Trick or Treat?
George Bush or Bill Clinton?
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
Bill Clinton, addressing the subject of his administration's Iraq Liberation Act, which he signed into law on this day, October 31, in 1998 (it's only imperialism when the other guy does it):
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
Bill Clinton, addressing the subject of his administration's Iraq Liberation Act, which he signed into law on this day, October 31, in 1998 (it's only imperialism when the other guy does it):
posted by Terry Glavin at 10:00 PM
2 Comments:
Well, the Dems have always left quite a bit to be desired as well when it comes to foreign policy. Both major political parties are under the influence of the military-industrial complex.
It was the other guy who actually went into Iraq though.
I would say it's the "progressive" (i.e. reactionary) left that leaves more than a bit to be desired when it comes to foreign policy. This gang never seems to have met a dictator or ruthless, brutal oppressive regime they didn't support, unless, of course, it was somehow associated with the West, esp. the U.S. Bush's mistake wasn't invading Iraq, it was using bullshit arguments to do it, when there were perfectly sensible arguments available. The occupation probably wasn't necessary, especially considering how it was handled. However, the "military-industrial complex" argument is bogus; otherwise, Clinton might well have invaded Iraq. He didn't, though he faced the same "military-industrial complex."
Post a Comment
<< Home