Al, I was responding to Ted's comment as follows:
The Clintons saw Saddam as a threat but they did not propose that we go to war over it.
The linked article did not comport with
Ted's statement, which was why I posted it.
To answer your question, however, I don't think
Clinton was actually prepared to back up his threats of
war at that time, despite his comments, which itself
may have been a problem. He did authorize bombing
and no doubt there were casualties.
Consequently, there was probably no set of circumstances
when Clinton would actually have done
it, unless he put his finger to the wind and found overwhelming public support.
But the fact remains, he talked about it
and rattled plenty of sabres.
I guess the principal difference between me
and many on this thread is that I am not
prepared to accept the claim that Bush "lied"
to get us into the current Iraq war. Nor am
I comfortable with the notion that we are
an evil war mongering nation no better than
terrorists. The latter POV seemed implicit in
the article Ted linked, which is what drew my
initial response.
All in all, my position is that I want the US
to succeed in Iraq and get the country restored
to normalcy with its own internal democratically
appointed government.
Fighting over whether we should have gone in
in the first place is largely based on 20/20
hindsight and political debate during this
election season. Obviously there are many who
dislike Bush and object to his policies. I just
see a difference between political rhetoric
and divisive arguments that prevent the country
from keeping its collective eye on the ball
as to how best to solve the current Iraq situation.
In other words, the war is a fait accompli.
Let's deal with the situation we have now. In this,
even Ted agreed with me.
Some, like Ted, hated Bush before the invasion of
Iraq, and have stoked that hatred into an
inferno. It didn't matter
what Bush did in office. Ted would have wanted
him out regardless. He's certainly free to
hold that opinion.
I just take issue with some of the rhetoric and
argumentation he employs in support of his
political views. If you carefully read our
exchanges, you will understand my POV in that
regard.
I've voted both Democrat and Republican in my life.
I take it election by election and candidate by
candidate. I will tell you, however, that I find the
extremes on both sides of the political spectrum
to be a major turn off. At this juncture, the
Democratic contenders appear to be so far left
that I find none to be inspirational.
Kerry is the consummate politician and Washington insider.
He tries to be all things to all people. I tend to
look more at what's he's done vs. what he says
about what he'll do. Too many flip flops.
Besides, American Spirit gushes over Kerry so much
that he couldn't possibly be the right man for
the job..<g> |
