Breeze, the way you repeat words is very,very,very convincing.
I still support Bush, with respect to the subject of this thread, because he’s better than the alternatives. We’re at war with religious totalitarians who are happy to die while murdering people who won’t submit to them, and much of the country would rather talk about some long-ago sex scandal with an intern than figure out what to do about the threats facing America today.
We are in Iraq, but many of Iraq’s problems are imported from Iran. We should be putting consistent pressure on Iran over offenses like the shipments of new Iranian arms into the country and the financial aid given to Shia and Sunni militias. We should support Iranian reform movements because it’s the right thing to do and to put pressure on that regime. And we should make Iran and Syria pay a penalty for letting fighters enter Iraq from their soil. No need for an invasion, but the Air Force and Navy could certainly get involved – may as well shoot at them, they’re shooting at us.
Or maybe you’re right, and there would be no war if only Clinton was still president. Maybe our enemies were satisfied with the attempt to destroy the WTC in 1993, the bombing of the army barracks in 1996, and the American embassies in 1998, and the warship in 2000, and they were about to stop. Maybe Saddam was finally convinced to disarm by Clinton’s 1998 bombing campaign (he must have still had WMD capability then, otherwise Clinton would have ‘lied’, right?) Maybe Saddam became a changed man after that. I don’t think so.
Anyway, Clinton couldn’t have served a third term; the alternative to Bush was the lying unilateralist warmonger who said this:
Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint.
