24 September 2006

The Clinton Interview

Did you watch?
If not, have you seen the highlights?
Those of you that stop by now and then know I am no Clinton fan.
I've surveyed the blogs, and it was predictable:
Lefty blogs loved his performance,
Conservative blogs think he overreacted and was out of control.
Me? I think he's still one of the best politicians on the face of the earth.
His wife can't possibly compare.

And my take on the interview......
Who cares?

What Bill Clinton did during his Presidency isn't important.
What King George the W did prior to September 11, 2001 isn't important.
Before 9-11, we thought the world loved us. We now know that all the good the U.S. does in the world counts for nothing among those that want all women home taking care of the kids.

What is important TODAY is that we realize we are involved in a fight with an enemy that wants to control the way we live, and the way we impact the rest of the world.
Casualties mean nothing to this enemy.
They are patient....time also means nothing to this enemy.

They'll wait and take advantage of any weakness we show.
Those that want to withdraw from battle are denying the danger, and when they finally realize our plight, may find it is too late.

Forget Bill Clinton. Forget GWB, prior to 9-11. Hindsight is 20/20.
Remember Jimmy Carter and Iran's takeover of our Embassy in Tehran.
We've been at war since, and are finally realizing it.

The water around our frog continues to heat up.........
Western civilization is at war, and had better get busy prosecuting that war efficiently.


Purple Tabby said...

Sometimes I think you are a mind reader. And you say what I'm thinking so well.
Thanks GB

SimplePieman said...

Pitchpull; I agree that Clinton bashing or praising is not going to help much at this point. America needs to learn to fight smarter. George W doesn't seem to have the vision needed for this fight; his past and present actions demonstrate that. He's a cowboy with from-the-hip answers, egged on by corporations that make billions of bucks.
Yes, this is a protracted struggle. We just need to start picking our battles more carefully and stop breeding more terrorists and America-haters than we're killing.

Anonymous said...

I agree there's no turning back the clock. I am so dismayed that
a country so rich in talent and innovation can not come together to develop an alternative energy to oil. If we could only do this we would dry up the funding for terrorists, not need to be in their
"neighbor hood" save our sons and daughters lives and create jobs for people here in America. We need to elect people who are accountable to the people.

Flightfire said...

So, in your opinion, how do we go about prosecuting this "war on terror?" We all agree that we have to fight these people, where we disagree is the how. If you can generate a logical argument as to how invading Iraq has contributed to preventing terrorism, I'd really like to hear it.

Our resources are now focused there and the Taliban is starting to rebuild in Afganistan. Every single poll I've seen shows support growing for Osama bin Ladin among Muslims because of the Iraq conflict. Iraq has emboldened truly dangerous nations like Iran and North Korea. Democracy "on the march" in the Middle East has caused virulently anti-western
groups like Hizbollah and Hamas to gain legitimacy. The bright light that was Lebanon, was just bombed back to the stone age by Isreal, further angering Muslims. Iraq is in a state of low-level, sectarian civil war. Is this really any way to fight terrorism?

Oh, and Osama is still alive. We're doing a bang-up job. I don't know exactly how to fight this battle, but I know this isn't it.

Greybeard said...

Well,let's see if I can make this understandable-
FF, would you say Islamic Fundamentalism has grown in Iran since 1978?
What did the war in Iraq have to do with that growth?
Obviously nothing.

The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal....
That also was pre- Iraq, right?
Would you say Islamic extremism was growing there prior to our Iraqi Invasion?
(I'm sorry, I know that's a stupid question, but I'm trying to figure out how to answer a question that is pretty far out there.)

I'll agree our invasion of Iraq may have focused the extremists attention on us, but Islamic extremism was growing LONG before our invasion of Iraq.
France, Spain, Britain, Denmark, Morocco, Sweden and a host of other countries have a serious problem with the growth of Islamic fundamentalism (and the attendant violence) on their hands. (Google "Malmo, Sweden, Muslims", and read the resulting links.)

FF, you are fervent in your argument, but you contradict yourself in your vision.
You don't think we should have invaded Iraq, even though Iraq was ignoring some 17 U.N. resolutions, but think we should be doing something in Darfur to prevent the genocide there. And you know what? I agree with you!
But we cannot take on these missions as we did in Somalia.... half-heartedly. And we certainly don't want to take on that mission when we are being stabbed in the back by our "allies"..... like France and Russia, taking money from the corrupt U.N. Oil For Food program and working behind the scenes to aid a Dictator that is torturing his people.
You gotta make up your mind, boy!

"The bright light that was Lebanon" illustrates my point exactly. Who was the aggressor there? Why were they "bombed back into the stone age?" If they had stayed inside their own border, do you think they would have suffered?
How do you think the Lebanese Christians feel about their country being taken over by Islamic extremists? Those Christians may be killed just because they are Christians.
At what point does this poisonous flow become obvious to even the most thick-headed?

Still not convinced? Then all I can say is your hatred of this Administration has gotten in the way of being able to think logically, and no argument will reach ya.

And frankly, I don't understand that.

Flightfire said...

I should stop here, but I just can't resist being drawn into these arguments. Probably because I'm an opinionated asshole, but here I go anyway.

I understand and agree with the argument that Islamic extremism was growing long before the Iraq war, what you didn't make clear is how the Iraq war has helped to stop that extremism.

Yes Saddam was a horrible person who tortured the people who are now killing our soldiers, and he was violating 17 UN resolutions, but there are dozens of countries around the world violating UN resolutions, Sudan is a great current example. But, we are not threatening to invade Sudan, Iran, North Korea, or any other country. So why did we invade Iraq? Because it represented a supposed threat to our security. That threat turned out to be a complete farce and now Iraq has become a much bigger threat to our national security as outlined in my previous post. The "poisonous flow" has turned into a flood of flaming hatred.

The other portion of your argument is that we can't do things half-heartedly like we did in Somalia so we had to go full-bore into Iraq. I find it hard to compare the two. We didn't go into Somalia because it represented a threat to our security, we went there to provide cover for the humanitarian mission and to try and oust the violent warlords who were killing lots of people. Darfur and Somalia are a lot closer. I guess I can understand the argument that we might've appeared weak to extremists when we withdrew from Somalia, but that doesn't make the case for invading Iraq. It would be like your friend's little cousin beating you at chess, and you turning around and punching his slightly larger, but completely unrelated, brother in the face just to prove that you're not weak or stupid. That's going to anger a lot of people.

Ok, bad analogy, but you get the idea. Yes, I am fervent in my belief, and yes I hate this Administration with passion, but I feel like I am addressing your points with logic and argument and you are attacking me as being young and stupid.

The thing I am not doing very well is offering alternatives, because I honestly don't know how to fight this fight, but I'm pretty dang sure the direction we're going right now is not it.

Greybeard said...

No, I don't think I said you were stupid.
Young? Yep. And ignorant too. And I don't mean that in a perjorative way. Ignorant, as in naive.
If I thought you were stupid, I would delete your comments and not waste my time responding to you.
Thanks for stopping by.

The Old Man said...

Lemme see if another old retread can help FF figure it out.
Have you heard of the flypaper theory? Where we attract Islamic suicide-types to attack armored vehicles and troops in another country instead of driving a propane truck into Woodrow Wilson High School in Anytown, Anystate? According to Al-Quaeda documents, the movement is down to the third string and if they don't put a successful movement together, even that poor support will disappear.

WRT Lebanon - if somebody broke into your house and stole a relative of yours, wouldn't you have a case of the ass? Why has UBL assumed Holy Grail status in your mind? OBL murdered approx 3000 people, Saddam was responsible for at least 25 times as many. Are you celebrating that he is finally facing punishment for his crimes?

I b'lieve you've let your case of BDS run away with you. He'll be gone soon - and I see no one on the political horizon that I'd trust to run the GWOT.

Do you?