Are you referring to the April Glasby mess? Cause most tend to agree that the war itself was handled well.
Remember the video of these poor people fleeing on foot in very extreme weather, with nothing to eat?
I don't particularly remember the specific video. That happens a lot in the third world, so it's hard to remember them all.
Don't forget that he pardoned Admiral Poindexter, Caspar Wienburger and others late in 1992 to keep them out of prison.
Good. Iran-Contra was largely a democrat-fabricated scandal built upon a congressional attempt to infringe upon administration foreign policy jumbled with a string of unconstitutional legislation and some bureaucratic mishaps.
Do you think Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11? It's pretty much accepted that the 1993 attack on the WTC was the work of his agents.
Yes, but to hold Bush Sr. responsible for the unforseable events of a decade later simply because he didn't go all the way into Bagdhad to get a suspected indirect participant in the 9/11 plot is just plain silly. If anything, the person who let the plot's DIRECT participant Osama Bin Laden slide bears immensly greater responsibility, and that person is Bill Clinton. Remember the aspirin factory bombings in 1998? Reports indicated that they knew where Osama was a week or so earlier and asked Clinton for the go ahead. Had they fired then there's a good chance they would have hit him. But Clinton had a jury to testify for the next week about his girlfriend and corruption, so he held off knowing a missile strike would take his own problems off the front page. So Clinton testified and a day later he approved the missile strike against the camp where Osama had been a week earlier, but Osama had moved out and it missed. If you want to blame anybody for that, Walt, Clinton - the guy you voted for - is your man.
George Bush Sr. will -always- be remembered as one of the very worst presidents.
Most polls and historical studies place him as middle of the road. Clinton on the other hand has firmly solidified his place as the most corrupt president in history, though the verdict will not be in on his administration for at least a couple years.
Osama Bin Laden, it's been said, burns because U.S. infidels foul the holy places in Saudi Arabia by their simple presence there. No Desert Storm, no cause of action.
For Hussein's part, he tried to get Bush Sr. in Kuwait in 1993, he tried to blow up the WTC in 1993, and most of us think that he had a big hand in actually wrecking the WTC on 9/11.
If you posit a reasonably adept foreign policy by the Bush I team, you have none of that, because he doesn't attack Kuwait and isn't threatened or humilitated by defeat. And there would be no earthly reason to be gearing up for Gulf War II.
It's on Bush, not Clinton.
What has Bush done in the last year to make us safer from WTC type attacks or Flight 587 type attacks -- something substantial that we can point to? Nothing.
Walt
Good. Iran-Contra was largely a democrat-fabricated scandal built upon a congressional attempt to infringe upon administration foreign policy jumbled with a string of unconstitutional legislation and some bureaucratic mishaps.
Like most of the people on FR, I have way too many books. But you never know when you might need one or another. I'm reminded of this because I just saw my copy of the Tower Commission Report on Iran-Contra. "I'll never need that again," I thought.
I also have a copy of "The Acting President" by Bob Scheiffer. He names the actual date that Reagan was briefed (with Bush I in the room) on the arms for hostages activities -- March 5, 1986.
Whatever Congress did in passing the Boland amendment or whatever, that was done in public. The Reagan administration acted in secret to pervert the Constitution. The facts are not in dispute. Reagan's operatives raised money and used it to fund a secret army. As you doubtless know, the separation of powers in that Pact with the Devil we call our Constitution, gives only Congress the right to raise and spend money. The executive branch can't get the grass cut at the White House unless Congress approriates the funds. Bush I lied about his knowledge of all this, and that is on the record too. The only reason some of the charges against Poindexter (for example) were thrown out was -not- because of the factual content, he was cearly guilty -- but because the court ruled that he had been granted immunity.
It's a real laffer for you to jump on Abraham Lincoln over something that has never been authoritatively decided, but call Iran Contra a "congressional attempt to infringe upon administration foreign policy".
At least Lincoln did everything openly. The Reagan administration (and Bush I knew all) acted behind our backs. I feel that admiration for Reagan has rightly diminished over time, and rightly so.
These facts are -not- in dispute. The Reagan administration raised money and spent it on secret causes. That Bush I knew about this and in fact was a major player, is NOT in dispute either. Bush denied any knowledge of these illegal activities in the 1988 campaign, but in his first term, it all came out. That is another reason he lost in 1992.
Bill Clinton has always been shot full of luck, and another bit of that luck was facing the non-entity Bush in an election.
Walt