoli...] to download the report. Public Agenda is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group devoted to public opinion and public policy. The confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index is developed in cooperation with Foreign Affairs with support from the Hewlett and Ford foundations. Boinkie :Well, Dafur is terrible. R. G. Newbury :Neither the USA nor Canada (my country) should put boots on the ground in Sudan. The UN will do nothing to even attempt to stop the genocide. So what should be done is to airdrop arms and ammunition to those in the refugee camps. What makes a genocide is the disarmament of the victims. If 'shall issue' is proper in (what?) 40 states, why should it not be when victims are being forced from their homes and cannot fight back. (I won't start about the situation north of the border!). I figure one rifle and 5000 rounds per package and 100 guns per thousand men in a camp. This would give a refugee camp of say 200,000 refugees, a protective force of approaching 10,000 men, or one full division of (very light) infantry. Providing training would be nice, but not required. The cost per package would be...what?. about $500.00 But doesn't the US army have lots of ammo dumps on its hands in Iraq? Alan Furman :
Petrit :"What makes a genocide is the disarmament of the victims." Genius. Because the solution to people killing each other is - more people killing each other! What an impoverished vision you have, and what a complete lack of understanding of even the basics of the situation. Brendan :Genocide in Darfur: 1. I cannot understand those who are in favor of sending in our troops, but not arming the victims so that they can defend themselves. It seems hypocritical and condescending, that our boys can be trusted to use force, but the others cannot. 2. Arming both sides might extend conflicts, but what is the alternative? Not arming them leads to a much more rapid conclusion of the event, all of the weaker side get killed. 3. Without the projection of force by the victims (i.e. if the US [or UN] is the only gurantor of the weak side's safety) the Arabs will adopt a strategy that involves either: waiting the protectors out, harassing them out, or guilting them out (colonial guilt). Then go right back to the killing. Petrit :Brendan: 1. Because it's really really hard to identify "victims," and harder still to arm them without turning them into the oppressors themselves. This is why external peacekeepers are a better option - when there is a peace to keep. If you're proposing to arm them with small arms, then there will be no decisive victory. The only way to reach that peace is through diplomatic and political means. 2. I'm not sure what your point is. It isn't an either/or decision; the conflict is going to go on, and it will resurface even if this current stage is resolved. (Because in fact a large part of the conflict is rooted in land claims, which in turn are being exacerbated by environmental pressures, particularly desertification of arable and pastoral land.) 3. Right. And if we arm the victims (however you want to define them) and they "win" the "war", then what happens next? The Arab population have to leave? The government loses control over that area and it collapses? The area secedes and destabilises the surrounding countries? I'm not saying that these aren't desirable outcomes - I'm just interested to know what you think will happen once the victims are armed. Comments have been archived for this page. |
Pajamas MediaAn American Senator in Paris Warning: Opposing Putin Hazardous to Your Health Anti-Patriot Act Poster Boy Kidnaps Own Kids AP’s New ‘Accountability Journalism’ Is a Sham Obama Wows Germans — But Will It Play in Streator, IL? Homeland Security Meets The Sopranos Obama Does Offer Hope — to America’s Foes Yahoo-Icahn-Microsoft Aftermath: Who Really Won?
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
RSS FeedsADVERTISEMENT
|
digg this
del.icio.us
It is a sad commentary on todays body-politic that a president who acts is knee-capped by his political opposition and a president who refuses to act is praised. Not only that, but the "too fat and happy to care", when is American Idol on? public rewards the indifference with high approval ratings and punishes the pro-active one with low approval ratings. The former president gave us Rwanda....look the other way and then blame the UN. Now his crowd is taking shots at the current president for not acting in Darfur. They also took their shots at him for not stopping 9/11. They've also taken shots at him for acting to stop future 9/11's. They chastised him for going it alone in Iraq and now blast him for not going it alone in N Korea. They lamented the fact that Saddam had WMD's and now claim he lied about the WMD's. The fact that Clinton did nothing regarding Rwanda? Silence from the left. The fact that Clinton beat the war-drum claiming Saddam had WMD's? Again, silence from the left. N. Korea broke the 94 agreement authored by he and Brother Carter? A deafening silence rings in from the left. No need to go down the path of Blackhawk Down, the first WTC, the Khobar Towers, the African Embassies, and the Cole. Not to mention the numerous offers of Bin Laden. I guess the planning for 9/11 only took 8 months too. I'm being unfair though....I admit it. If you were a Branch Davidian, a "bimbo" leveling a sexual complaint, an employee in the White House travel office, a Cuban boy being protected by his extended family on American soil, or a member of the "right-wing" conspiracy, then you felt the full force of the Clinton administration............
Oct 18, 2006 10:19 PM