"Do you think the GOP would have subjected Clinton to the sort of ill-informed, spiteful, ignorant carping that the Democrats are inflicting on the nation over our current war?"

Of course... I mean... if they are willing to do it over Lewinsky, I can't imagine it would be much of a strech that conservatives would be raking Clinton over the coals every time a soldier died on Iraq's soil.

Clever dodge, but not clever enough, and a dodge nonetheless, Carson.

Had Clinton made the case that the war was in the US' interests - and he could have, since it is, unlike Kosovo and Haiti - do you think the GOP would be acting like the Democrats are?

And surely you realize that presidential malfeasance - Lewinsky - is different than war.

Don't you? (When dealing with Democrats on matters of defense, I assume nothing)

Mitch-
The Republicans were not buying what Clinton was selling. Period. You make comment after comment about "Bush-haters", and I can easily make a comparison to the "Clinton-haters" that pushed the Lewinsky scandal.

The GOP took EVERY SINGLE opportunity to go after Clinton. And you somehow think that Clinton telling the country that war in Iraq is in OUR best interests would suddenly bring bipartisan support? Not quite. Even if the GOP were to somewhat believe his claims about Iraq... they would never trust him to lead that war. We would hear over and over again about how our military is unprepared for war because "Clinton hates the military".

Face it... going to war in Iraq with Clinton as president would not have changed the incredibly divisive politics that surrounded that congress and administration.

Huge difference, Carson, one you are either unaware of or choose to ignore: There was significant terrorist activity against the US during Clinton's watch; I maintain that had Clinton explicitly tried to tie that activity to our national interests, that would have been quite another thing than, say, getting his jeeper honked in the Oval Office. (I'll set aside, for a moment, Laurie Mylroie and Jana Davis' allegations that the Clinton Administration scuppered evidence that Iraq was involved in the OKC bombing; that issue is still open to a lot of questioning...)

Remember who supported the Iraqi Liberation Act of '98? The Lewinsky scandal didn't seem to affect GOP support for that, now, did it?

I suspect that the Republicans would have taken a dim view of the resources required to do an invasion of Iraq back then. Most Republicans were much more isolationist then than they are post 9/11 and pulling them into a long term fight would have been difficult. But once committed, I doubt the Republicans would have gone the way of the Dems and called for withdrawl. It would have been much more likely to be constant carping over not forceful enough actions (which you can hear me making about many of the decisions Bush has made, but that's besides the point).

While an Iraq conflict would have had more support than Kosovo given the history of the US and Iraq, I doubt very much that that support would have been more than lukewarm without a serious job of selling by Clinton. His timing of his attacks with his political problems always left me at least wary of his true motivations, especially since he wasn't doing a concerted job of explaining the true circumstances. But then again, when did Clinton do anything concertedly or with determination other than fight impeachment?

Maybe I missed it... But how exactly does the terrorist activity against the US during Clinton's admin tie to the need to invade Iraq during Clinton's term?

Please provide me with some examples of Iraq's terrorist activities against the US during the Clinton years.

"Jeeper honked?"

JEEPER HONKED?!!

Oh, I'm DYING here!

Carson: Did you miss Clinton signing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998?

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

Do I have to do ALL the reading here?

Nerdbert: I agree. Clinton had dug a bit of a hole as far as perception went.

Ryan: That'd be the highly trained broadcaster in me speaking...

Mitch-
Please provide me with some examples of Iraq's terrorist activities against the US during the Clinton years.

And for emphasis- AGAINST THE US.

I read the Iraqi Liberation Act... and nowhere does it describe terrorist activities against our country.

Carson: Irrelevant. Iraq was involved in terrorist (and overtly state-connected) terror, for decades. Whether it's "against the US" or not is a side-issue - granted, a side-issue that makes the left waddle with a big grin like a toddler that made a good pants, but still irrelevant.

Liberating Iraq was a matter of US interest whether terror against the US was an issue or (as in the ILA of '98) not.

By your logic, Carson, the US should never have joined NATO; there was no danger of the USSR invading the US. And yet, it was a matter of US interest.

If Clinton could see that, I wonder why garden-variety leftists can't?

Clinton eviscerated the American military, security, and intelligence services, something the Dems had fought to achieve in their tireless effort over the decades to cut Defense. Clinton just did what he was elected to do.

Clinton's problems in office stemmed from the fact his financial and political connections to Communist China had long been established, even before he took office, which traced back from Little Rock via the Riady family, to Macau, which was then and is now the nexus of high finance and weapons transfers upon which Islamic terror depends.

The arms supplier and financier of Islamic terror is China. Considering that Clinton's NSA, Sandy Berger, was the lead attorney at Hogan & Hartson, the DC public relations firm of the People's Republic of China prior to his appointment, it should be pretty clear why Clinton could not and did not do anything in response to Islamic terrorist attacks against the United States.

As for the terrorist training grounds in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Clinton Administration clearly recognized the threat (why else would Sandy Berger be stealing from the national archives?) but chose not to respond beyond what the UN authorized because to do so would put his administration (and his re-election campaign) at variance with China, which was political suicide.

Instead, they "criminalized" acts of war and re-defined state-sponsored terrorism as "rogue" events. Recall the 1993 terror bombing of the WTC, as well as the OKC terror bombing in 1995, were both treated by the Clinton Administration as the work of "crazy" individuals, though both investigations led to Islamic terror cells operating in Hamburg, Germany, which was also the locale from which Mohammed Atta orchestrated the September 11 attacks.

It was Clinton's job to implement the national security policy objectives of the Democratic Party, which, as should now be clear, were not then and are not now in the interests of the majority of the American people. Clinton sought alignment with European socialism and to expedite China's geopolitical ascendancy, the coincidence of interests of which was support (or at least non-intervention) of Islamic terror.

That's why Clinton was impeached. Poor Monica just made it easier to make the case.

Well....because you asked.

The US military, particularly the USMC have been studying urban warfare for years. In that respect, todays troops are much better prepared and equipped for this follow-on/up action than the folks were 6 years ago.

The real problem would have been (not totally unlike it is now) the insurgents. Clinton's established track record--"cut-n-run" in Somalia and "air war only" in Kosovo would clearly have encouraged the insurgents to merely wait him out until public opinion forced him to withdraw.

I would venture to say the Iraqi insurgents are currently in panic mode. They are desperate to score splashy "victories" in hopes of changing America's (and free Iraq's for that matter) will to fight. Imagine how demoralizing it was for them when Bush was re-elected despite the best efforts of their media propaganda machines (ABC, Al Jazira, CBS, BBC, CNN... you know those guys). The upcoming elections will probably see some of the worst acts by these animals, but if the Iraqi people respond to the concept like the people of Afghanistan did, it will probably be the end of 'major' insurgent ops--note this does not mean peace in Iraq--after all, the place is more fouled up than a football bat.

So...yes, todays troops are better able to handle this asymmetric type of warfare, from equipment, to training, to employment doctrine, to steadfast command support.

I don't think the Republicans would have had to torpedo Clinton's Iraqi war aims. His own administration, general distrust of anything military, and lack of intestinal fortitude to weather even the slightest dip in opinion polls would have doomed the enterprise to failure right out of the chocks.

That is all.

...not to mention Clinton's military success in restoring democracy to Haiti, whose president, Aristide, was also a client of Sandy Berger's law firm in Washington, DC. Then there is the timeshare he rented Arafat in the White House for peace in the Middle East, and the nuclear reactors the American taxpayer built in North Korea to, uh, stop the madness. And let's not forget his permitting Gerry Adams to hold IRA fundraisers in New York and pardoning Puerto Rican terrorists and gun runners like Marc Rich.

Behold the Democratic Party.

"War is Peace" LOL

How soon we forget. Does anyone remember Operation Desert Fox?

http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/desert_fox/

OPERATION NAME: Operation Desert Fox

MISSION:  To strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction.

MISSION GOALS: To degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to make and to use weapons of mass destruction.  To diminish Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war against his neighbors.  To demonstrate to Saddam Hussein the consequences of violating international obligations.

Any one remember how some Republicans called it "wag the dog"?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/

ebony bdsm bdsm collar