I agree with you on this passage, but that was then, this is now:
As I've posted here on the thread numerous times though: the IDEAL TIME to have deposed Saddam was in Desert Storm --- so I blame Bush I for leaving this mess around and the job unfinished. It would have been *way* cheaper --- and likely much more effective, with greater potential for success --- to finish the job back then. It's ALWAYS bad policy to wound a bear and then leave him in the woods to recover for another day.
You seem to have forgotten that Iran was holding our Embassy hostage before Reagan took office: What would YOU have done then? STUPID POLICY.... Even *better* and *strategically smarter* would have been for REAGAN & BUSH I to have NEVER propped-up Saddam in the 8 year long Iran/Iraq Gulf War to begin with!!!!!!!! Saddam would have fallen then, or been politically neutered back then, and the oppressed Iraqi Shiites would have been freed a decade or so EARLIER, and at TRILLIONS LESS EXPENSE, and God only knows how many lives spared.
...
...
Even so, the SAUDIS gave (and STILL DO!) more money to the 'families of martyrs') then Saddam ever did. Saudis give $35,000 to $50,000 per family.
Do you have anything to say about that?
Yes I do. I don't trust the Saudis either. I think they should be forced to stop subsidizing homicide bombers. Frankly, I don't trust any Islamic nation farther than I can spit. They live in the eleventh century but have way more money than they deserve through no effort of their own.
So, I return to my original thought. Why don't you support the President under the situation that now exists?
If I don't "know" what you think, you are making it very hard to understand why you keep making the comments you do. WHO OR WHAT would do it better? You?
Kerry? Nope
Hillary? Give me a break
Al Gore? Treacherous
Joe Lieberman? Well, OK, but the Republicans have many better choices. |
