Clinton had been gone for three years, it was Bush's people in charge of the Iraqi intelligence. The intelligence itself was far less flawed than the administration's analysis of it. Oooooh, I hate rabbits. Bush hoodwinked us or he was hoodwinked by his own people. Either way, we were hoodwinked. It matters little if it was the result of deceit or incompetence. We deserved better.
This is flat out wrong. According to my posts above with articles from MSNBC John Edwards, Senator and Kerry's running mate of who you probably voted for stated on Meet the Press that he relied on information from the Clinton Administration. Also an article from either CNN or MSNBC stated that Hillary sought information from another source other than the Bush Administation. Only a fool would think she wouldn't consult her husband and his team of experts before making such a decision.
Out of context phrasing? I included the entire pertinent section, and bolded the specific phrases that put the monkey where it truly belongs. That's all. As far as killing Saddam and his sons being worth it, not hardly. Were they murderous? Yes. But not as murderous as the genocide in Rawanda or Cambodia, both of which we and the international community did nothing. The US uses its military to advance the strategic interests of the country, and if a war is in the strategic interests, such as WWII, we will pay the price and persevere. If the strategic interests are not at stake, the country will not be willing to pay "any price" to achieve a tactical or humanitarian gain. Halting the Bosnian genocide worked out well as we stopped a genocide without losing any american lives in the primary hostilities. Nice gain, low cost. If anyone thinks Iraq was a humanitarian effort, please review the history during the Reagan administration, when Rumsfeld was in Bagdhad shaking hands with Saddam, while Saddam had already gassed Kurds in his country and Iranian soldiers, in contempt of international law, which was well known by the internaitional community. Saddam killed most of his 300,000 people between 1979 and 1990, after he seized power and consolidated it. After that, he just had to kill enough and brutally enough to terrorize anyone who might entertain ideas of deposing him. We didn't care under Reagan and Bush I, about any humanitarian "issues". And we didn't go after him in 2003 for any humanitarian issues either. It was not mentioned in any debate heading into the war. All wars are judged by "what did I get" and "what did it cost me". Simply, we are paying way to much for the benefit we will get out of this. That's not just my judgement, but about 70% of the public now thinks the Iraq war was a mistake.
Please explain carefully how this is an example of "the buck not stopping with the president" during the Clinton administration!!!
Another example is WACO but I've said all I'm going to say about that. I've taken enough cyber space up right here in this forum on that subject! Janet Reno said the buck stopped with her.
I'll agree on not going to Waco! :yelwink2: Edited: Football season ends, I don't know what to do with myself.
You're citing John Edwards to support your pro-Bush stance? That's funny! Try reading between the lines. Sourdough, if Bush was using three-year old intelligence from Clinton's era instead of what current intelligence his own people were telling him, that would be remarkably foolish and incompetent, wouldn't it?
