<<Clinton doesn't have a foreign policy. >>
They said the same thing about Lincoln, and they were right. Lincoln himself said his policy was to have no policy. In these days, no president would dare admit to having no policy -- it would be like admitting to having no vision, as Bush did, much to his own chagrin.
Of course, the whole idea of having no foreign policy is absurd -- Clinton does have a foreign policy, but its not one that sends the nation unswerving off in one direction, but instead threads through the complex and dangerous obstacles that now make up the world. I prefer a leader like Clinton to one like Johnson, who did have a definite policy in Vietnam which prevented him from making the corrections that were needed. Clinton is a pragmatist, always flexible and ready to abandon the path he set off on when he realizes he has made a mistake. He is a compromiser, which is why he pisses off the extremists on both sides.
Like you, I support the NATO action, but I have trouble with the idea of kids from Oklahoma or South-Central or the Bronx getting killed trying to prevent the inevitable results of centuries of hatred, even if the deaths of those Americans prevent more deaths among the Albanians. |
