Reply With Quote
If Clinton was an appeaser, at least, according to the logic in this editorial, then Ronald Reagan and Bush41 were appeasers too. Clinton cared about the little guy, but he was as much a globalist as Dubya.
This Washington Times editorial recounts the Iran foreign policy debacle over which the Clinton administration presided.
In 1997, conciliatory rhetoric by Iranian President Mohammed Khatami induced the Clintonistas to make a series of concessions. They waived sanctions against Russian, French and Malaysian firms hoping to develop natural gas in Iran (never mind the likelihood that this project would provide vast revenue the government could use to develop nukes). They streamlined the procedure for issuing visas to Iranians. Even after Iran tested a medium-range missile and Khatami denounced the "Zionists" in a U.N. address, the administration continued to relax sanctions. And, in the signature Clinton foreign policy move, the U.S. apologized to Iran for its role in the 1953 coup that brought our friend the Shah of Iran to power.
Meanwhile, according to former FBI Director Louis Freeh, Clinton sidetracked the investigation into the bombing of Khobar Towers, an attack carried out by an Iranian-backed terrorist group. Freeh says that Clinton was so determined to bring about a rapproachement with Iran that he failed to press the Saudis for access to several suspects in the case and did little to assist the FBI investigation. The Ayatollah Khamenei's denunciation of such a rapproachement as "treason" failed to make an impression on the wishful thinkers and appeasers who dominated foreign policymaking under Clinton. And why would it? This was an administration willing to grant concessions to the North Koreans.
Moreover, and more astonishingly, there is no evidence that developments since Clinton left office -- the development of nukes by the North Koreans, Iran's hot pursuit of such weapons, and the full emergence of al-Qaeda -- have made an impression on the Democratic foreign policy establishment. The Democrats still appear to have only two gears when it comes to dealing with foreign policy difficulties: (1) ignore them and (2) if that option draws too much fire, find someone, anyone, to whom concessions can be offered.
If Clinton was an appeaser, at least, according to the logic in this editorial, then Ronald Reagan and Bush41 were appeasers too. Clinton cared about the little guy, but he was as much a globalist as Dubya.
The right-wing is so damn jealous of Clinton's successes and high popularity, even after years and 10s of $Ms of Repug witch-hunting that ended in dismissed cases, no convictions, and a Senate that couldn't keep its hard on for impeachemnt, the right still trots out what the consider Clinton's ups...
1) to slime the guy no matter what, which is the only policy on the right and
2) distract from dubya's disastrous, and disastrously unpopluar, regime.
Washington Times is the mouthpiece of the Korean cult Unification church, about the same credibility as Murdoch's Faux News.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times
The Repugs and the right-wing dip s need to focus on the current Repug ups and disasters that they are responsible for. Hasn't happened in 6 years, it won't happen now.
Well...there he goes again.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions