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.
Some quotes: "Still, a large majority of the American public opposed my decision. ...........the House of Representatives voted three-to-one against an American troop deployment in Bosnia. Despite this opposition, I felt the United States had to act in order to stop the atrocities........."
"Ten years later, the people of Bosnia have validated those who stood with them. The region is now stable and peaceful......"
I do not have a link to the complete article but if someone can provide it I would appreciate it.
Now, what is wrong with this picture? Ten years later, we are seeing the results of the decision, which was correct. Why don't we give the same benefit of doubt to the current President?