Whether we act depends on the circumstances. These include circumstances we frankly acknowledge, such as geographical distance or the risk of larger entanglements. They also include unmentionable circumstances such as the president's popularity rating, the nearness of an election, what else is going on, the mood and strength of the other party, how many of these things we've tried lately, and so on. It is, in short, very Clintonian. But not wrong for that reason.
Critics make great hay over the inconsistencies.
They even suggest racism. But these complaints generally come when Clinton has acted, not when he has failed to act. It is a bizarre form of affirmative action to suggest that we must let white people be slaughtered in Kosovo because we let black people be slaughtered in Rwanda. The critics seize any opportunity to interpret an ambiguous result as total failure. And of course, when all else fails, the critics like to suggest that Clinton's own personal failings deny him the moral authority to act.