I’m with this reader:
The writer of the email yesterday is the one who should get his/her facts straight. The Bosnian conflict ended, not with either Clinton or NATO leadership but despite the lack of it. Only after the military tide turned in Bosnia due to Muslim countries ignoring the weapons trading ban such that the Bosnians could actually fight the Serbs on somewhat even terms did the Serbs ever come to the "peace" table. Even then, the Dayton Accord did more to save Milosevic to massacre another day (see Kosovo a few years later) than it ever did for the Bosnians. Besides, is the writer now saying that George H.W. Bush should have been more "unilateral" and less "multilateral" with our EU allies?
If Haiti is the best foreign policy victory of the Clinton presidency that the writer can cite, that says it all.
In the Middle East, at least an equally reasonable case can be made that Clinton, by artificially elevating the status of a two-bit terrorist like Arafat to an equal of the leader of the Free World, made peace LESS likely.
And, somehow, the MSM continues to perpetuate the idea that the Clinton Administration’s agreement with North Korea was a success, even though the North Koreans admit to cheating on it from the moment it was signed. Huh?
The original writer was right — Clinton was the fortunate beneficiary of a peace dividend from the end of the Cold War and a revolutionary tech boom. If a Republican had been President during the Clinton years, all we would ever hear from the Dems undoubtedly would be how the prosperity of the ’90s was voodoo economics, built on the accounting shenanigans and dotcom puffery of a few "wealthy special interests."
The ’90s were great but I have no nostalgia for the Clintons. The credit for the ’90s, such as it is, belongs with the greatness of American capitalism and the universal thirst for liberty and freedom by people around the world. Thankfully, gridlock in Washington was sufficient to keep the pols from screwing it up.
The Dish 