Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 9:01 pm

It is vital to consider the importance, recent, of "boots on the ground" priorities, regular – the days of "fairness" as an "inheritance" left President Obama by President Bush, so ignored or misunderstood, may be lost.

Are we now into a second Presidency suffering from "inheritance" really from the Clintons’ administering - their reigning with standoffishness?

What would any Presidency have looked like after either 2000 victory if Clintons’ had been to an effecting of "bite" into United Nations sanctions? 

Could Al Gore, President, have made an argument to enter Afghanistan before 9/11 and with justifications near maybe - America’s avoidance and inaction has been tearing at our souls too long, and "droning" or pot shots from United States Naval vessels inadequate and unfair for such "Americanizing" former First Lady Hillary Clinton had been about as a "necessary" change?

Would Afghanistan under a President Al Gore now be "all about the rare earth minerals" as necessary for his GLOBAL WARMING ELECTIONEERING?  Would the opium be overlooked with "talking points" to redirect from?

Iraq operations needed a equalizer, Iraq needed "boots on the ground" of a "standing with" and yet because the eight years of Clintons had squandered other options with their years so of salt in their wounds and a festering let free from a once more manageable day prior to Clintons’ years of much avoidance and inaction.

A Nobel Peace Prize recipient was recently to an acceptance speech with a strong erudition about dangers from "avoidance" and "inaction."

Saddam as of the Clintons’ pro-Sunni posturing may also have been more acceptable past the general "the dictator we know is better than the one we don’t" for having been a Ba’athist even if not one true to the Ba’athist conception to a single United Arab Socialist State effecting.  {Alan Hart - ARAFAT, TERRORIST OR PEACEMAKER}

How bad do the Clintons now look for an "acceptance" of Qadhafi their eight years?

How important still is it that America only proceed in "war" with "boots on the ground"?  Surely "droning" and "droning" begets "terrorist" responses nearly as concerning as a danger of "Washington" being too close to "Hollywood" as such begets terrorism as Philip Bobbitt aired with his TERROR AND CONSENT work.  {Philip Bobbitt, former Clinton NSC advisor - plus}

How would President Al Gore have handled Afghanistan - did he already know of their rare earth mineral deposits and want them for his GREEN capitalism and new crony "green" markets?  Would he have acted in next step of First Lady Hillary Clinton’s "crusades" about bringing and "Americanization" to Afghan women and to rights for them, before 9/11?  Would it have been the natural next step for Democrats so oddly enamored with Clintons?  Would more years of "avoidance" or "inaction" have acceptable even to us, with our souls being torn with such a region festering since our premature departure?

Our "boots on the ground" in Operation Iraqi Freedom may still be enough to differentiate Libya on cause and to an avoidance from such as now "appropriate" or "necessary."  But Afghanistan was one of "Hillary’s" babies - droning on and on couldn’t have been ever thought to be enough to satisfy her, it seems. 

Don’t know if the "mission creep" into Pakistan was a amatuer moment with "Hillary" too eager and effective to such a dispatching with additional boots before a "mission" and/or "plan" had been set - but to ‘chase the enemy’.

What are the "unexpected" or "collatoral" issues we should be budgeting for now with "droning" a likely "recruiting" favorite for our swearable to "enemy" and even to "terrorist - Jihadist"?  Is our years of standing with Shia, Kurds, Sunni and even Ba’athists in Iraq enough still for a while to balance Secretary Clinton’s "Droning Diplomacy"?

Yes, the Clintons left the next President two festering nations suffering and angry for clear "abandonment" by the United States and "avoidance" and "inaction" so the norm of the Clintons’ years also to a reduction in "bite" to just sanctions hard worked with international jurisprudence and concern.

President Barack Hussein Obama, Nobel Peace Prize Awardee, was clear with his oration with his acceptance about dangers from "avoidance" and "inaction" - well maybe "clear" isn’t quite transparent or translucent.

Seems Clintons avoided Libya too, and without having intellectualized "use of force/boots" modernization while posturing prematurely to PEACE DIVIDENDS largely now necessarily reversed.

Will their "Droning Diplomacy" be as costly as that warning from their former National Security Counselor Bobbitt about concerns that "terrorism" is begetted when Washington becomes too cozy with Hollywood?

So that Saddam Hussein wasn’t called to a "new" Nuremberg within the Clintons’ first or second term seems much a precedent dangerous about "avoidance" and "inaction" - how was his over-reaching after the world starting turning past the Cold War old geopolitics and "intelligent" option - how could we now call for a "prosecutions" of other heads of state "lesser" in their reigning if President Bush hadn’t finally put the "bite" back in sanctions Clintons let weaken yet stay and get passed/"inherited"?

Are the costs of "droning" greater but to variable and unknown to be budgeted "intelligently" now?  Can they be as great an "unknown" as the seeming collatoral from the Clintons’ reigning with "avoidance" and "inaction" - their unwillingness to "stand with" to a more equal Iraq when estimates near daily as depressing as those about their acceptance of conditions in Afghanistan?

Is Afghanistan "necessary" now just for its plethora of rare earth minerals necessary for the spread of Gore’s crony "green" capitalism? 

And, wow, President Bush must have been a "green" President since it only took President Obama and Democrats one year to save the earth with new technologies, right?

Maybe if Clintons and Democrats with their "global citizen" bend should have atleast budgeted body armor for all the "boots" in reach of their "global policing" paradigm?  Maybe at least Hummer armoring?  After all it was an extra trillion they said could and should be cut while they let Iraq and Afghanistan, at least, fester on.

Some conventions seem now unavoidable - are we making the same personnel mistakes?  Have Democrats "Diplomacy" rendered our "war" budgeting unintelligible?

Comments »

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

Publication may require admin approval; please come back later to view your comment.