DISQUS

Fred · 2 years ago

The Clinton administration was shuffling and pushing at doing the right thing, but not effectively. Terrorism and Saddam Hussein (not the same thing) were seen as problems. If the Republicans had formed a solid bipartisan effort to work against these enemies of the US, they and President Clinton would have gotten more done. So Guiliani has a point.

Instead, though, the Republicans focused on 'Monica' and impeachment, weakening the foreign policy of the US.

willard · 2 years ago

Fred, nice try. "Gotten more done"?? You mean like Bush has now? How would it have been any different? You're barking...or should I say hawking..up the wrong tree. The whole point Matthews was making was there was no real intention or effort to lay the political groundwork for a war w/Saddam. Nor should there have been, as we would have ultimately been in the same situation as now. Declaring war on the wrong "enemy" is NOT a way to strengthen foreign policy. We are without any reasonable doubt in a worse state internationally than we were before attacking the wrong "enemy" and occupying a foreign nation for their oil and strategic footprint. Let's not subtly spin it otherwise.

trace · 2 years ago

Willard... After reading Fred's hawking.. I was going to bark back... but no ONE could make the points that you made and be as right as you are then ... well.. you. In closing... RIGHT ON WILL!!! =0)

flobflo · 2 years ago

That Iraqi "resolution" was nothing more than a wink and a nod to Ahmad Chalabi and Alawi. The rightwing will bend and twist in any shape to bring Clinton into the conversation. Lady Rudy shows once again that he doesn't know wtf he's talking about. When will Guiliani change his name to 9/11?

Chris · 2 years ago

Gotta love the title above Guiliani head: "Rudy's Wrong". It is obvious that Rudy is targeting Clinton rather than any of the other Repubs. I think he is being too far sighted and will get side swiped by either Thompson (by carrying the religious wackos that make up the majority of *MY* party) or Paul (who has the following of a large number of his own wackos... although they are wackos I can at least understand and identify with at times).

Eric · 2 years ago

Why is this a democrat vs. a republican thing. It's an issue of foreign policy, and all presidents have "enjoyed" bombing and invading other countries.

Only Ron Paul was against all of this from the beginning. Who cares if he is a republican, if he is telling the truth.

you · 2 years ago

Eric, you're absolutely right that this is not a Republican vs Democrat issue, as much as they both want to make it seem to be. The US has engaged in some form of aggression, be it all-out invasion/war or air strike bombing campaigns, ever since World War 2.

However, I think that Ron Paul is not the only president who is against aggression. It seems to me that in addition to Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich is also interested in returning the US to being a peaceful country.

To me, the most important issue is not the Iraq "war". It's the overall issue of aggression, and Kucinich and Ron Paul seem to be the only candidates who are interested in making the US a peaceful country.

you · 2 years ago

Marshall,

This is a common misperception about Barak Obama. He was opposed to the Iraq invasion and occupation, but he did not vote against it because he was not a senator at that time. I believe on the day of the vote he was participating in an anti-war rally in Chicago.

you · 2 years ago

And also going back to my previous message, I think that Obama is very much anti-Iraq but I do not get the impression that he is opposed to US aggression as a policy. As Eric said, US aggression is not a Republican vs Democrat issue. It's an issue of US policy that has been carried out in some form or another by every president since World War 2.

Most Americans seem to be opposed to the Iraq invasion simply because it is not working out as well as they were promised by Bush (I believe the White House estimated it would be 2-3 weeks?). My feeling is that Americans should have been opposed to it because it's irrelevant to the issue of terrorism, Saddam posed no threat to us, Saddam had no connections to al-Qaeda, and ethically we should not enter another country with military force unless we have been attacked by them first.

Hiker07 · 2 years ago

Google Ron Paul

wapo · 2 years ago

I'm pretty sure that Mike Gravel was and is opposed to just about any war especially this one since he was almost single-handedly the person that ended the vietnam war via his solo filibuster in the senate and by employing various parliamentary procedure maneuvers to help bring the mandatory draft to an end.