[spanky_mcfarland]

If we're pointing fingers, let's not forget that 41 lacked the stones to take out Saddam (who by some accounts is a major player in the bidness of international terra).

[lawdude]

"If we're pointing fingers, let's not forget that 41 lacked the stones to take out Saddam (who by some
accounts is a major player in the bidness of international terra)."

Once again a popular democrat myth is offered.

Recall for a fact that 41 was expressly forbidden to go after Saddam.

Fact - His charter by the UN in 91 was to force Iraq out of Kuwait - ONLY.

Fact - There was talk of him going after Saddam but the dems and left wing press all exploded at the very thought of doing so.

Fact - It was your players that kept it from happening, just as klinton looked the other way at even going after him. Play to the dove/cowards in the democrat party.

Fact - It is the pure D fault of the dems, not the GOP.

[twyn1]

If we're pointing fingers, let's not forget that 41 lacked the stones to take out Saddam

Oh good lord--don't you remember the hysterical press and all those pictures of "the Highway of Death" and the cries of mercy for the poor beaten down Iraqis ? The Euroweenies and the bleeding-heart liberals kept screaming about "no mandate" or some such thing...we could only clear the Iraqis out of Kuwait, but pursuing them and going after Saddam was a big no-no. Yes, in hindsight, maybe Pres. Bush Sr. should have gone after him, the heck with all that whining, but the U.N. was promising to enact STRONG measures to ensure weapon destruction and a depleted military, to keep Saddam in line and help Iraq rebuild as a "better" country (ha-ha) Yeah--those sanctions and all that "inspection" really worked, eh ?