Too late. You already went "down this path" with your earlier posts.
All national leaders -- ALL -- lead in the context of the times in which they are in office. During the Carter presidency, radical Islamists declared jihad (war) against the United States. During the Reagan presidency, with the Cold War still extant and Iran becoming a growing threat, President Reagan helped Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war. In retrospect, with the benefit of about a quarter century between us and those times, we can see that President Reagan's support of Hussein may have been a mistake. Or was it? Would Iran now be sitting atop not only their oil fields, but those of Iraq as well if President Reagan had not supported Hussein back then? Did President Reagan spare the world the specter of an Iran more powerful by orders of magnitude? I think we can safely imagine the correct answer.
In any case, aside from children and adults with mental impairment, the only people who cannot understand the difference between our hindsight and Reagan acting within the context of his times are those who are: (a) stupid, (b) willfully obtuse, or (c) anti-American.
In the Clinton years, the growing menace of Hussein was well known. Clinton even signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 making regime change in Iraq the national policy of the United States. But Clinton never acted. Not on any of the many terrorist attacks against the United States during his presidency, nor on the growing menace of men like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and the Iranian and North Korean dictators.
President Bush has had the courage to take out the Taliban, take out Hussein, and stand aside while Ariel Sharon made Israel safer.
People like you, IsraelBeach, sicken me to the core. If we lose this war against Islamofacism, it will be due to people who think like you.
BUMP!
Very well stated.