I know of those accounts, and agree with the assessment. However, what do you propose that Clinton should have done? Invade Iraq? Obviously you forget the GOPs response to merely launching missles at Iraq in retaliation for the assisination attempt on Bush, Sr. The GOP wanted his head. Said he was merely trying to divert attention away from the Lewinski scandal.

Of course you guys can never admit that he effectively shut down Saddam's ability to produce any weapons by firing those missles, as David Kay (the Bush appointee) so testified.

Then there's the flak from the GOP he caught for sending troops to Bosnia. And the GOPs claim that he was over reacting to the bin Laden and Al Quida threat. Couple that with the "Blackhawk Down" fiasco, and do you really believe the US public, and Republican controlled congress, would have supported an invasion?

Now you guys are trying to pin the whole mess on the previous administration. "Oh, poor W only had 8 months in office, but Clinton had 8 years." Okay, it's now been 3+ years and what has Bush really accomplished? Everything in your world may look pretty good, but eventually you gotta take off those rose-colored glasses and see the mess Bush has really created.

Perhaps the fact that Clinton saw no need to mislead the public into support for invasion was the proper use of the intelligence he had. Which begs the question: Why did all the presidents before W have access to the same iintelligence information, yet they came up with a completely different assessment - Republican and Democrat alike?

The GOP is really starting to become of bunch of whiners and finger pointers. You guys are acting like a bunch of two-year olds; "... it's not my fault 'cuz Billy did that first."

Sheesh :rolleyes: