Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cohen criticizes 'wag the dog' characterization

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Cohen criticizes 'wag the dog' characterization

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Defense Secretary William Cohen on Tuesday defended President Clinton's use of the military to protect national security interests, returning to a sharp GOP-led criticism of Clinton at a time when he was embroiled in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

    He added: "I think it's important for that to be clear because that 'wag the dog' cynicism that was so virulent [then], I'm afraid is coming back again."
    Cohen again reiterated he thought an invasion of Afghanistan in the fall of 2000 was "unrealistic."

    "We can be faulted for that," Cohen said. "I just don't think it was feasible."

    Commissioner Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska then responded: "I'll just say for the record, better to have tried and failed than to have not tried at all."
    Un-Official Sponsor of Randy Choate and Kevin Siegrist
    Tags: None
  • #2
    I wonder if Bob realizes that 1) the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were being planned for 5 years and 2) the planes that were used took off on US soil, not in Afghanistan.

    Why don't people understand that even if Bin Laden was somehow killed prior to 9/11 it would not have prevented what happened? It may have postponed it, but the reality is that A-Q already had people in the US, and that someone was bound to take over if Bin Laden was eliminated.

    I don't really believe that the US, if they successfully eliminated Bin Laden, would be prepared for a 9/11-type of attack.

    Comment

    • #3
      Cohen is right about one thing:

      No way would the world -- or the US -- supported a preemptive strike on Afghanistan.

      I don't fault them for that politically.
      When you say to your neighbor, "We're having a loud party on Saturday night if that's alright with you," what you really mean is, "We're having a loud party on Saturday night."

      Comment

      • #4
        They were also reluctant to start a war in the closing days of Clinton's presidency. Remember that Clinton had to deal with that in 1993 when Bush Sr. intervened in Somalia a month before leaving office.

        Comment

        • #5
          Originally posted by kah2523@Mar 24 2004, 07:21 AM
          They were also reluctant to start a war in the closing days of Clinton's presidency. Remember that Clinton had to deal with that in 1993 when Bush Sr. intervened in Somalia a month before leaving office.
          absolutely correct kah.

          How can we ensure seemless transfer, so things like national security don't get put on hold?
          Un-Official Sponsor of Randy Choate and Kevin Siegrist

          Comment

          • #6
            Originally posted by lazydaze+Mar 24 2004, 08:27 AM-->
            QUOTE (lazydaze @ Mar 24 2004, 08:27 AM)
          • #7
            Originally posted by kah2523+Mar 24 2004, 07:31 AM-->
            QUOTE (kah2523 @ Mar 24 2004, 07:31 AM)
            Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 08:27 AM
          • #8
            Perhaps there needs to be some sort of constitutional provision whereby a lame-duck President can "swear in" his replacement immediately.

            Woodrow Wilson, who beat Charles Hughes by a whisker in 1916, was so worried about the escalating tensions with Kaiser Wilhelm that he was planning, in case Hughes won, to have Hughes named Speaker of the House (the Speaker does not have to be a member). Wilson and his VP would then have resigned and allowed Hughes to succeed to the White House immediately. Rather cumbersome procedure, that.

            Comment

              • Previous template Next
              Working...
              X