Oh? Really? Then why did President Clinton attack Iraq in 1998? He too though Saddam was a threat to the United States.
Quoting me:
Note this isn't justifying keeping Saddam in power... however, considering all these operations were to 'get the terrorists', I think the priority should have been to get the terrorists first. Saddam being removed from power was overdue, however, the fact that Saddam has been captured for several months, and that we're still on a constant state of alert, that something, somewhere wasn't thought out correctly.
Had you missed it, I wasn't questioning that.
Why must people always politicize /criticize a President's action.
Sorry, but this is pretty asinine. This country was founded upon that basic precept: questioning our leaders. Written into our laws is the basic premise that if this government is not doing what its supposed to be doing, it should be replaced by one that is. It's part of being an educated citizen of the United States. Or is this the new republican hotness, that questioning our leaders is unpatriotic?
Can you really claim you know everything just because it is what you hear on the media? Does the media have access to all US Classified info?? No. There are some things that the majority of the people will never know.
No, I don't claim anything. Ironic that you post a link shortly after this quote, but that's neither here nor there.
Can you honestly say that the same amount of resources was/are being used to pursue bin Laden than those used to oust Hussein?
I think more effort was put into creating a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda than there was in destroying al Qaeda.
It's also clear that the U.S. troops aren't leaving the region for a long time, further limiting the ability to pursue al Qaeda in other countries (army personnel is a limited resource).
As for Saudi Arabia, they're simply cowards, but understandably so. There are terrorist schools and all sorts of similar things. Unfortunatly for Saudi Arabia, the situation wasn't cracked down upon when it first arose, and now it's impossible to remove it. Imagine what would happen if they got 80% of the terrorists arrested in one evening. The other 20% would rip the entirety of the nation apart. Even if they were to get 90% or 95%...
So the formula of invading the country and rebuilding it ala Iraq doesn't apply to Saudi Arabia? I think this alone makes a stronger case for invading Saudi Arabia than Iraq.
Clinton was offered bin Laden by foreign countries on more than one occassion, and refused to take him. I'm still dumbfounded by this move, but one can only assume it had political motivations of some sort, either in the form of human rights violations on the part of those offering him, or simply fear of reprisal by terrorist organizations.
Of all the nebulous intelligence reports, this one annoys me the most. I just finished a search on this, and this is what I came up with, from various news sources.
1. Clinton tried to have bin Laden killed several times. He placed a bounty on bin Laden's head and bombed Afghanistan in hopes of hitting bin Laden (the firing of the cruise missles is not an argued fact, it's purpose however is).
2. The Sudanese offer was on the table but Clinton didn't take it.
3. (flip side) The Sudanese offer was on the table, but the Saudis refused to help and it ultimately fell through.
4. Clinton increased the counter-terrorism budget by 400% to pursue bin Laden.
5. (flip side) Clinton did nothing but make inquiries and did nothing to pursue bin Laden, especially after the U.S.S. Cole.
A democratic Iraq has the potential to be a huge force for good in the Middle East. Much more so than Afghanistan could be, by comparison. (And fyi, we do still have troops in Afghanistan to maintain stability in the country. We haven't forgotten about the place.) I believe that pressure from both the U.S. and Iraq, combined with support by civilians, would be enough to bring about change in Iran peacefully. And surely that is a better alternative to a U.S.-led invasion.
I can't really see that happening. Iraq wasn't Iran's friend before we invaded them, and I don't think pressure from a US controlled Iraq is going to get Iran to change their ways anytime soon. This kind of theory is the same reason why the U.S. supported Israel (the domino theory), and that's yet to pan out. I think an invasion of Saudi Arabia would have been much effective - the current government isn't as uniformly hated as it was in Iraq by its neighbors.
---
If we're going to blame a previous administration for it's inaction, we best also not forget the lack of Bush Sr's aptitude for capturing Hussein. By several accounts (again, this is based on limited information, but it's all we have) Iraqi opposition fell very quickly, and Hussein and Baghdad could have been taken within 48 hours, but inexplicably failed to do so. Especially considering Desert Storm was largely funded by third parties (aka not the US).
The thing about Clinton's desire to overthrow Hussein is that Clinton cared much more than Bush about the world's opinion. Also, Clinton had no real reason to attack Iraq, whereas 9/11 was spun into a reason for invading Iraq (heck, it was supported by a majority of the U.S. in the early going). Face it, a majority of people would have popped a blood vessel if Clinton decided to unilaterally invade Iraq without a reason other than regime change. Even though the link between Al Qaeda and Iraq and 9/11 was questionable (then and now), it was still a reason for regime change in Iraq (much more than Clinton had, anyway).
