[Alberta's Child]

Ironically, much of the information in that post would explain why the U.S. has such a hard time maintaining any credibility in the world when it comes to making the case for war. The very nature of this country's electoral process makes it impossible for us to make any long-term commitments anywhere in the world.

A country that can elect an unprincipled @sshole like Bill Clinton to the White House can never make the case that it is willing to make a long-term commitment in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

[honway]

Interview:This man served Saddam Hussein for decades. Along with another Iraqi defector, Sabah Khodada, the general tells of terrorists training in a Boeing 707 resting next to railroad tracks on the edge of Salman Pak, an area south of Baghdad

[carton253]

And then you go and post something like this... and show such wonderful insight.

[pgyanke]

> "A country that can elect an unprincipled @sshole like Bill Clinton to the White House can never make the case that it is willing to make a long-term commitment in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc."

An alternate view of our Constitutional process... The countries of the world SHOULD be able to count on principled leadership rooted in law since we don't allow the opportunity for tyranny and rule by whim. As in the case of Clinton, I'm sure they were comforted by the knowledge of his eventual ouster.

Unfortunately, we know where the rule of law has been heading... but that is an issue to be dealt with on the homefront.

[JoeA]

The U.S. was at one time capable of making long term commitments on overseas policy. The old saying was that politics stopped at the water's edge. Though presidents may have disagreed with their predecessors, radical changes in policy were rare. Now it's a free for all, and international diplomacy is conducted by ex-presidents as though they still had power.