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
Think what he may, but the smell emitted from that region is internally produced and their so-called "holy place" is nothing more than a meteorite in a fancy box that for some bizarre reason they worship.
No Desert Storm, no cause of action.
BZZZT! Incorrect. Israel is still there, still supported by the US, and is much more a thorn in their side than any troop presence. Besides, what do you think would have happened had we not gone in? There's a good chance that Saddam would have marched on Saudi Arabia and last I checked, few people consider control of the arabian peninsula by an expansive islamo-arab nationalist to be a good thing.
It's on Bush, not Clinton.
Again, Walt, you are simply wrong. First, your hypothesis that Osama would not be incited to terror absent US presence there is nonsense. That region engaged in terror long Bush Sr. was there and long before he was even a congressman back in the 60's. The reason is their desired conquest of Israel and their hatred of anything even remotely seen as an Israeli ally, or for that matter, anything that even remotely resembles something other than a smelly refuse filled backwards 7th century islamo-cultist rat hole. Saddam is a problem because he seeks islamo-arab nationalism and expanionism. He seeks that whether the US is there in Saudi or not.
Second, your blaming of Bush is wholly irrational in its nature. You say it was more Bush's fault than Clinton based on the fact that Bush did not take out a suspected indirect supporter of the 9/11 attacks, yet at the same time you remain oblivious to Clinton's failure to take out the direct perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks when he had an opportunity to do so that Bush never had with Hussein. It's fundamentally irrational on your part and shows your continued devotion to the leftist slimeball of an ex-president YOU helped elect into office.
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.
To the contrary. While attacks are still a major threat, Al Qaeda's rat nest of terrorist training compounds in the caves of Afghanistan are up in smoke and their command thrown into dissarray. Certainly you don't believe this has no effect on their capabilities, do you?
Or do you think your desired leader Al Gore would have handled it better?