I never cease to be amazed at people who sit back and critique decisions -- how many decisions have you made that would withstand this kind of scrutiny. Do I think mistakes have been made? Absolutely! Those mistakes include: Bush Senior not finishing the job when he was President, Clinton sitting on his butt while Iraq snubbed it's nose at the entire world and kicked the UN Inspectors out of Iraq -- however, people want to make this all about WMD -- but Bush made it VERY clear that Iraq had this much time to let inspectors in and do their job -- when that time was up, we went to war.
What America do you live in, Randy? This is exactly how people critique decisions.
As for those "mistakes" you mentioned, Bush Sr. was specifically asked by the other Arab countries to only remove Saddam from Kuwait and then leave, because of the problem with having asked them to come in the first place - which was the excuse Bin Laden used to attack the U.S. So while it was not the correct decision in hindsight, it was the "politcally" correct decision at the time.
As for Clinton, again, he was following the world's request to go through the UN to deal with Iraq - and this was well before 9/11, which had nothing to do with it anyway. What 9/11 essentially did was allowed Dubya carte blanche to do whatever the hell he wanted to do. Clinton did not have a 9/11 to justify doing whatever he pleased, but somehow I believe he would not have succumbed to this invasion so blindly as Dubya did, without serious consideration of the longterm ramifications that an invasion of another country would lead to. As Bush Jr. is slowly starting to understand.
The United Nations, remember, is in existance to maintain peace and allow a forum for nations to negotiate differences without going to war. If a country is hellbent on defying the UN and ignoring its sanctions, the UN is not an entity designed to invade that country, or declare war, or force it to comply. It can only initiate economic sanctions, which amount to suggestions. A Shangra La idea like the UN can only be effective if the countries that belong play by the same rules.
Which leads us to the U.S. leading the cavalry charge into Iraq to "save" it from Hussain and us from those WMD. If the appearance of improprity did not scream out over both the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, at least some of us doubters would be a little more in favor of these actions. But we have a
F**KING CIA DIRECTED WAR, CAUSED BY CIA SELF-SERVING 'INTELLIGENCE' MOTIVATION FOR THE WARS, WITH A TOTALLY ANGRY ARAB WORLD P*SSED OFF AT AMERICA FOR CIA INTERVENTIONS IN THEIR COUNTRIES, AND THE TOPPER - A CIA-RUN PRESIDENT, WHO'S FATHER IS THE CONDUIT. I am sorry, but if anyone is stupid enough not to see this connection out there, get help. The idiocy of the American mid-landers, who feel Bush can better protect them from another terrorist attack seem to forget that Bush did little beforehand to protect them prior to 9/11. If a motivated and angry Bin Laden successfully did it once, actually more then once, it would be extremely naive to think he can't come up with another, more devastating attack without the CIA or FBI being any better in thwarting it.
But the question is why they are after us? Put the blame where it belongs - on what the CIA has been doing in the Mid-East for the last forty years. This did not just suddenly dawn on the Arab world to kill as many Americans as they can - no negotiations, just kill as many as possible. It came about after years of CIA involvement in their cultures, raping the resources and bullying governments into compliance.
Carter's dealing with Iran back in the late seventies? Directly a result of the CIA's Shah-created regime. The current connection to Afghanistan has CIA fingerprints all over it, and it is interesting to note that the companies both there and Iraq have links to our vice-president, who will make a fortune on HIS WMD that are being sold to the US government now to fight these wars. Anyone remember the Texas companies that sold the weapons to the US during the Vietnam War? Johnson left the White House a millionaire over those deals, all brokered by CIA connections.
And now, the CIA, with the complete support of the stupidity of middle-America (the one segment of the United States that will NEVER be attacked by anyone ever) behind it, has their own guy in the White House. How convenient. How convenient that he was elected because of a CIA black-ops operation in Florida, a technique they perfected in Central America.
When will people come to realyze that every time an American in Iraq gets kidnapped and beheaded, the CIA/Dubya people secretly rejoice? It plays directly to the fears of that safely eskonced Middle-American group who see it as somehow a direct threat to their safety and fears that some other president might allow it to happen to them. The bloodier the attacks to Americans appear, the more they can play on the stupidity of these Americans, who just want their government to "do what they have to" and let them sit back and eat all the carbohydrates they can stuff in their mouths during football season.
