DIYbanter - View Single Post

Jim Yanik

wrote in
:

On 2 Jan 2008 17:40:40 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

Bill Clinton is the gift that keeps on giving. Exit polls identified
two issues that wounded Republicans in 2006: Iraq and corruption. He
muddies the Democratic message on both.

His false claim that he opposed the Iraq invasion only drew attention
to his support for it. In fact, his words and deeds in office supplied
President Bush with ample arguments for the war. “Regime change” was
not a neoconservative concoction. It became official policy when
President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Several
weeks later, he launched air strikes to “attack Iraq's nuclear,
chemical, and biological programs and its military capacity to
threaten its neighbors.” Noting that Saddam Hussein had already used
weapons of mass destruction, he stressed: “I have no doubt today, that
left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.”

It appears you folks have short memories or have BDS,Bush Derangement
Syndrome.Probably both.

You also can't ignore that he kept the war boiling on the back burner
for his entire 8 years so itt was very easy for GW to ramp it up.
This is a 17 year old war now.
We should have declared victory in 1991 when we had it and come HOME.

I really don't want to use the "I" word but that is really why we
stayed. It sure wasn't "to protect the Kurds" and if we just wanted
cheap oil, Saddam would have sold it to us, even if he had Kuwait.

except at THAT TIME,we did not have any UN mandate for invasion or regime
change.Then,after 12 yrs and additional UN Resolutions(and failure of the
corrupt UN to act decisively),Bush decided it was necessary to act
premptively. If you look at secular Iraq as a key to fostering changes in
the other ME nations,it makes more sense.
Plus,we only recently had info on Iran's hidden nuclear programs.
It HAS become much clearer that Iran is waging war(by proxy) on the
US,Israel,and Lebanon.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net