fighting terrorism...exposing lies on both sides of the aisle...

i have noticed clinton gets too much unwarranted crap for being "soft" on terrorism while bush gets too much unwarranted crap for fighting a "war" on terrorism. nobody wants to admit it...or examine the history of american approaches to terrorism over the last two decades to figure out that clinton actually went back to an approach reagan had used after the elder bush had "gone soft" on terrorism and the younger bush simply continued too take the natural progression of policy which really began to take hold in the reagan years.

in the mid 80's reagan began to flex the military might of the united states in an open way in the middle east following actions by suspected libyan operatives in italy and berlin. although the united states started out it's response based on the age old criminal enforcement model, reagan launched air strikes, the goal of which was to diminish the capacity for libya to conduct terror and to give them incentive to alter their criminal behavior. afterwards, libya showed no sign of forsaking terrorism as a means to further it's policy objectives.

and then came the elder bush...and republicans really don't want you to know that he abandoned this macho approach and returned to a strictly criminal law approach to deal with terrorist activities. when pan am 103 went down, despite a loss of life far in excess of earlier libyan attacks, bush did not order military retaliation. rather, the international criminal justice regime was utilized in connection with pressure from the world community on libya to deal with the terrorist attack as a diplomatic and criminal matter. although it took some time, an extradition agreement was eventually reached and the suspects were tried in the netherlands in 2001. both sides conveniently forget this approach taken by the elder bush...he was the pansy boy...not clinton.

clinton actually was the president to make a move towards a serious proactive strategy in combating terrorism...and in the process he did plenty to fuel the fire in the middle east...something democrats would rather forget, and republicans would be proud of if they were willing to admit clinton was actually one of them. after the 1993 bombing of the world trade center, clinton stuck with the policy of the first bush administration and went throught he criminal justice system...but suddenly the justice department took a proactive approach to fighting terrorism, looking to, and eventually succeeding in prosecuting inchoate terrorist actions. this was actually the next major step towards what both sides like to call "the bush doctrine."

clinton also returned to unilateral military action in response to terrorist activity. the thwarted assassination plot aimed at the elder bush led to strikes into iraq again with the intent to target their capacity to support violence against the united states and deter the iraqi regime from supporting terrorism. (unfortunately, iraq was already incapable of seriously supporting violence against the united states...but clinton ignored this, as did his successor). in 1998 the "war on terrorism" was seriously declared...by secretary of state albright...again, neither side wants to remember this now. at the time she called the war on terorrism "the war of the future" and secretary of defense cohen added that the situation called for the united states to "fight or fold" and that the united states "will not play passive defense." sound familiar? yea...bush and his cronies stole a bunch of their rhetoric...from their arch-nemesis.

thus, although the 1998 massive cruise missile strikes into sudan and afghanistan may, on their face, appear retaliatory, the clinton administration was making a clear statement that they should not be viewed as an isolated response, but part of a long-term campaign against terror in which it planned to utilize the military might of the united states as the fundamental means to fight the "imminent" and "continuing" threat of terrorism. again...stolen rhetoric...from the supposed uber-liberal. and as we witnessed, the strikes did not diminish the terrorist threat or deter it in any way...in fact, when coupled with the decade of bombing iraq it fueled the fire...which is again being fanned today.

so the dumber bush simply completed the process initially started by reagan, which his father tried to derail, only to see it pick up a hell of a lot of steam under clinton. the next natural step from the rhetoric of the clinton administration and the idea that terrorism would be fought fundamentally through military strikes as part of a "war" against global terrorism was actual war. the war in afghanistan was actually a progression of clinton's policies...the preemptive war in iraq the next step...albeit a really, really stupid one.

so next time some republican tries to tell you democrats that clinton didn't do enough against terrorism...tell them their beloved "bush doctrine" is actually the "clinton doctrine" taken to the next step. and next time you republicans are told by democrats your actions in combatting terrorism are only a poor attempt at showing your testosterone and penis size, point out to them you are simply following the lead of their beloved clinton.

my point...both parties fucked this up big time. don't try to take all the credit for being the fool republicans...and don't try and avoid all the blame for foolishness democrats.

if you're going to fight a war over nothing...it's best to join the side that's gonna win...