11 total posts
I honestly think it's because
both the father and the son went up against Saddam....and when the son did it, he was immediately accused of retaliation for the assassination attempt by Saddam against the father or we wanted all that oil (because both father and son are in the business)or the son wanted to repay Cheney/Haliburton by giving them/it lucrative contracts for the rebuilding after the fact.
It wouldn't have made a rat's bit of difference if Clinton or any other Dem was in office, if those chains of events had occurred with them.....those three items of events would have triggered exactly the same reaction politically, I believe.
With Clinton, it was the Republicans who reacted. With Bush,
it is the Democrats. That's the difference between the two parties. All the Dems care about is gaining a political advantage even if that's at the country's expense.
Because Clinton was
not 100% wrong about the reasons for going in. That's a start. Also, Bosnia did not turn into a gas can/flaming torch juggling act that threatened to destabilize the region and beyond. Perhaps because our actions in Bosnia did not attract accusations of torture, that's always something to avoid.
Nope...but VietNam did
bring all of that and more....under mostly a Dem Pres.
Presidents do what they have to do with their best information and intentions. Sometimes it works well right away, sometimes it works 'in the long haul', and sometimes it doesn't work at all.
It's always going to be a crap-shoot...no matter what party is sitting in the Oval Office.
Toni you are so right and it is always the ones
not sitting who complain the loudest! Something which VP Cheney understands is the way our government works. Unfortunately there are many in here who do not.
How about the 3 to 1 opposition by House of Reps.
But then again, Clinton, as you say, was 100% right.
Not because he was a Democratic president right?
One major difference that you ignore is that the war in Iraq is directly related to our national interests, where some of the terrorists are based and they are attacking us. Bosnia was more of a European problem, right in their backyard.
I said no such thing.
Take another look at my post and rephrase your reply. I most certainly did not say the Clinton was 100% right.
Iraq was billed as being directly related to our national interests. And it might have been had not the estimates of Iraq's threat capability be so spectacularly off target. But they were and it wasn't.
Which terrorist attacks against the US were launched from Iraq?
OK, I stand corrected.
You did not say Clinton was 100% right.
On the other issues though, I do not think that we can say Iraq was all squeeqy clean. We still do not know what happened to the WMD. Can they be in Syria? Maybe transferred there before the start of the war?
Maybe in the hands of some terrorists, maybe somewhere in Afghanistan/Pakistan border region.
Surely you will not deny that they did not possess them.
I think we may still be surprised by what we may find in coming years.
Why would I deny that?
Iraq wasn't clean, but it was not dirty in anything like the way that it was described.
(NT) Actually his bombing raids were condemned by the UN.