While Clinton may have been more of a "pacifist" then you liked, please cite examples when a "tough guy" in office would have done a better job during his term.
a good tough guy in office -- any leader in our country, or england, during the WWII years. gulianni in NY.
they wanted results? they got results.
What major conflict went unresolved as a result of one of Clinton's time in office.
none.
cuz he didnt do anything.
And was it really necessary for duh-bya to have one [of] his first moves in office [be] to increase the defense budget?
under clinton's "rule," our armies reached an all time low, in budget and in number. and,
with knowledge that we're under constant threat of attack (in some cases, nuclear, from countries that dont even have an official name), yes -- im all for increasing the defense budget. defense isnt about building the nuke, its about preventing it. (in theory, anyway)
and, just 'bout any country in the middle east hates us, even the ones we're quasi-defending. there are some very angry muslim or militant groupings that are just waiting to attack us in some fashion; military strike or smnall acts of terrorism
add in some of the smaller used-to-be-russia "countries," and we're in not too friendly territory, quite often.
then, there's the fact that we just found out that india has nuclear technology, only within the past 2 years or so.
dats not good.
The words of Kamphausen the Prophet, just 5 days before 9-11.
Liberals were bemoaning what Bush was spending on defense
before 9-11.
After 9-11, they were bemoaning that he didn't spend
nearly enough to prevent 9-11. (An act of terror whose planning, funding and implementation began in 1998, but has magically become all Bush's fault, despite the fact he didn't take office till January 20, 2001.)
And they're still in denial that there's a threat, alleging that it's all just "fearmongering", as they collectively push for our troops to leave prematurely from Iraq.
