A Post For Those Who Are Consistent
I stumbled upon an interesting article today from 1998. Its interesting because nobody talks about Bill Clinton when talking about Iraq. Why don’t we hear anyone calling Bill Clinton a fascist like George W. Bush is called? Quite frankly, I can’t see any difference in what Clinton is saying here and what George W. Bush would go on to say later.
Here’s a few of the highlights:
‘”Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors,” said Clinton.’
“Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.”
‘”The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government — a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people,” Clinton said.’
Again, I’m not trying to advocate what Bush has done. I just want you people on the far left who attack Bush’s moral character to see what your liberal champion has said on the same issue.
I anxious to see how some of you are going to try an excuse him.
Just off the top of my head, the first excuse that comes to mind is: President Clinton did NOT actually invade Iraq and involve the United States in what could possibly become its most disastrous military catastrophe ever. But that’s just the first excuse. I’m sure that the rhetoric and words that he used matter more to some. :-D
I could go on all day, actually.
Another reason why people might call President Bush a fascist and not President Clinton is that we did not have these things under Clinton (as far as I know): mass suspension of habeus corpus, the PATRIOT Act, NSA wiretapping, FBI overstepping, CIA black detention centers, and 1,000s of “illegal combatants” held quite illegally at Guantanamo without access to family or legal counsel and never charged with any crimes.
Once again, it’s not really what you say that gives you the fascist title…
“I anxious to see how some of you are going to try an excuse him”
After the 1996 election, Bill was forced to make a number of moderate to conservative shifts as Republicans in Congress made his second term “hell.”
I think Clinton really did believe that regime change in Iraq was a good thing for the United States and the world (as did just about everyone), but to try and compare him to Bush is pathetic. Clinton tried, in concert with much of the international community, to use economic sanctions, moral suasion, and a military cordon sanitaire to achieve this goal. It didn’t work. The goal of the Iraq invasion was not immoral, it was naive.
I agree with David here, that Clinton didn’t actually invade or abolish people’s civil rights. The other thing I will say is this, I am an independent and thinking human being. I don’t have to support any particular individual if I don’t want to. I am liberal, yes, but Clinton is not the “liberal golden boy” that you claim he is. He was far too conservative and bent over backwards for the Republican Congress.