I dont disagree on prinicipal. Deploy teargas for demonstrators on the street, and provide numerous copper jacketed lead pills to those who come into the compound. That being said, I wasnt on the scene obviously and have a tough time second guessing thier actions. But shooting the first few through the gate might have changed the motives of the rest.
You and I both know that the person who campaigns for a political position and the person who governs as an official, are often two different things.
I think the demarcation between the two of us when it comes to support of a candidate is that you want someone who is ultimately conservative, I want someone who will govern by what is necessary. Meaning Andy, that ultimately I am a pragmatist. I want someone who is going to get the job done, whatever thier political persuasion.
Again, NKorea would fall into this category.
Who not invade and overthrow thier government. I mean not only are they able to nuke our long term allies in South Korea and Japan, but they have shown themselves to be a nuclear power.
I find this kinda funny, because back during Operation Desert Fox, the GOP was all sorts of twisted over military action against Iraq then. That was in 1998, and boy did everyone's tune change by late 2002. To sum up this statement though, I am going to involve our resident Right Wing Moderator:
You and I both know that Clinton was criticized for getting out of Somalia, it coined the well known term "cut and run Democrats"
You can thank GHWB for this.
Well ultimately it was a humanitarian issue.
I guess I am not following how this is Clintons fault entirely. By your logic, we had business in being there in the first place(GHWB deployed those troops)
Therefore not necessary to increase the support necessary to complete that mission, because we have no business there in the first place.
Kinda like Reagan in 1983?
