Can we [wait to] kill them tomorrow?--clinton
I think it is a correct question to ask. Military engagement SHOULD always be a last resort.
I think anyone who would not put off an attack until all other options had run out is not fit to be a commander-in-chief.
The problem is apparently the answer was "yes," when it should have been, "maybe not."--dangus
My comments to usmcobra from the original thread apply:
(NOTE-The original post contains the complete list of footnotes.)
|
Great comments!
If he was referring to our ability to destroy any enemy--axiomatic under any circumstances--then his little 'test' is, obviously, tautological and empty. NOTE: Another possibility exists, that he was referring to whether we have the luxury of time to wait to take out our enemy; but that possibility is negated by the circumstances, i.e.,
When terrorists declare war on you…and then proceed to kill you… you are, perforce, at war. At that point, you really have only one decision to make: Do you fight… or do you surrender? In spite of himself, clinton was a wartime president. The problem is, he surrendered. Preemptively. You might say the clinton approach to The War on Terror was the perverse obverse of The Bush Doctrine. The sorry endpoint of this massive, 8-year clinton blunder (' I always asked the same question for eight years: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?') was, of course, 9/11 and the exponential growth of al Qaeda. What an abject failure. What a repulsive, self-serving danger to America. How could the Left is even toy with the idea of a clinton sequel?7 I would say He was recognizing that he didn't have the courage to do so without overwhelming public support to give him enough spine to order our troops into battle, and that he decided that a future president would have to do the job later for the nation when the nation called for action. A brilliant turn of phrase. ;) The cowardice of bill clinton as a factor is a given. But there was an equally significant force driving clinton's feckless inaction (and feckless action)--THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. (Only this past week, clinton once again confirmed its importance. We are talking about a very sick, dysfunctional couple here.) Madeleine Albright captured the essence of this dysfunctional presidency best when she explained why clinton couldn't go after bin Laden. According to Richard Miniter, the Albright revelation occurred at the cabinet meeting that would decide the disposition of the USS Cole bombing by al Qaeda [that is to say, that would decide to do what it had always done when a "bimbo" was not spilling the beans on the clintons: Nothing]. Only Clarke wanted to retaliate militarily for this unambiguous act of war. Albright explained that a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel Peace Prize for clinton. Kill or capture bin Laden and clinton could kiss the 'accord' and the Peace Prize good-bye. If clinton liberalism, smallness, cowardice, corruption, perfidy--and, to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, clinton cluelessness--played a part, it was, in the end, the Nobel Peace Prize that produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled the clintons to shrug off terrorism's global danger. (For more info, see discussion of clinton's curious explanation of the missile strike at Kandahur6 that took out a phalanxlike formation of... empty tents... and allowed bin Laden (and the Mideast Muslim ego) to escape unscathed.)
Yesterday, at the "progressive," i.e., ultra-extremist left-wing liberal, "Take Back America" confab, Mr. Soros confirmed the obvious: 9/11 was dispositive for the Dems; that is, 9/11 accelerated what eight years of the clintons had set into motion, namely, the demise of a Democratic party that is increasingly irrelevant, unflinchingly corrupt, unwaveringly self-serving, chronically moribund and above all, lethally, seditiously dangerous. Apparently missing the irony, George Soros chastised America with these words even as he was trying his $25,000,000, 527-end-run damnedest to render himself "more equal than others" in order to foist his radical, paranoic, deadly dementia on an entire nation. "Animal Farm" is George Orwell's satirical allegory of the Russian Revolution; but it could just as easily be the story of the Democratic Party of today, with the its porcine manifestation. SOROS TSURIS Soros' little speech reveals everything we need to know about the Left, to wit:
Soros is correct when he states that each of the two pillars of the Bush Doctine--the United States maintenance of absolute military superiority and the United States right of preemptive action--are "valid propositions" [in a post-9/11 world]. But when he proceeds from there to argue that the validity of each of these two [essential] pillars is somehow nullified by the resultant unequalled power that these two pillars, when taken together, vest in the United States, rational thought and national-security primacy give way to dogmatic Leftist neo-neoliberal ideology.
What is, in fact, "inviolate" here is the neo-neoliberal doctrine of U.S. sovereignty, which states simply that there must be none, that we must yield our sovereignty to the United Nations. Because this Leftist tenet is inviolate, and because it is the antithesis of the concept of U.S. sovereignty enunciated by the Bush Doctrine and the concept of U.S. sovereignty required by the War on Terror, rabid Leftists like Soros conclude that we must trash the latter two inconvenient concepts--even if critical to the survival of our country. It is precisely here where Soros and the Left fail utterly to understand the War on Terror. They cannot see beyond their own ideology and lust for power. They have become a danger to this country no less lethal than the terrorists they aid and abet.
|
