The fact is Clinton would NEVER have had the stones to undertake something like Bush is doing now. But had he done it, it would have received worldwide support. At the time, the justification was self-evident.
Eh. I can't agree with that. The UN just would've negotiated the return of the inspectors, like they've done now. As I'm trying to argue with Ted, Europe didn't like us in the '90s, and they don't now, either.
If that's the case...that our relationship with Europe was in the same place as it is now.....where was the open defiance; the adamant opposition to Clinton's wishes? We did not have the blessings to fight Serbia not because of a French veto or German criticism but rather because Russia chose to show her loyalty to a Tito offspring.
I think you are making a mistake thinking this is business as usual.
Today, you have a lot of people--liberals, mostly, but a few conservatives--who think, "well, he hasn't acted up in a while, we ought to just wait and see". This is kind of the Carl Levin approach.
And to me, that doesn't matter. He's a cruel dictator, time to depose him. Other factors may increase the urgency somewhat, but his human rights record is really what gets me.
Most dictators in this world don't have a great human rights record...what makes Saddam so special?
ted |
