[sheltonmac]

Wallace listed “ending the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein,” including “ending the systematic torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis,” “ending the theft of billions of dollars from the Iraqi people” and “ending the threat that weapons of mass destruction will be developed and used”; Second, “quality of life” as “daily life has improved dramatically for the average Iraqi since the fall of Saddam” as “2,500 schools have been renovated, with another 800 to be finished soon” and “major progress has also been made in health care”; Third, “human rights” with “a fully functioning legal and judicial system” and freedom of speech. Plus, Iraqis now have satellite dishes, are flocking to Internet cafes, are enthralled with having private conversations on cell phones and the U.S. has done a lot to improve electricity service and clean up sewage.

Remember when conservatives criticized Clinton for fighting a war in Bosnia for humanitarian reasons? Ah, those were the days!

[My2Cents]

Bosnia was not a vital interest of this country. That was the main argument against US involvement there ("Let the Euros clean up their own messes").

[Deb]

You must mean Kosovo. And Clinton was rightly criticized for wagging the dog, which he did. If Clinton had cared about "human rights" he would have attempted to stop the massacre in Rwanda or the slavery in Sudan. He chose to launch a war against a country that had never fired a shot at us, a country that fought with us against the Nazis and a country that was fighting for its life against Islamic narco-terrorists.

Any pretense that Clinton cared about humanitarianism is laughable.

[Paul_B]

Amazing how NATO didn't even give the UN a chance before transgressing its own charter. This from multilaterists Clinton & Co.

[GROOVY]

Humanitarian effects are nice, but what you may have missed is the line below:

ending the threat that weapons of mass destruction will be developed and used