It was George Sr. that didn't have the stomach for it.
The Iraqi's were decimated and we had several countries WITH us. We could have just "walked" into Baghdad and set up whatever type of government we liked.
Nonsense. This issue has been debated for 20 years now and if anything is clear it is that there would have been no support for "going to Baghdad". The specific objective had been met (i.e., ejecting Saddam from Kuwait), Saddam had agreed to acceptable terms for the cease fire, and you would have been first in line to raise hell had he done one thing more than he did.
The Left, and many on the Right, are very quick to Monday-morning quarterback on these things. But the reality is that at the time of the Gulf War the left would have gone utterly NUTS if he had done more than he did.
But somehow you blame this on Clinton????? Isn't that a bit absurd????
The failure came when Saddam began, then continued, time and again, to violate the terms of the cease fire. When it became clear he was leading the US around by the nose, he should have been removed. But Clinton simply didn't have the stones to do it, and left it instead for GWB to deal with.
Saddam made Clinton look like a damned fool, and the US along with him. When a country enters voluntarily into a cease fire agreement, then violates it, the war restarts and the cease fire ends. Except if Clinton is president. He essentially kicked the can down the road for GWB to deal with. And GWB dealt with it.
Saddam was an unstable force in the region and had to be removed. It was harder than it might have been, mistakes were made, but no mistake was as big as the one Obama made when he opposed the Iraq War and then withdrew from it precipitously which has allowed the situation to deteriorate. The SOFA negotiated by GWB was for public consumption; no one ever anticipated a complete withdrawal in the way it was done. But elections have consequences. |
