Signing a Treaty = accomplishing the goal

Lori Byrd at Polipundit directs us to this post by a guest blogger for Andrew Sullivan. She writes:

CLINTON REWRITES HISTORY IN BOSNIA: A couple of days ago I was watching Clinton tell a BBC reporter that his administration stopped Al Qaeda from establishing a base in Bosnia. In the same vein, his UN representative and Secretary of State wannabe Richard Holbrooke
wrote that "we would probably have had to pursue Operation Enduring Freedom not only in Afghanistan but also in the deep ravines and dangerous hills of central Bosnia, where a shadowy organization we now know as al Qaeda was putting down roots that were removed by NATO after Dayton." Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Dayton accords did indeed require the eviction of the "foreign fighters" but Izetbegovic (whose indictment as a war criminal was made public only after his death) ignored that condition with the same impunity Arafat ignored the Oslo agreements demanding the dismantling of Hamas. Consequently, when Bernard-Henri Levy visited Bosnia he found Taliban-run villages and it was from Bosnia that the so called charities financed the Al Qaeda operations.

Because Bill got them to sign a piece of paper making a promise, he thinks he has actually accomplished something. The fact that they never intended to keep the promise doesn't matter to him.

This attitude, shared by the Democratic establishment, is the most dangerous of all the silly follies embraced by liberals today. It is the most important reason why we (and the world) cannot afford a Democrat in the White House directing foreign policy.

One more point -- regardless of what one's views of policy might be, serious voters (e.g. a liberal like Roger Simon) understand that a vote that puts people like this back in power is simply immoral.