Posted on 03/16/2003 6:51:56 AM PST by SJackson
A baby walking around with a loaded diaper is an obvious distraction to anyone within sniffing distance. When our second son did his best to contribute to the sulfurous quality of the atmosphere in the Rummo household, it was left up to me or Mrs. Rummo (usually the latter) to change his diaper. My older son, a toddler at the time, was always pre-occupied with his own playthings. Despite the rank odor, he somehow managed to ignore it long enough until the adults got wind of the crisis and did something about it.
Loaded diapers remind me of Bill Clinton's foreign policy, particularly in three areas: North Korea, al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
These festering stenches have all come back to haunt us at the same time like screaming triplets.
They were largely ignored by the toddler in the Oval Office who was pre-occupied with his own plaything and more focused on his legacy. Now that the adults running the Bush administration are back in charge, the clean-up has begun.
Al-Qaeda was active during Clinton's presidency and bin Laden undoubtedly emboldened by the US's limp response to the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole.
The sum total of Clinton's military response to these attacks was to lob a few cruise missiles at what we were told was an al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen. It later turned out to be an ibuprofen factory and the timing coincided with Monica Lewinsky's Grand Jury testimony.
On the other side of the world Clinton was equally inattentive when North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1993.
A Congressional Research Service report, prepared by Richard P. Cronin, Coordinator Specialist, Asian Affairs, Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division in 1994 stated, "Congress has tended to regard the threat posed by North Korea's actions as one of the most important U.S. foreign and security policy concerns, and Members have monitored and often criticized the Clinton Administration's handling of the issue. What some see as judicious Administration adjustments to a very difficult negotiating environment have been interpreted by others as vacillation and wavering."
As to Clinton's confrontation of Iraq, I'll let him explain in his own words from an address to the nation in December, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
What prompted Clinton's actions? Again, in his own words: "Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability."
Why attack Iraq? Don't other countries have weapons of mass destruction?
".Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
".This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now."
Where were all the protestors, the dissenters in Congress and how come all of the hypocrite-Hollywood hand-wringers were MIA? For one, they were still busy helping to defend Clinton's behavior with an intern named Monica. (The strike against Iraq was ordered on the eve of the impeachment vote in the House of Representatives).
But even more to the point is simply this: Deep down inside these phonies knew Clinton wasn't serious about ending Iraq's chemical and biological threat.
The fact that we are still stuck with the same stench in our nostrils five years later is all the evidence we need. Fortunately the adults are back in charge. But what a mess they've been left with.
###
Gregory J. Rummo is a syndicated columnist and author of "The View from the Grass Roots," published by American-Book. Visit his website, www.GregRummo.com
It may be that Clinton is a treasonous, Socialist, pathological lying piece of shiite.
It also may be that he has endangered the very lives of all Americans, and the future security of this great nation, the last bastion of freedom on Earth.
But his choice of women...uggghhh!
The 90's really were the Decade of Clinton Fraud.
Excellent article and one that contains some very pertinent questions that I would like to see answered by some of those scroungily-bearded ones making a lot of noise about our upcoming war with Iraq.
One nit-pick with the article, however. The cruise missiles were lobbed at a training camp in Afghanistan and the aspirin factory was in Sudan, not Yemen. Little facts like that harm the credibility of otherwise well-written articles like this.
What prompted Clinton's actions?
What prompted Clinton's action had a lot more to do with his impeachment hearing ... than any real military concern regarding Iraq. This was nothing more than a ploy to divert attention away from the tawdry details of his impeachment.
Clinton endangered the lives of every American, and the future security of our nation?
Jerry Lewis and the Sink Emperor were idolized by the French.
Both were comic buffoons who were bad actors.
Why isn't his sorry ass dragged to Capital Hill for televised hearings on this?
More importantly, why is my Republican Party NOT taking advantage of these revelations and using the power of the White House and Congress to make the Great Unwashed Leftist Scumbags aware of it?
And don't forget how the press & the broadcast media screamed about his duplicity at the tops of their lungs; and how they demanded to know the evidence against Saddam and how they demanded to know how much it would cost and how they ....
What? None of this happened? Oh, it was a dream? Oh? My bad. Sorry to interrupt.
I forget who originally coined the phrase, but it was something like: "History will look back on Clinton as being the pile of dog poop between two Bushes."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.