Clinton wanted Saddam gone, Should he thank George W. Bush for making it a REALITY?

Question

No matter what the evidence, liberals insist that only their tender ministrations are capable of calming murderous dictators. Negotiation and engagement are said to "work" because, after Democrats spend years dillydallying with lunatic despots who threaten America, eventually a Republican president comes in and threatens aggressive military action. In a fascinating fifty-year pattern -- completely indiscernible to liberals -- murderous despots succumb to "engagement" shortly after a Republican president threatens to bomb them. This allows liberals to hail years of impotent negotiation and engagement as a foreign policy 'win'!

Answer 1

Neither one of those "yellow-backs "need take credit for actions of the truly brave,,,The American Soldier....

Answer 2

What do you mean "shortly after a Republican president threatens to bomb them."? President Bush IS bombing them. He is killing a lot of people in Iraq, children included. I don't know about you, but I have a child, and nothing justifies killing a child. So that peace and negotiation that you seem so disgusted with isn't a bad idea at all. These "liberals" avoid war to try and protect lives.

You have to at least attempt a peaceful negotiation before you charge in. (When your foreign policy is a round to the chest there is little hope for any peaceful negotiations to arise.) He is creating chaos and more hate towards our country than in any other war.

Answer 3

Clinton wanted Saddam gone? When did he ever say this? And, what threat was Saddam to the U.S before GWB attacked Iraq? None. Even Colin Powell and Condi Rice said that Saddam was no threat back in 1999, 2000, and 2001. I suppose you have proof that he was a threat and that Clinton wanted Saddam gone? Please tell the rest of us because that is certainly new news.
BTW, it's usually the GOP policies that ultimately help create the despotic scum and the terrorists. Rumsfeld, REagan and Cheney all helped Saddam attain chemical and biological weapons to fight Iran. And, they helped arm Iran as well. They also helped arm Bin Laden to fight the Soviets. Speaking of Bin Laden, he's still a threat and why hasn't Georgie boy caught him yet?

Answer 4

Negotiations are delicate matters and are not to be taken lightly. But threats of action are only valid in negotiations if you have a track record for not being afraid to use them. The velvet glove technique only works if it's covering an iron fist.

To quote Scotty from Star Trek ,"the best way of negotiating is with a fully charged Phaser Bank."

Answer 5

Ask yourself if Iraq under the Shiites is better than Iraq under Saddam. I suppose your answer depends on who is actually doing the ethnic cleansing and why.

We are starting to see that Saddam was the lessor of the evils in the country (and that was before Al Qaeda came in to fight us!). A theocratic Iraq could be the greatest foreign policy blunder in World History since the creation of the state of Israel.

Answer 6

Your rant doesn't explain why we went after Saddam. We were supposed to go after Bin Laden being he was the brain behind 9/11. Saddam should have been the target following the capture of Bin Ladin, not the other way around. Typical neo-con BS, always putting the cart before the horse.

Answer 7

Which Republican President handled Hitler?

We all wanted Saddam gone as an ideal outcome, but that doesn't mean we were willing to suffer absolutely any consequences in order to accomplish that goal. You are being divisive and petty in a world that needs unity and truth.

Answer 8

Liberals have also selectively forgotten about what capitulation really is. They seem to forget the pictures and headlines "Peace for our time". The next day Hitler invaded Poland and Chamberlain resigned.

History has shown that as long as evil bully dictators are given in to, they have gotten stronger and more freedoms have been taken away. And the longer those dictators are allowed to grow in strength, the more it costs, both in money and lives, to end their reigns of terror.

In today's world, that bully/dictator is fanatic Islamic factions. So if the liberals want to negotiate with them, please let me ask them how they will negotiate with people who do not believe those liberals should even be alive?

Just wait, Iran says it will not attack any country. But they don't consider Israel a country, so how long do you think it will be before Iran does attack Israel? Ya'll gunna negotiate that one?


Edit for Near Life Experience: If Clinton, either of them, were in office, those planned attacks that the FBI has foiled would have been carried out. The reason they were foiled is because the Bush administration made sure that intelligence gathering agencies were allowed to share information and maintain surveillance on those individuals suspected of such planning.

Answer 9

Are you forgetting the the republican idol, Ronald Reagan, supported and assisted Saddam Hussian? Bush Sr. (and most previous republican administrations) had enough sense to realize "murderous despots" are better than religious fanatics.

Answer 10

No.
The PNAC tried to coerce Clinton into occupying Iraq in 1998, he talked about it with experts and "Decided" it would be a mistake.

President Bush was prepared to invade the day he took office.
It was inevitable given his PNAC handlers.

source: Letter to President Clinton on Iraq, January 26, 1998

Answer 11

The biggest difference I see between liberals and conservative over the war in Iraq is that liberals want to talk about defending America from terrorists and conservative want to defend America from terrorists.