He believed then, as well as now, that you can't force democracy on others. He believes it's idealistic and naive to be in the business of nation building and we'd only get stuck there in Iraq.
"He believed then, as well as now, that you can't force democracy on others. He believes it's idealistic and naive to be in the business of nation building and we'd only get stuck there in Iraq."
Pardon me, but who are you refering to?
As to your report on what "he" believes. Liberals/Democrats love to use this line of reasoning. They have done it repeatedly when it suits their needs. First, we didn't force democracy on anyone. The Iraqis chose it. Remember the elections. Second, "he believes it's idealistic and naive to be in the business of nation building". If that were so then "he" would condem our continued involvement in Kosovo/Serbia and Bosnia, which were begun under President Clinton. The policy in Iraq is to stabilization a nation depleted by a henious dictator. Stabilization means many things, but among them are schools, water, electricity, etc. Would your champion not be in favor of doing those things for the formerly oppressed? Third, "stuck in Iraq". We are not "stuck" anywhere, nor have we ever been. Again, this is Leftist propoganda that clearly shows disrespect for our military. War and stabilization are not "fast food" nor "microwaveable". It happens in it's own time. One of the first points that you learn as a military member is that the battlefield is fluid. I served in Germany in the '70s and '80s. Once the war was over, we moved into the stabilization phase, and then into the strategic phase. The last one doesn't always accompany our in involvement.
Find out if "he" has a position on Darfur, please. He probably will, which is to stop the genocide. Ask what his plan is to succeed at that goal. My bet is that he doesn't have one. Then realize that were we to "cut and run" from Iraq, there would be two genocides, not one.