On 7/14/2014 10:00 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/14/14, 9:55 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/14/2014 8:04 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/14/14, 7:22 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:



He also ignores the fact that the Bush administration used the same
arguments in support of taking military action against Iraq that Bill
Clinton and his administration had used. In fact, it was Bill Clinton
who signed the Iraq Liberation Act (voted on and passed by the United
States Congress) that established a US policy calling for regime
change
in Iraq. Reasons were the continued and increasing defiance of UN
Resolutions by Saddam Hussein.

Bush and Co. executed that policy.


Clinton was smart enough not to. Got it?



But fully supported the decision when Bush did.

Clinton lobbed 400 cruise missiles into Iraq for the same reasons.
Didn't change anything.

Bush finished what Clinton started.

Got it?




Of course Clinton supported it, just like presidents once out of office
either support or say next to nothing about their successors. Politics
and courtesy.

Clinton did not invade Iraq, no matter how many ways you try to spin it.




I have not claimed that he did. He set the stage however by endorsing
that a regime change was necessary in Iraq and tried to exert some
military influence to no avail. Bush inherited the continuum of issues
and, despite about 17 months of trying to persuade Saddam to comply or
leave, decided that the time for regime change had come.

I know you don't like to hear that a Democrat contributed in any way to
the invasion of Iraq but the reality of what happened cannot be swept
under the rug.