Did Clinton get criticized for his foreign policy successes? who would take the blame if it failed?

[BernieSandersIsGod]

Would Bush take blame? I think not. If something went wrong, they would all blame Obama. So shouldn't he be allowed to enjoy his success?

[mrcheerful]

1. Well look no farther the Waco Texas and Ruby Ridge to find how Clintons policies were questioned

Then swing over to Bosnia and see how well the right liked Clinton policies. Then as a teaser head to Africa and how well Republicans reacted to the use of US military. Why they even made a glorified movie about the incident called Black Hawk Down, the most glaring thing about the movie besides glorifying American military was how the movie makes little references to Clinton and making it seem that all the decisions were made by the military command. I don't remember one reference to Clinton but then the movie was so Alamo like I stopped paying attention to it 5 minutes after it started. By Alamo like I mean the damn movie could have been written by John Ford and stared John Wayne as the fearless leader who put his life on the line for the safety of those under his command.

edited to correct spelling errors.

[GoCubsGo]

2. Yep. Clinton was a Democrat. 'Nuff said.

Only the actions of Democrats get questioned. They are always going to be damned if they do, and damned if they don't--until there is no more GOP around to diminish EVERY success.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. Do you remember the phrase "wag the dog" the GOP repeatedly used against him?

n/t

[mrcheerful]

5. Sure do every time Clinton tried to say terrorists were plotting to bring down the US

it was oh that silly Clinton is wag the dog.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. Yeah, it was as if the Republicans couldn't possibly conceive

of Clinton, you know, actually doing his job (amazingly, while the Republicans were doing their best to distract him and make him unable to focus on his job). Then they (and the rest of the country) *reward* Bush II when he didn't do his job for the first 8 months of his (P)residency and 9/11 happened and 3K people died and then they reward him again when he quits chasing OBL after 6 months and decides to invade and occupy Iraq for no apparent reason- and 4-5K American soldiers died. Now, they're trashing Obama now that he got done what Bush and his team abjectly failed to get done by finding/killing OBL- all over feeling like they didn't get quite enough credit for doing things that didn't actually lead to us finding OBL. The illogic and hypocrisy continues to confound me. :banghead: :puke:

[mrcheerful]

8. I was just arguing with a nit wit overon another site who first whinned that Obama could close Gitmo

if he really wanted to, so I educated that only congress can fund the opening and closing of military bases, nit wit tried to say the title Commander in Chief gave the president that power. Then he called me anti american, yeah really right, because I wanted to give Terrorists Miranda rights. So I educated him on the fact most of those in Gitmo were just people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. So brain child tried claiming that they were picked up on the battle field again I corrected him that no they were picked up not on a battlefield but in a house during urban warfare, meaning if a terrorist was on your roof with or without your permission you got picked up. He then declared how it was scary that terrorists would be held in American prisons, I asked him why were terrorists were more scarier then mass murderers, gang bangers or any other type criminal already held in American prisons.

He then went back to terrorists don't deserve Miranda rights which would mean the CIA could question them. I asked him to name any laws where it said one group of criminals aren't given the same rights as other criminals under the law. He then tried the Woo logic, putting them in Gitmo means they are out of the country so they have no rights, so again I informed him there was no such law in fact law's that apply in the states also apply to military bases, just because a Chinese American says law's don't doesn't mean thats true, yeah I know, I was being snarky by playing on his intolerance of others. So he goes back to Miranda law's kept CIA from questioning prisoners. So again I educated him on what Miranda rights mean, suspects have a right to have a lawyer present while being questioned by police so they don't incriminate themselves and admit to crimes they didn't commit.

So bright boy says ah ha the CIA are not police, I said not true CIA are an arm of law enforcement so therefore they have to abide by the same law's, I know in theory. So I'm back to being a Anti American terrorist supporter. That is when I dropped the 2 bombs on him 1) How is standing up for the laws of the land make one Anti American? What about the guy who wraps himself up in the flag while at the same time crapping on the flag by not following all the law's of the land that flag represents 2) why I thought it was your side that said it was unAmerican to question the president while the US was at war. LOVE IT.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Clinton was accused of making war to protect his own image

an accusation of treason, in so many words.

[center rising]

6. Remember when the GOP accused Clinton of bombing targets??

They said he only did it to distract the American people from Paula Jones!!

[Enrique]

9. yes, Clinton did get criticized

Kosovo, for example.