I rarely, if ever, post a comment like this one, but I thought it necessary. No doubt some readers will think Mr. Taranto's language rather purple; hyperbolic and gratuitously inflammatory: Bill Clinton "incinerated" children at Waco?

But the fact is that we have lived for the past 7 years under the tyranny of hyperbole; if anything, Taranto's language shows restraint. How often have we heard applied to the Bush Administration and its alleged abuses of civil rights such calm descriptors as "fascistic" or "draconian"? How many times have we heard about the "Third Reich" in Bush's Washington, with the president as Hitler? How often have we heard of neo-con totalitarianism and bloodlust and fearmongering; of Republicans dancing to the drumbeat of war? Republicans are the party of hate, of indifference; they are cold and ruthless capitalists who not only loathe their poor neighbors, they are bent on establishing "theocratic rule" and are "more dangerous than the Taliban." And so it goes.

You get the picture, and it ain't pretty. But the fact remains that Mr. Clinton and his party were not above abusing the Oval Office, with its attendant prerogatives. We don't hear about that, generally, from those who claim to hold intense passions about personal liberties.

Just some thoughts.

BG

Basically the power of the Fed is too much.
Doesn't matter if it is GOP or DEM.
They both break civil liberities.
The GOP used to be FISCALLY conservative.
Now they are not.

2 names 1 party. I am glad the NHGOP is still fiscally conservative.

It is not left vs right it is the STATE vs YOU.

Dear Citizen,

Fair enough!

BG

Sorry, Bill, but tt's been so long I almost forget.Perhaps you could refresh our memories.

What wars did Bill Clinton drag us into and how many thousands of America lives were lost and how many billions of our dollars were squandered in those wars?

Also, who are you quoting when you say some people believe Republicnas are "more dangerous than the Taliban"? This seems like an odd thing to say, and I haven't heard it.

Dear Mr. Marsh,

Let me ask you a question. Can you tell me any two-week period during the Clinton Administration when the US military was NOT in military conflict with Iraq? And if the time-table is too broad, name any two-day period when the US military was not in conflict with Iraq.

I have dealt extensively with the type of arguments you've presented here at my own website. I am afraid that history will get the best of you in this debate. Shall you permit me to illuminate you?

But first, as for the quote re: the Taliban. It is a conflation, I grant you. I should have said that "the religious right is more dangerous than the Taliban." Of course, the religious right is nearly synonymous with the Republican Party, no? Anyhow, the source of that particular quote was Rosie O'Donnell; it was heard by millions and commented upon in thousands of blogs. I also pull this link, virtually at random, from a Google search for "Republicans more dangerous than the Taliban": http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2693399

OK. Now, for the good stuff.

Recall that in 1992, Al Gore, who was campaigning with presidential nominee Bill Clinton as his runningmate, warned America that George H. W. Bush was catering to a dictator by NOT removing Saddam Hussein from power. In other words, recall that the Clinton/Gore campaign on foreign policy was that Bush 1 was coddling a bona-fide terrorist who posed a major risk to the US.

Recall too that Mr. Clinton, as president, ordered more sorties against the Iraqis in two brief conflicts -- the 1996 Operation Desert Strike and the 1998 Operation Desert Fox -- than were dropped in the entirety of the first Gulf War. In other words, the Clinton administration, having also increased sanctions against Iraq, escalated the Iraq problem post-Bush 1. Clinton and Company literally bombed the hell out of that poor country.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US were the result of the 1998 (note the year) fatwa issued by Osama bin Laden. In that fatwa, Mr. bin Laden called all able-bodied fighters to kill Americans everywhere for America's continued aggression toward, and oppression of, Iraq; America's abuses -- UNDER CLINTON -- of Iraq were the CENTRAL reason the fatwa was issued.

Moreover, the fatwa was issued the very same year Mr. Clinton signed into law the "Iraq Liberation Act" which called for "regime change," i.e., the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Hence, and here is the BIG point, the fatwa that led to thousands of American deaths on 9/11 was issued against those CLINTON policies, those CLINTON aggressions, aimed at Iraq. There is NO DEBATE on this point: Osama bin Laden called for the murder of all Americans because Clinton had ramped up the oppression of Iraqis as promised in the 1992 Clinton/Gore campaign for the White House.

Remember, George Bush the First formed his broad coalition for the first Gulf War by promising NOT to depose Hussein or attack Baghdad! It was the Clinton Democrats who declared that this passivity was reckless, dangerous; it was coddling terrorists.

All this to say that anyone who tells you that Iraq is irrelevant in the War on Terror does not know history; or he knows it, and is lying about it to your face. The current George Bush, acting on the very law -- the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 -- passed by Bill Clinton, acted EXACTLY in line with his predecessor's intentions and precedents: he removed Saddam Hussein as a "preemptive foreign policy initiative."

And please remember that Jay Rockefeller, a Democratic Senator on the Intelligence Committee, is the only elected official on record to call Saddam Hussein an "imminent threat," and this during a speech from the Senate floor months before America invaded Baghdad.

So you can say what you wish about this current president, but the fact remains that it was the Clinton Administration that NEVER left the Iraqi people alone the entirety of his presidency. It was under his leadership that the fatal fatwa was issued.

And that, my friend, is just the tip of that iceberg. But we were talking about the infringement on our civil rights. Clearly Mr. Clinton was no guardian of all things civil; and clearly it was his ineptitude and provocative policies that left George W. Bush few options to confront terrorism after 9/11.

The Iraq War is at least 16 years old. There was no "rush" to war under the Bush Administration (17 months and 17 UN resolutions is hardly a rush to war). Bill Clinton caused more harm than most people can accept, and far more than the media will ever dare report. It is his legacy that we are now in Iraq; the deaths attributed to Mr. Bush's weak leadership fall squarely on the lap of Mr. Clinton, too.

And please note what I am not saying: I am not saying that America HAD to invade Iraq. That's another debate entirely. What I AM saying is that Osama bin Laden MADE IRAQ THE CENTRAL ISSUE IN 1998.

I invite you again: What 2-week period between 1992 and 2001 was the US not in military conflict with Iraq?

Peace to you,

BG