Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GenuineRisk
So the many Republicans who voted for the resolution and are also speaking out against the war are off the hook, in your book?
Here's the part in the article I found most interesting:
<<Democratic leaders from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama have long lamented that the United States did not preempt in Africa to stop the Rwandan genocide. In contrast, George Bush, not Al Gore, ran for the presidency in 2000 promising to end Clinton's humanitarian interventions, whether in the Balkans, Haiti or Somalia. As then-candidate Bush put it, "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building.">>
Sooooo... GW said he wouldn't use troops for nation-building, and then used 9/11 as an excuse to send troops into a nation that had not been involved in 9/11... to depose the leader and set up a gov't friendly to US interests. Sounds like nation-building to me. So what does that make GW?
|
That's pretty simple really....It didnt start out that way. but the Iraqis' are so lame that we poured billions into a country that wasn't ready for the 21st century!