Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Bill Clinton’s Legacy Comes A Haunting

By Greg L | 12 August 2008 | National Politics | 53 Comments

The latest topic of national outrage is Russia’s invasion of the former Soviet Republic, and now independent nation of Georgia.  For some reason, folks are forgetting how we helped engineer this little fiasco that has so far cost thousands of lives as Russia reasserts their hegemony over the areas that were formerly within their sphere of influence.  When Bill Clinton thought it would be a good idea to commit American military forces to facilitate various Yugoslavian provinces breaking away from Serbian-controlled Yugoslavia, we set the precedent that re-drawing nations for the benefit of concentrations of minority populations was a good idea.  Now that Russia is following the same example in South Ossetia that we set in Kosovo there’s a big sense of outrage.  We ought to own up to the mess we created, and start looking at these kinds of issues with a broader view, and with an understanding of what the consequences of the exercise of our military power really are.

I agree that Russia’s military action is a bad thing, and it’s very worthy of condemnation.  This dispute could have been handled much better, and it is an outrage that Russia decided that the solution here was to invade Georgia.  Our response here has so far ignored what we ourselves set in motion when we decided that American forces needed to intervene in the 90’s where we had no national interest whatsoever, which gives Russia a strong opportunity to simply ignore our weak protests.

Bill Clinton failed to realize that in a world full of tragedies, many with long historical roots, we cannot repair them by lobbing JDAM’s at some country in judgment of whom has treated whom more badly.  Were we to apply that concept globally, American forces would be engaged across the globe rendering our terrible verdict on one side or the other of countless historical disputes.  It’s a completely untenable prospect, but something we’ve committed ourselves to to some degree.  If we can act on this policy, others should be able to do this as well, and that includes Russia.

Now we’ve got a strong ally who is getting pummeled by Russia because a portion of their nation would rather be a part of Russia than Georgia.  Despite the “Partnership for Peace” junior membership in NATO, Georgia isn’t going to get American military assistance as it gets ground under the heel of a Russian military effort that seems a lot more capable than what tried and largely failed to bring Chechnya under control, so this isn’t an easy fix.  With us pretty committed in Iraq and Afganistan, there’s little ability for us to come to the assistance of Georgia (not to mention the political will to take on Russia) and our security committments in the former Soviet Republics are now worth pretty much nothing.  We just threw away decades of diplomatic effort, and Russia is now re-invigorated in a way that’s really difficult to address while our efforts to expand NATO have been gutted.

We’ve got a crappy long-term hand that Bill Clinton dealt us by trying to solve the historical problems of the world, and it’s going to be a real challenge to put the strategic pieces back together without a demonstration of at least some American military power.  Georgia might not lose just South Ossetia in this action, but their entire nation.  We’re not in much of a position to prevent this, and that will signal to every nation in the former Soviet sphere that America cannot be counted on when the chips are down.  On top of that, the moral justification Russia is offering is the exact same justification we applied in Kosovo, so international support is not likely to materialize.  There’s not much reason for it, despite the terrible humanitarian crisis that is unfolding.

All this was supposed to bring peace.  That fell a little short of the mark.  Let’s learn from it, this time, OK?

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.


  1. PWConservative said on 12 Aug 2008 at 3:07 am:
    Flag comment

    Georgia helped us in Iraq, we can’t let them down.
    I believe the sensible solution is to provide aerial security (I Doubt we need too many F-16s and A-10s in Iraq) to non-breakaway territory in Georgia, That way we can protect Georgian civilians from Russian Airstrikes without becoming involved in the South-Ossetian argument.
    We should also lend some of our M1-Abrams Tanks to the Georgians to protect Tbilisi.
    This would send a signal to Russia that We will not tolerate their imperialism and that We stand with our Allies, Otherwise Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Poland, Turkey, Romania and Croatia will either be the next countries invaded or they will be too scared to stand up to the Kremlin.

  2. Doug Mataconis said on 12 Aug 2008 at 6:20 am:
    Flag comment


    I fail to see how it’s worth risking a direct confrontation with Russia over Georgia, which is hardly an innocent party in this affair given how their government has treated the people in South Ossetia and Azkhabia.

  3. Ron said on 12 Aug 2008 at 7:47 am:
    Flag comment

    Abkhazia, not Azkhabia. The latter sounds like something out of a Harry Potter novel! ;)

    This is a lot about the Russians not tolerating any competition to their state-owned (or controlled) oil company, and particularly Putin’s dreams of empire. Note that the Russian government has embarked on prosecuting industry leaders within its own borders, with the result that they have crashed their own stock market. The pipeline that runs from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey is just one more perceived economic threat to the Russians. In addition, Russia (and particularly Putin) is loathe to have Western-style democracies and/or NATO members on its border.

    I am starting to think that Russia is in it to overthrow a Western-friendly leader and rattle sabers more than to take all of Georgia back. South Ossetia will be Russia’s little “Sudetenland” on Georgia’s border. Abkhazia is more ethnically linked to Georgia rather than Russia, which is kind of strange. The roots of these ethnic conflicts can be traced to Josef Stalin, who deliberately resettled ethnic Russians in some of these areas and relocated natives.

    Maybe the Georgians should adopt the “Afghan” strategy of hit and run guerilla attacks rather than open confrontation with the Russian army. IT might be more effective, particularly in the mountainous regions.

  4. James Atticus Bowden said on 12 Aug 2008 at 8:18 am:
    Flag comment

    I wouldn’t blame Bill Clinton - except for his bad moves in the Balkans.

    This dust up is between Russia and Georgia. Russia is being Russia.

    It isn’t a new Cold War blah blah.

    Also, FYI, I think the Russians have made real progress in gaining control in Chechnya in the past few years.

  5. NoVA Scout said on 12 Aug 2008 at 9:57 am:
    Flag comment

    Since JAB has honored this site with his august presence, I’ll depart from my usual entertainment of beehive kicking and chime in.

    Russia being Russia is an important point that JAB offers. Their outward policy has been pretty consistent from Czarist times forward. Even communist ideology didn’t change the primary drivers.

    We’ve had approximately 16 years of nearly criminal incompetence with regard to our foreign policy in Russian and the former Soviet Union area. It has been a truly bipartisan phenomenon. Opportunity after opportunity squandered. Ridiculous emphasis on the superficial and very little attention to building an endurable and enduring relationship with Russia that minimizes the necessity of either party to return to conflict as a policy choice.

    I primarily blame the Clinton crowd, because the greatest opportunities were booted away on their watch. The actions in the Balkans were, on balance, appropriate for humanitarian reasons, but poorly timed, executed and explained. The problem alluded to by Greg was that the Clinton administration, after dithering for far too long, then jumped in with both feet and justified their actions with vacuous pablum about self-determination that can be used by anyone to justify any sort of chaos.

    But the current administration has done no better and has allowed itself to be distracted, perhaps fatally, from the great global strategic issues. Our children and grandchildren could pay a very high price for the inferior goods that the last two administrations have provided in this area.

    Diplomacy in the 21st century requires knowledgeable, judicious leaders, continuity, a very clear vision of America’s national interests, a long view, patience, and diligence. I haven’t seen those capabilities since Bush I and his foreign policy team. Some of these issues, particularly Russia are virtually beyond retrieval at this point. My money is on the idea that McCain is more likely to get it right than Obama.

  6. Arlington Minority said on 12 Aug 2008 at 10:10 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg, your fingering of Bill Clinton’s legacy is spot on! Here’s more from the Aisa Times:

  7. Marcie Harris said on 12 Aug 2008 at 10:29 am:
    Flag comment

    It’s amazing to me that some of you are so quick to blame Bill Clinton
    for every awful thing happening in today’s world. Can’t you somehow
    come up with blaming him for the death of Princess Diana?

  8. Arlington Minority said on 12 Aug 2008 at 11:50 am:
    Flag comment

    Thanks to his deep roster of enablers and facilitators, someone has to do the heavy lifting.

  9. monticup said on 12 Aug 2008 at 12:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    Genius Jorge Bush is the one who looked into Putin eyes and saw his good soul—-instead of his KGB evilness. And yes, Clinton is also to blame. He decided to demonize the Serbs in favor of the Muslims. What has that gotten us?

  10. Sandy said on 12 Aug 2008 at 5:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    # Marcie Harris said on 12 Aug 2008 at 10:29 am:

    It’s amazing to me that some of you are so quick to blame Bill Clinton
    for every awful thing happening in today’s world. Can’t you somehow
    come up with blaming him for the death of Princess Diana?

    Yes! Its all WillyBoy’s fault. If he’d kept his pants on, she
    would still be alive. It was all part of an international

  11. Anonymous said on 12 Aug 2008 at 6:42 pm:
    Flag comment


    Let me get this straight - you are complaining because Bill Clinton engaged in an ill-conceived war. And you are doing this with a straight face? My Grandfather was a lot like you. A rabid Republican who couldn’t bring himself to see any good in the Democratic Party or any bad in the Republican Party. He hated Franklin Roosevelt so much that he would only carry liberty dimes in his pocket because they didn’t have Roosevelt’s face on them. I once asked him who he vote for if Hitler were running on the Republican ticket and Jesus on the Democratic ticket. After thinking for a minute he said, “I wouldn’t vote.”.

  12. Dave in PWC said on 12 Aug 2008 at 6:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    and Raytheon needs the business if we start using tomahawks over there.

  13. Anonymous said on 12 Aug 2008 at 7:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    Serbs were committing genocide. As a nation, we don’t like that even if Muslims are being killed.

  14. monticup said on 12 Aug 2008 at 7:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    Serbs were not committing genocide. They were involved in a war with the Muslims. Muslims are masters of propaganda and succeeded in painting themselves as victims when in fact they had and the Christian Serbs had been fighting for hundreds of years. Atrocities on both sides. This is war. Madeleine Albright was instrumental in getting us involved in that mess.

  15. Anonymous said on 12 Aug 2008 at 10:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    Not all Bosnians are muslim. Some are, some aren’t. There is strong evidence that atrocities were being commited on a civilian population.

    Of course there were people who denied the Holocaust also.

    Tito had it under control. He said basically if you fight, I will kill you. They did, he did, and then they believed him. Sounds like a fairy tale, doesn’t it?

  16. sahdman said on 12 Aug 2008 at 11:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous said on 12 Aug 2008 at 6:42 pm:

    “Jesus on the Democratic ticket”
    I doubt Jesus would advocate killing the unborn and impoverishing people by stealing their hard earned money.

  17. Marcie Harris said on 13 Aug 2008 at 8:24 am:
    Flag comment

    Sandy, thank you for giving me a good laugh! Years from now, when
    America is still trying to clean up the Obama’s mess (that is, IF he ends
    up in the WH), these same people will be saying “Blame Clinton”.

  18. Ted said on 13 Aug 2008 at 8:40 am:
    Flag comment

    But in a preview of how he would bring peace to the world, Obama merely had to say “ceasefie” and the Russians obeyed.

    At least that’s what Tim Kaine thinks:

    “It was a bad crisis for the world. It required tough words but also a smart approach to call on the international community to step in. And I’m very, very happy that the Senator’s request for a ceasefire has been complied with by President Medvedev.”


    Oh brother.

  19. Arlington Minority said on 13 Aug 2008 at 9:25 am:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous, don’t tell me it isn’t so…I thought “the messiah” was already running on the Democratic ticket…

  20. Bridget said on 13 Aug 2008 at 10:53 am:
    Flag comment




    Kaine for Obama VP … hey Tim, how about spotlighting this:


  21. anonymous said on 13 Aug 2008 at 10:57 am:
    Flag comment

    I blame LBJ.

  22. jfk said on 13 Aug 2008 at 11:03 am:
    Flag comment

    Marcie Harris said on 12 Aug 2008 at 10:29 am:
    It’s amazing to me that some of you are so quick to blame Bill Clinton
    for every awful thing happening in today’s world. Can’t you somehow
    come up with blaming him for the death of Princess Diana?

    It’s equally amazing to me that many of you still support him, and can’t find fault in anything he did. He was president for eight years, and he left an imprint on foreign affairs, just as any president does. The Balkan fiasco was a distraction that failed to stave off impeachment hearings. Why did we care so much about Muslims in the Balkans when Christians were (and are) being slaughtered in Africa and imprisoned in China?

    The “it’s all about sex” defense that libs throw out when Clinton is attacked is as ridiculous now as it was then.

  23. monticup said on 13 Aug 2008 at 11:25 am:
    Flag comment

    jfk: Excellent post. Muslims have succeeded in driving Christians out of Lebanon. Lebanon used to be civilized and majority Christian. Now it’s Muslim and a cesspool of violence. Read Brigitte Gabriel. She lived through it. Christians are also leaving Bethlehem (pali controlled).

  24. Big Dog said on 13 Aug 2008 at 11:42 am:
    Flag comment

    The real trouble makers in South Ossetia and Ablhazia –
    gay Mexican day laborers led by Chief Deane. Por favor.

  25. Marcie Harris said on 13 Aug 2008 at 7:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    Excuse me, dear jfk….I am not a lib. I suppose my defense of Bill
    Clinton goes back to the fact that during his 8 years in office, the many
    families we know were never so well off (including mine). You see, when
    you watch your investments soar, and you’re able to send your kids to
    college instead of off to fight in a senseless war, then watch them come
    back in body bags….yeah, he must have been doing something right.

  26. anon said on 13 Aug 2008 at 9:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hey Greg, did you know I cannot access your site from Singapore? I had to go thru an anonymous proxy server. Is it you or Singapore?

    BTW, I blame Albright, not Clinton. He wouldn’t have known any better. She pushed us into punishing Serbs in favor of the muslim Kosovars–which pissed off the Russians.

  27. 999 said on 14 Aug 2008 at 12:03 am:
    Flag comment

    jfk said on 13 Aug 2008 at 11:03 am:

    Don’t forget the milk processing factory in the Sudan that he sent a tomahawk missile or two into that was supposed to be a chemical weapons plant. That cost us taxpayers a couple of bucks!

  28. 999 said on 14 Aug 2008 at 12:06 am:
    Flag comment

    monticup said on 12 Aug 2008 at 7:30 pm:
    Madeleine Albright was instrumental in getting us involved in that mess.

    She never saw a war she didn’t like.

  29. NoVA Scout said on 14 Aug 2008 at 12:26 am:
    Flag comment

    monticup: is it your position that, had the Serbs been Muslim, and the Bosnians Christian, it would have been genocide?

  30. Big Dog said on 14 Aug 2008 at 8:55 am:
    Flag comment

    News Flash: George W. Bush has been President for
    nearly EIGHT YEARS! Know you folks love to chew
    on Clinton’s leg, but he hasn’t run the Big Show in a long,
    long time.

    Even given that Big Bill was/is often a sleaze bag,
    history will show:
    Clinton = Peace and Prosperity
    Bush II = War and Depression

  31. Marcie Harris said on 14 Aug 2008 at 9:09 am:
    Flag comment

    Big Dog, thank you! It seems that Clinton’s little flings before and while
    in office negate all the good he did…..according to some. As a Christian,
    I was bothered, yes, but then realized what he did behind closed doors
    had nothing to do with me or the prosperity I was enjoying.

  32. jfk said on 14 Aug 2008 at 11:21 am:
    Flag comment

    Marcie Harris said on 14 Aug 2008 at 9:09 am:
    “Big Dog, thank you! It seems that Clinton’s little flings before and while
    in office negate all the good he did…..according to some. As a Christian,
    I was bothered, yes, but then realized what he did behind closed doors
    had nothing to do with me or the prosperity I was enjoying.”

    Marcie, as a Christian, I ask you to examine your statement above and meditate on what Jesus would think if you said this to him. God forgive us a a country for looking the other way and justifying immoral and WRONG behavior just because our pockets were full.

  33. Big Dog said on 14 Aug 2008 at 1:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    JFK - Of course, McCain admits he fooled around on his
    first wife (how dare she become injured in an automobile
    accident). As a Christian, will you not vote for him
    in Nov. because of that - not to mention the Keating Five-
    even if he may prove to be the better choice?

    And compare the Bush II administration with Clinton’s -
    which has been filled with more “immoral and WRONG
    behavior”? Which one brought us war and recession?

    I don’t condone the hubris and sins of Bill Clinton,
    but we could have done worse — and we eventually did.

  34. Marcie Harris said on 14 Aug 2008 at 3:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    jfk….let’s see. It’s not that I justified immoral and wrong behavior by
    Clinton no more than I justify the wrong and immoral behavior of Bush
    and Cheney, but it helped somewhat to send my kids to colleges without
    going in the hole with student loans. If I were to talk to Jesus about
    the behavior of Bill Clinton, I believe Jesus would tell me that I must
    find it in my heart to forgive him.
    I saw a funny bumper sticker today which states: “Clinton’s lie hurt him
    but Bushes lie hurt us all”.

  35. jfk said on 14 Aug 2008 at 3:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    BG, you are trying to equivocate. I am not giving McCain a pass on any infidelity he may be guilty of. Specifically, I am referring to the troubling comment that Marcie made about being OK with Clinton’s moral trangressions because she was OK economically. The morality of the Iraq war will be debated for generations-I assume that’s what you are referring to. Likewise, whether we are in a recession or not can be debated (I guess you don’t feel that Congress has any role in our economy???). My personal opinion is that there were so many Clinton scandals they can’t be remembered, and many more scandals were squashed by an aiding and abetting media.

    BG, I know how you feel. Let’s let Marcie answer, if she will.

  36. Marcie Harris said on 14 Aug 2008 at 6:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    Good grief, jfk! You can’t possibly be serious that the media squashed
    any Clinton scandals! Unlike the way Obama has been annointed and
    protected by the media, they had a field day with both the Clintons.
    I have the urge to vomit when I hear Chris Mathews say that he feels
    a “tingle” going up his leg when he hears Obama speak….OMG!! What
    are these people thinking???
    I didn’t specifically say that I was “OK with Clinton’s moral transgressions
    because I was OK economically”….I did state that, as a Christian, I was
    bothered by this; however, since he was keeping his contract with America
    in keeping us safe and economically sound, who am I to question what
    he decided to do in his personal life? That’s between him and God.

  37. Dave in PWC said on 14 Aug 2008 at 7:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    So Clinton got impeached for his infidelities, while at the same time several high ranking military officers got booted for the same thing. Clinton hurt the military that’s serving now because he cut so much funding that the military scrapped most of it’s second elistment training that people reenlisted for, he also cut so deep that many ships and submarines went out to sea without many spare parts and some maintenance not accomplished. I saw the cuts as I work as a defense contractor. That’s how he balanced the budget, on the backs of our military. That is why he could only lob some cruise missiles around and took a pass at taking out UBL when he could have a couple of times. Sorry for the vent, but Clinton was and still is a scumbag in the eyes of many men and women who served during his presidency.

  38. Peregrinus said on 15 Aug 2008 at 2:21 am:
    Flag comment

    You know what I still, to this day, cannot believe:

    People giving former President Bill Clinton credit for the economy of the 90s. Newsflash, anyone could have been President during the 90s and we still would have had a booming economy. Between the tax cuts of the 80s and the Republican takeover in ‘94 and the lessening of government that brought, combined with the take-off of at least three new industries (internet service provision, internet retail, and the computer manufacturing boom those encouraged) oh, and the general feel good time with the end of the Cold War, everything was in perfect place for an economic boom… as well as the economic bubble that the feelings and new tech lead to. All Clinton had to do was sit back and watch the show.

    Likewise, President W. Bush inherited a economy that was in a downturn starting in about ‘99 because the tech bubble burst, I know first hand, my family is heavily involved in technology and telecom. Let me repeat, the economic downturn started in 1999, while Clinton was still in office. People’s attitudes were still generally positive though, after all, it was a bubble, bubbles happen, things recover and life is good. It had started to recover by ‘01, but then something happened that had never happened before: Wall Street shut down for a week… why? Nothing significant, just some terrorist attack.

    Suddenly the feel good feelings of the 90s were totally gone, which made economic growth that much weaker. The international stability that soon followed, combined with a sudden massive increase in demand for oil by China and India increased base energy costs. Considering how many things are affected by oil, this led to a ripple effect on the economy, more than anything else.

    Oh, and then the Housing bubble burst, people who had been getting loans, shouldn’t have been, and that’s still causing problems. You know something funny though, the rules that should have kept folks from getting those loans in the first place were rescinded back in the, wait for it, 1990s, under Clinton.

    Then oil prices continued to rise, and after ‘06, when the Democrats took control of the House and Senate, to present day, GAS PRICES DOUBLED. It had taken from about 2001 to 2006 for gas to go from ~$1/gallon to ~$2/gallon, a five year time frame, in less than half that time it doubled again. Why? More instability in the world, more demand from other countries, and oh, right, lack of domestic drilling, which is being prevented not by the President, who has lifted the Presidential ban on drilling, but by the Democratically controlled congress.

    Let me review: the 90s’ economy had nothing to do with Clinton, and the 00s’ economy had nothing to do with Bush. In point of fact, there’s about jack, jack, more jack and s**t that a President can do to directly and immediately effect and economy.

  39. Marcie Harris said on 15 Aug 2008 at 7:58 am:
    Flag comment

    Perhaps so, Dave, but with an exception here. My husband, a career
    military man, does not view Clinton as a “scumbag”. We know many,
    many military people who are Clinton fans. During his 8 years, we had
    no deployments of spouses (into the bowels of hell) and if you recall….
    we had no body bags.

  40. jfk said on 15 Aug 2008 at 9:20 am:
    Flag comment

    Marcie Harris said on 14 Aug 2008 at 9:09 am:
    “Big Dog, thank you! It seems that Clinton’s little flings before and while
    in office negate all the good he did…..according to some. As a Christian,
    I was bothered, yes, but then realized what he did behind closed doors
    had nothing to do with me or the prosperity I was enjoying.”

    Marcie Harris said on 14 Aug 2008 at 6:05 pm:
    I didn’t specifically say that I was “OK with Clinton’s moral transgressions
    because I was OK economically”….

    Sorry Marcie, but that is EXACTLY what you said.

    The media did aid and abet the Clinton scandals. From demonizing Ken Starr(sp), failing to investigate the dozens of claims of marital infidelity, the cattle futures scam, the Buddist monk fundraising scandal, and the White House fundraising teas, the media took eight years off. I get equally nauseated by Chris Matthews as well as the writer who said once that “power crackled” from Clinton’s jeans.

    Since you are a military wife, you no doubt remember the two acts of war committed against the US during the Clinton era when the WTC and the USS Cole were both bombed. Clinton’s inaction showed the softness of the US, and set the table for 9/11 and the ensuing deployments that we had to make. We can debate the war all we want, but everyone needs to think where the next terrorist strike on our soil would have been had the US not gone into Afghanistan and Iraq, taking the fight to the terrorists. God bless people like your husband, who are willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of us and our country.

  41. Dave said on 15 Aug 2008 at 9:30 am:
    Flag comment

    You mean that economy where if you knew how to turn on a computer you got a $100k a year job no questions asked? You mean the one where investors lost buttloads due to a tech bubble? If you disagree, I’d be happy to sell you my worldcom and pets.com stock. To believe the late 90’s economy was real, you would have to buy all my late 90’s tech stock. There is no denying the tech bubble that burst as Clinton was leaving. I don’t blame Clinton for much, but to give him credit for a fake economy (just like the real estate bubble created a fake ‘good economy 3 years ago) is disingenuous

  42. Marcie Harris said on 15 Aug 2008 at 9:44 am:
    Flag comment

    Why, in God’s name, are we dwelling on Bill Clinton? We should, instead be
    focused on keeping the Great Allah Obama from being our next president!

  43. Big Dog said on 15 Aug 2008 at 2:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    - The Republicans are declaring an Obama vote will
    mean a second Carter term. Scream.

    - The Democrats respond that a McCain vote will
    mean a third term for Bush II. Scream. Scream!

    - Bin Laden still free - 9/11 unavenged after
    nearly seven years, the original naive politized “plans”
    for Iraq - thousands more Americans dead and
    billions spent, the Taliban resurgence, the total
    failure “Good job, Brownie” after Katrina, etc.

    - Even a flawed sleazer like Clinton looks good compared
    to the failed US presidency of the past eight years.

  44. Marcie Harris said on 15 Aug 2008 at 4:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    Big Dog, I cannot argue with you on that one!

  45. Big Dog said on 15 Aug 2008 at 4:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    - Bush looked into Putin’s eyes and saw the “soul of
    a good man”.

    - McCain looked into the same eyes and saw “KGB”.

    Mark one down for Little John.

  46. Che' said on 15 Aug 2008 at 4:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    Big Dog, I’m going to have to be the one to hit you on the nose with a rolled up newspaper. You keep making a mess on the BVBL rug.

    Clinton couldn’t handle the terrorist attacks that happened on his watch; what do you think he would have done if he had to deal with September 11th? The I-95 corridor from DC to Boston would be clicking on the Geiger counter while he was on Air Force One, introducing another teenage intern into the Mile High Club.

    Taliban resurgence? They went from running a country to fighting out of caves! Clinton’s only contribution towards getting rid of the Taliban was making jokes about them at the National Press Club dinner. Clinton couldn’t get Bin Laden either, even though he “came close” a couple of times. So I guess OSB has really been on the loose for 15 years.

    Obama looked into Putin’s eyes and said ” surf’s up dude”.

  47. Big Dog said on 15 Aug 2008 at 5:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    Sorry you have such a distorted knowledge of
    American history. Clinton, with all his many flaws,
    was twice the President that W has been (of course
    neither holds a candle to Reagan, but that is another story).
    Note that McCain has treated Bushie II like toxic waste.
    Glad to see W stop patting up the female beach
    volleyball players and start paying some attention to the
    Georgian crisis - fear this may blow up and not
    sure how Putin or Bush will twist out of it. Am
    reminded of the first chapters in Barbara Tuchman’s
    book on WWI - “The Guns of August”. Hope I’m wrong
    and our nation won’t have more reasons to be haunted
    by the legacy of Bush II.

  48. Dave in PWC said on 16 Aug 2008 at 8:26 am:
    Flag comment


    You have a point about there being no large deployments while Clinton was in the White House, I’ll give you that. But since the mid ’70’s we have been an all volunteer armed services. Nobody was forced to join. Being in the military means that you could be deployed and sent to nasty places. If you married a military person you would have to take that into consideration. We were all volunteers and the services are still that way. I agree with ‘Che that if we didn’t have our forces in the middle east that there would have been many more attacks on our soil.

    Clinton also cut our intel services to shreds, specifically the HUMINT part of it which might have ferretted out the 9/11 attack before it happened, might not have, we’ll never know because the “slickster” cut many intel jobs so he could balance the budget.

    But enough about Clinton, what’s done is done. My vote is for Lou Dobbs for President.

  49. Che' said on 16 Aug 2008 at 4:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    You are wrong. Barking up the wrong tree, as usual.

  50. Big Dog said on 16 Aug 2008 at 6:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    Che’ - the “truce in Georgia,” brokered in part by
    Condi’ Rice, means the Russians and their gangster
    pals stay in place to rape, murder and steal as long
    as they like. Still, we need to get a carrier into the
    Black Sea ASAP (but not to close to conflict because
    of the Putin blockade) so your little twerp Bush II
    can prance around the deck in a flight jacket under
    a “Mission Accomplished” sign.

  51. Marcie Harris said on 16 Aug 2008 at 10:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Big Dog, I just love you!

  52. Che' said on 17 Aug 2008 at 10:08 am:
    Flag comment

    So now you are promoting regime change in Russia???
    How do you propose to accomplish that?

    Referring to a sitting president as a “twerp” really tells a lot about your feelings toward our country and the office of the president.

  53. Big Dog said on 17 Aug 2008 at 12:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    - Patriots that truly love their country and respect
    the office of the President can only be disgusted
    with the failed tenure of Bush II in that high office.

    - “Regime change” is a neocon concept - not mine.
    Putin is in the driver’s seat in Georgia and Bush II
    helped to put him there with many innocent people
    being run over even is we blog.

    - The next President will need to walk far softer
    and get a much larger stick.

Comments are closed.

Views: 3460