Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
That was great.......
Let us not forget that Clinton took us into nation building programs in Somalia and Haiti, pretty much took us to war against Serbia, launched missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan and repeatedly bombed Iraq.
Afghanistan attacked us during the Bush administration, and Iraq blatently violated the peace treaty ending gulf war one. None of Clintons actions were supported by international law. The international community may have supported them, but they were not supported by international law - big difference.
|
I don't think Bush fits into the traditional conservative way of thinking in many ways (e.g., he has been incredibly irresponsible in economic policy, adopting a borrow and spend approach that scares the daylights out of me). Both conservatives and liberals have always had different branches that were isolationist and internationalist, but I think you'll find motive counts: Clinton wasn't going into Bosnia for geopolitical gain, but for humanitarian reasons; almost anyone would have gone into Afghanistan, Iraq is a case where I believe Bush's motivations were based on the neo-con geopolitical objectives.
On economic policy, Bush blatantly favors the wealthy, a hallmark of conservative policy, but does it in an irresponsible way. On social policy, I would argue Bush has been more successful at moving social policy debate to the right than any prior Republican president. So, I understand the conservatives not wanting him, but please don't stick us with him.
