NP The Economist "A puzzling War"

[Paul Mackin]

Yes, Clinton might have faced more hysteria from the far right faction, who
by the way would have roundly condemned him for doing anything along the
lines of taking out bin Laden pre-9/11 They did so condemn him in fact.

But I still don't think things would have played all that differently.

Actually you could easily argue (as some have no doubt done) that the two
parties work well together to do whatever is necessary. Nixon had enough
credibility as a hawk to make friends with China, and it was left to Clinton
to reform welfare. Some truth to this I suppose.
In America it may not matter which party controls at a particular moment, so
long as they change positions fairly frequently.

        P.




----- Original Message -----
From: "Terrance" <lycidas2 at earthlink.net>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: NP The Economist "A puzzling War"


> http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=840892
>
>
> There are also  articles on the Peace Movement in California, the
> Humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, and other interesting stuff.
>
>
> Playing armchair general with Paul here.
>
>  Paul says we would not have a much different war if Clinton or Gore
> were in the Whitehouse.  I guess Clinton/Gore would have been pressured
> to commence firing ASAP. Bush & Co. were not pressured to start bombing
> because the perception here and abroad is that they  are more hawkish.
> Has and will the time Bush had to form a coalition make a difference? I
> don't know. In any event, the siuation seems more puzzling every day. Of
> course, like most Americans, in and out of government, I never paid much
> attention to Afghanistan.
>