> I have one unrelated charge that I've never heard an adequate rebuttal to
> from the anti-intervention crowd: if a NATO campaign was such a brilliant
> piece of imperialism, it sure is odd that "realists" like Dr. K failed to
> see its
> significance and indeed railed against it. Or, perhaps, Kissinger,
> Buckley,
> Lott, Delay, Bush et al. experienced startling conversions to leftist
> humanism unbeknownst to me. Stranger things have happened.
.
This isn't quite right. George Bush supported the Kosovo bombing. From the
transcript of the second Presidential debate...
BUSH: I think it's a triumph; I thought the president made the right decision in joining NATO in bombing Serbia. I supported them when they did so. I called upon the Congress not to hamstring the administration and - in terms of forcing troop withdrawals on a timetable that wasn't in necessarily our best interests or fit our nation's strategy.
And so I think it's good public policy. I think it worked. And I'm pleased I took the - made the decision I made. I'm pleased the president made the decision he made, because freedom took hold in that part of the world.
It's as important for NATO to have it work. It's important for NATO to be strong and confident to help keep the peace in Europe. And one of the reasons I felt so strongly that the United States needed to participate was because of our relations with NATO. And NATO is going to be an important part of keeping the peace in the future.
Kissinger opposed it precisely because he thought it was an *unbrilliant* piece of imperialism. He's believed since the early 1960's that NATO is ultimately doomed.
Seth