The difference between the left and the right:

I found this little snippet interesting ...

If I was going to write an article about the U.S., you'd find a very similar sentence.

Ironically, the strongest case for war, in my mind, would have been the deposition of Hussein as a mass murdering tyrant. Had the US made any serious effort to achieve UN sanction, and had the UN granted it, I would have had fewer reservations, and would have , ideed, been able to support the war. The fact remains, however, that the US was determined to go to war regardless of what the UN or the world felt was just. I think that argueing that the mass of troops in the Iraqi borders were there for anything but an invasion is ludicrous. The numerous temper tantrums by administration personnell,and the final yanking of the inspectors when it appeared they were making serious progress belied the bellicosity of the Bush administration. Consider reports that immediately after the attacks in 2001 Cheney and Rumsfeld were hot to attack Iraq, and wanted the intel community to come up with justification.

It appears that Mr. Craven De Kere and Professor Hobibot were trumped.

I do not think that either Mr, De Kere or Professor Hobitbob would exclaim that the following was "conjecture" or "irrelevant.


"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to DEVELOP his program of mass destruction...he will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to BUILD an arsenal of devestating destruction. SOME DAY, SOME WAY, I G U A R A N T E E you that he will use the arsenal.


Speech given by William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States on December 18th 1998.

As I have been taught repeatedly by the left wing- Clinton was NEVER wrong, especially when if came to Foreign Affairs.

Italgato, I am under no illusion that Clinton 'was never wrong'. You have bravely taclkled the straw man who, naively, does. It was, indeed, a manly display.

I don't like the commas but the commas like me.

Clinton was never wrong. Oy vey!

Ok Clinton was wrong at times. When was he wrong Professor Hobobit and Craven De Kere?

I can tell you what else Clinton said in his speech-

"THE HARD FACT IS THAT SO LONG AS SADDAM IS IN POWER, HE THREATENS THE WELL-BEING OF HIS PEOPLE, THE PEACE OF THE REGION, THE SECURITY OF THE WORLD."

AND( this is for BBB)

"The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life."

Both quotes by William Jefferson Clinton-

Was he wrong?

If not, perhaps George W. Bush is copying from his speeches!!!

Or, perhaps, are they both correct!!!

You misunderstand, Mr. Dekere and Professor Hobibit. I am sorry you did not read my post thoroughly.

I did not say that Clinton was never wrong. He was usually wrong. I said that I was taught by the left wing that Clinton was never wrong.

Was he wrong in his speech on Iraq?

I don't think so. Do you????

Yes, Clinton was wrong in his speech on Iraq. I thought so then. I wonder who this nebulous "left wing" is that you keep referring to?

Clinton also said:

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraq government---a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors....Bringing change in Baghdad will TAKE TIME AND EFFORT."

( I notice that President Clinton didn't say that the time and effort should not go beyond six months.

Italgato, when was Clinton the president? Is he the president now?
I (for the umpteenth time) really don't understand the (unhealthy) fixation the far right has with the FORMER president.

No weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq?

They had president Clinton fooled. I sure hope that President Clinton wasn't lying to us when he said.

"I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver Weapons of Mass Destruction."

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION????????????

Actually, that may be a major difference between the tighty righties and the loosey lefties (credit goes to Roger ) : The left doesn't obsess with past leaders. Hmmmm.....

Clinton also said:

"And mark my words, HE(Saddam) WILL DEVELOP WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

HE WILL DEPLOY THEM, AND HE WILL USE THEM"


When George W. Bush said virtually the same thing he was accused of hysteria by the left wing.

Quoting from the past is Obsessing with past leaders???
Professor Hobitbob, would you like to give me five dollars everytime Iran-Contra was mentioned by the left wing?

That, of course, is not obsessing. That is seeking for truth and justice.

What utter nonsense- obsessing with past leaders indeed!!!!

What are you yammering on about? Again, what "left wing?"

Professor Hobitbob:

I will cease to mention President Clinton when everyone else ceases to mention any person who was in government before the year 2000.

I am really surprised that a person who describes himself as a History teacher would say that a President who served just prior to the present one does not, insofar as his decisions are concerned, cast a strong influence on present events.

Are you saying. Professor Hobibit, that any adminstration that comes in does not STUDY CLOSELY any of the previous president's position papers and pronoucements.

If you think so, I can quickly disabuse you of that idea with a wide variety of links to show that the Bush administration did indeed review Clinton's pronouncements and speeches.

I yammer, Professor Hobibit. You proclaim.

What left wing?

What about Al Franken, Molly Ivins, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Sheila Lee Jackson, Bernie Sanders, Maxine Waters, Paul Krugman, and. of course, Barney Frank.

You wouldn't call them centrists, would you?

I know they are not on the right.

Has the current admin studied the actions of its predeccessors? One certainly hopes so! The difference is that the far right obsesses over Willybill. He is at once a justification for their actions and a scapegoat for their failures. Don't you find this just a little bit odd?
re: being an historian: I'm a medievalist. In modern academia, one has a field one specializes in. I admit to a particular lack of interest in anything that has happened since about 1500CE. The last US History class I took was as an undergrad at the UW, in 1996ish, or so. I'm sure you know far more about US history than I do. Good for you. Would you like a cookie?

Indeed.


That wasn't so hard now, was it? I have to admit I don't consider Sharpton, Jackson, Franken, or Moore to be especially valid sources. They are rather like the shrill blonde with the large larynx is for the right.

Wonderful, Professor Hobibit, wonderful. I am sure that you are a good Professor. I am positive that you know your field, Medieval History, backwards and forwards. I have only read slightly in that interesting period. I am quite fond of Dante and the late Medieval period in Italy.

The point that you make is quite important and, if I may, I would like to expand on it a bit.

Your comment about me knowing far more history than you do is probably untrue since you are a professional historian and, as such, have probably read hundreds of Books, Articals and papers concerning your subject as well as papers from your students.

I am more of a generalist and have confined most of my recent reading to the area of evolutionary psychology and specifically to the works of Steven Pinker.

One of my favorite writers, Judge Richard A. Posner, has recently written a fine book entitled:

"Public Intellectuals" _ A study of Decline.

ONE of Judge Posner's main points is very pertinent to our discussion and, in my opinion, to many of the discussions on these posts.
'
Briefly, Posner states that Many Intellectuals write outside of their expertise mistakenly thinking that their superior scholarship in one area will transfer over to another.

I agree with Judge Posner that most people, even brilliant ones( Posner mentions Chomsky and Krugman as examples) usually make egregious errors when they wander away from their own areas of study.

That is precisely why I feel that our discussions would be greatly enhanced by appropriate citations.

I am very sorry but I cannot agree with you that there is an obsession with Bill Clinton. Just as there was not an obsession with Dick Nixon,although reams were written about him.

Obsession means that a person or an idea dominates one's thoughts.

I really don't notice that Clinton's name has dominated all of the posts on this venue.