Bill Clinton, George Bush, Kofi Anan or Saddam Hussein.
2006-12-12 16:01:05 · 25 answers · asked by GJfromfla 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Man Kind, Creativity of Human nature. then you can give any name you want weather saddam or bush
2006-12-12 16:04:19 · answer #1 · answered by Zenon 2 · 0⤊ 5⤋
When this question comes up I always think of Bush 41. If he had finished what he started in the Gulf War we wouldn't be talking about whether to blame Bush 43 or Bill Clinton. Bush 43 might have been able to actually concentrate on the terrorists for example, instead of putting that in the backseat to attack Iraq with nothing but manipulated intelligence. So I'm stepping out of the box and saying Bush - both of them.
2006-12-13 01:07:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
This would be a really interesting question to use in a scientific poll.... getting demographic information along with it. The results would probably be pretty predictable though.
Republicans -- blame anybody but bush
Democrats -- blame anybody but clinton
I'm going to go with Saddam being most responsible. With a smaller part of the blame going to Bush... and almost no blame for Clinton (he really had nothing to do with attacking Iraq in 2003).
What demographic does that make me? Moderate Democrat...
2006-12-13 01:03:13 · answer #3 · answered by brooks b 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Saddam Hussein. He broke the peace treaty we signed with him.
Kofi Anan and Clinton delayed the inevitable by refusing to enforce UN resolutions.
Bush did what was needed: take action. He had no choice.
2006-12-13 00:10:48 · answer #4 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
It's Dubya's folly. Absolutely 100%
Saddam had "contained" right up to the moment of invasion.
Bush Sr. knew the country would fall into chaos and possible civil war if Saddam was removed from power. That's why he left him in power. I never liked Bush Sr but I have to give him credit for figuring that out, even if I disagreed with it back then.
2006-12-13 00:28:54 · answer #5 · answered by Do You See What Happens Larry? 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Personally I think that Saddam Hussein should have been left alone. It is a fact that not one American citizen was ever killed in Iraq under Saddam. I hate to say it but I think George Bush is responsible because of misinformation. Iraq is a sovereign country just like the United States. You don't start a fight with a country just because he killed a bunch of Kurds. He took care of his problem. Islamic extremests destroyed the WTC, not Saddam. We should have went after Iran and left Iraq alone. This, of course, is my opinion.
2006-12-13 00:17:05 · answer #6 · answered by gyro-nut64 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
well it's close to Bill Clinton, because he never took care of business. He did nothing, now everyone thinks Bush is such a bad guty because he takes a stand and actually gets something done, or at least try to. But since Saddam was like the main culprate I believe it's Saddams fault. It's none of our presidents fault, that it happened. But it's not Bush's fault, he is actually trying to get things done that Clinton never did, he was to busy in the Oval Office.
2006-12-13 00:06:54 · answer #7 · answered by Ryan R 1 · 3⤊ 2⤋
George Bush made it hapen. He is the Commander in Chief of the United States, and pushed the proverbial button. Right or wrong, he is responsible.
Analogy- If a bully spit on your shoe... that doesn't make you swing at his face.
The others were the cast of characters setting up the world stage... playing parts that have the world in this condition, but none can be held culpable for the war that we engaged in.
2006-12-13 00:08:15 · answer #8 · answered by justr 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Bush wanted to get revenge for Saddam's assassination attempt on his father, George Bush Sr. Everything they told us about WHY they were going to war in Iraq (connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda, Saddam to 9/11, saying they had "weapons of mass destruction", etc.) was a lie, fabricated to get us there and take out his personal enemy, when we SHOULD have been focusing on Afghanistan and finding Osama bin Laden.
2006-12-13 00:07:28 · answer #9 · answered by Austin W 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
George Bush
2006-12-13 00:02:43 · answer #10 · answered by wes58x 3 · 2⤊ 5⤋
George Bush no question; Is very simple I am sure that anyone could construct some convoluted rationale for all of these people being the cause, with George Bush having 'no choice' but to go to war. But the reality is he gave the final order. So this has to be HIS historical legacy. The truth is that he and the neo con cabal decided a year before to go to war on THEIR timetable. Even though there was no immediate emergent situation. It was an application of the 'Bush Doctrine' in which Bush reserves the right to undertake pre-emptive offensive operations against nations which represent (in his opinion) a threat to the US. As we all know now Iraq represented no immediate threat. This use of military power would be the same as China saying because of the US's stockpile of nuclear weapons it represents a potential threat to China which justifies their using a pre-emptive nuclear strike agains the US. The only person that I am sure would understand their reasoning and forgive them would be W of course being the kindlier and gentler kind of guy he is.
2006-12-13 00:02:22 · answer #11 · answered by Hayley 2 · 5⤊ 5⤋