Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Clinton's Omissions

Two contributions to National Interest online this week point out some of former President Clinton's omissions in his now infamous interview with Fox News Sunday.

Watching much of the reaction (pro and con both) on the president's performance, I am reminded of a point that Alexandra Pelosi makes in her "Sneaking Inside the Flying Circus", when she noted the reaction of foreign journalists to U.S. pundits commentating on the second Gore-Bush debate in 2000--the level of ignorance on their part in not calling the participants out on their mistakes and omissions. Both of these pieces clarify some of those: the Clinton relationship with Richard Clarke, and how keeping the Russians contained was a higher priority than fighting Al-Qaeda--since the Russians were offering help for joint efforts in Central Asia in 2000.

Larry Johnson's Playing the Terrorism Blame Game

Dimitri Simes' Protecting Kosovo at the Expense of New York

Are you going to blog about the NIE?
I plan to blog on it myself and National Interest online will also run some commentary on it as well--
I am with Simes on this; for the life of me I cannot see any reason for attacking Yugoslavia; an un official member of NATO during the Cold War. In EU, the citizens still insist that there was genocide in Kosovo. Why EU & US should interfere in a civil war instigated by (Muslim) terrorists is beyond me.
"for the life of me I cannot see any reason for attacking Yugoslavia"

You fail to understand that the true enemy of our great nation are the Russians, and since they have declined to fight us, we've had to make do with whatever Orthodox Slavs were at hand. Our Cold War victory had to be rubbed in their face, to show them that they have no legitimate voice or legitimate interest in European security matters, and the best way to do that was to wage a war against Serbia. You would do well to recall the series of articles Wohlstetter did in the Wall Street Journal in the early 1990s about this.
Anonymous 5:38 PM


So it was an emotional policy and not a rational one. Which makes it that much difficult to forge peace interests because other state actors cannot trust in the accuracy of their understanding of the US & EU motivations.

If the motivations are not based on strategic reasoning then it follows that one has to be prepared for war with the two capricious powers EU & US.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?