i wasn't the least bit surprised. it couldn't have been anyone else.

It's a damn shame Bush can't do that.

Indeed.

I tracked down the transcript of the speech and a video of it. I also put excerpts of my favorite parts up over at The Argus.

"As America pioneers the human future, much of what we must do will excite resentment, fear and envy overseas."

huh ?

Kevin,

Look around. Ensuring that future means taking out some ugly trash, as well as all the nice things. Sort of like home renovation projects (and the bad news is, it's going to feel like one).

That isn't always popular, but it's critically necessary. Clinton's biggest failing in office was that he shirked it because he just wasn't interested. That failure made a significant contribution to 9/11.

Having Bill Clinton act as an unofficial Ambassador for America lets him play to his strengths, while circumventing his biggest weakness. And he isn't an appeaser and suck-up to tyrants like Carter, so it's safe to let him out.

I didn't like him Bill Clinton as President, but when you see stuff like his performance in Doha and the lasting impact of his 2000 trip to India, I say go for it. Let him run around the world playing good cop, delivering his message, and being liked - while the sitting President does what has to be done. It's a win-win.

>
"As America pioneers the human future, much of what we must do will excite resentment, fear and envy overseas."
>

Translated: Neener neener.. We're the best for all your oil money you can't manage half what we can... and your little dog too(beagle II :).

A lot of the problem of Bill Clinton as President was created by a certain group of Republican fanatics.

Every time Clinton tried to get forceful on the world scene the Republicans who loved playing wag the dick accused Clinton of wagging the dog. Or dragging us into being the world's policeman.

Bush is the implimentor of the Clinton Foreign Policy that Bush ran against in the election. Of course a lot of this has to do with the changed American attitude post 9/11. We really do have a government of the people in America.

Besides Clinton did a lot for the sex life of Jews around the world.

I liked Clinton. I like Bush.

They both have/had very bad Attourney Generals. Monsters. Reno likes killing religious nuts. Ashcroft attacks the sick and dying.

Joe-

I guess the "huh" was mostly attached to the "As America pioneers the human future ...". The clever lads who wrote the US constitution ( a brilliant document ) went to great pains to avoid tyranny in the Federal Government. It is sadly ironic that this created a nation whose foreign policy is tyrannical with little respect for minority rights.

The attributes which you like in Clinton the ambassador are the same attributes he employed as chief executive. In my view he employed them successfully. If you're looking for a bogie man in the this I think the first place to look is the policy of appeasing and stabilizing tyrannical regimes in the ME in exchange for stability, Obviously, many other nations played the same game but that is at the root of the spread of Wahhabi Islam and all the pain that follows.

The taking out the trash analogy, like all simple analogies, is cute but flawed. In my view the war on terrorism will be no more successful than the war on drugs until options other than enforcement alone are used.

For example, while Saddam paid suicide bombers this was mostly a publicity gimmick. The billions of dollars a year that come out of the Afghan poppy field - now that was/is real funding. Until we look at how terrorist groups operate and become successful and use that as the main tool we will do no better than the DEA does.

So, the "huh" really meant two things: (1) does anyone really believe the US will or could or should "pioneer the future" - I don't; and (2) any policy that relies primarily on blunt force - or worse, unilateral blunt force - will fail.

--
KevinG

Oh, please. Clinton created his own damn problems. A brilliant man with a weakness that nearly destroyed his presidency. He knew from the start that any potential philandering would be watched closely. The presidency is a gold fish bowl. It was his arrogance and inability to control himself that got him in this mess. He screwed up and then he lied about it. He should have just been honest and direct and America would have shrugged its shoulders. It's always the cover up that gets you.

Also, a post! not about drugs! Yay!

OK since you want a post about drugs here is one:

The DEA is in effect funding the terrorists. It is called the Government Heroin Pice Support and Gang Finance Program.

The interesting thing about it is that the CIA likes it that way:

*The Politics of Heroin in SE Asia by McCoy*

*Interview with Prof. McCoy*

*Kennedy-the CIA-Drugs*

*More CIA Heroin*

*Still more*

I blame the Republican Congress for wagging the dick. Putting their war with Clinton ahead of the nation's business.

Just as I blame them for the current spending rampage and giving us the Medicare albatross that they denied Clinton.

TThe Republicans are as crroked as they come.

The Republicans are as crooked as they come.

America and Israel are pioneering the future.

Israel does 80% of the biotech research being done in the world.

Intel does it's processor designs in Israel.

and more.

Researchers from all over the world are coming to America for it's better climate for research.

Here is one person's visit to high tech Israel:

Original:
*My trip to Israel*

Pretty Format:
*My Trip to Israel*

do you suppose the Euro Proxy war against Israel and America *Proxy War*
has anything to do with the fact that they can't compete?

My favorite Bill Clinton moment was when he went to China. He had this one speech to the Chinese students that was absolutely brilliant. Forceful, moving, he told them resolutely what they had to do. He delivered exactly the right words from America to China as if his speech had been written by the Cato Institute.

And then the right found reasons to carp at it, which pissed me off tremendously. If Reagan had delivered that same speech to those same students, the right would be in tears and ready to add his head to Mount Rushmore.

Clinton, for all his shortcomings, has tremendous skills. May we never forget that a well-placed speech will do as much good in the world as a well-placed bomb.

M. Simon... your characterization of Clinton's foreign policy is simply not accurate.

For starters, Clinton was not stymied by his political opposition. Read this article by a Clinton NSC staffer to get a more serious understanding. Clinton wasn't stymied - he was disinterested. And that's the truth.

As for the Republicans, their record is mixed. Many did question the Somalia mission, and Bosnia as well. Both were seen as ill-defined missions with the potential to devolve into no-win scenarios.

But Clinton did not pull out of Somalia because he was about to be forced out by the Legislative Branch. Nor did he deny heavy support to the Mogadishu operation because of concerns about Republicans. These were his own misjudgments, and that of his team.

Once committed, the Right was firm that we needed to stay in Somalia, and that if we didn't there would be consequences via perceptions of U.S. weakness. We didn't. There were.

FYI, there were also many neocons who urged FASTER intervention in the Balkans, and with ground troops not bombing from the air.

Nor were Clinton's actions in Bosnia much impeded by Republicans (if anyone is the villain there, look to a fractious NATO - including France whose troops passed intel to the Serbs).

I'm not even going to go into the half-measures of Desert Fox against Saddam in 1998, or the utter disaster of Clinton's refusal to stop the North Koreans from acquiring atomic weapons. Any idiot knew that the North Korea "agreement" was worth less than nothing. Now look where we are - and worse yet may come because of it.

Clinton's foreign policy was largely about symbolism and half-measures, when it was taken seriously at all. Heather Hurlburt's experience makes that abundantly clear, and though the Bosnia intervention would prove more important than any of us thought in changing some isolationist liberal attitudes, on the whole I'd still call his foreign policy a failure.

Fortunately, the role of Ambassador (official or ex-officio) is very different from the role of Commander-In-Chief. Bill Clinton may be exceptionally well suited to the first role. He is not at all suited to the second.