Yet hundreds of Americans lost their lives and found themselves terrorized long before Desert Storm due to terror. Do you not remember Lebanon, Carter's iranian hostage crisis, or the hijackings of the late 60's, 70's and 80's?
And yet they weren't killed by the thousands --in--the--United--States--. I was careful to make that distinction, which you have no excuse for ignoring.
Let me clarify:
My point regarding Bush I's blame centers directly on whether or not Saddam Hussein is involved in supporting Al Qaeda.
We can reasonably infer that if he is supporting Al Qaeda, he is doing it from humiliation because of Desert Storm. On the other hand, if Hussein is NOT helping Al Qaeda, it is nuts for us to be planning to invade. My -perception- is that most people in this country feel that A) he is helping, and/or B) taking him off the playing field will at least snuff out a refuge for Al Qaeda operatives.
With all that posited -- George Bush I has no right to show his face on commercials memorializing the dead of 9/11.
Walt
So what's your point? Terrorism has moved to the home front. 9/11 did that in case you did not notice. Long brewing problems often do that throughout history, or have you forgotten what prompted US involvement in WWII?
When terrorism exists as a wide scale practice against Americans, it is only a matter of time that they attempt it in America. Terrorism had been a problem for decades against Americans, as had arab hatred for America. There are video clips of them burning our flag as they riot in the streets dating back to the 60's. Barry Goldwater even used one in a campaign commercial. Now they've taken it to our soil and now we're responding in full force.
My point regarding Bush I's blame centers directly on whether or not Saddam Hussein is involved in supporting Al Qaeda.
That he's involved is likely. That he's involved as much as Osama bin Laden is impossible. Clinton was responsible for Bin Laden getting away, and Bin Laden was 100 times more principle in that attack than Hussein. Therefore it follows that Clinton bears responsibility well beyond anything you irrationally attribute to Bush.
We can reasonably infer that if he is supporting Al Qaeda, he is doing it from humiliation because of Desert Storm.
Not really. Saddam Hussein was an islamo-arab nationalist long before the Gulf War. He was a warlike tyrant long before the Gulf War. He promoted an anti-western arab expansionist agenda long before the Gulf War. He used and supported terror tactics long before the Gulf War. That you do not know this indicates your fundamental lack of understanding of Ba'ath politics and your lack of qualification to comment on them.
More so your attempts to blame America for the terrorists are straight out of the Chomsky school of left wing bullsh!t. If that is how you want to be known around here so be it. It's definately consistent with your other beliefs.
We know indisputably that he was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center attack. If he had any direct involvement with 9/11 is not material. He has been;
1. Violating the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreement.
2. Continuing his NBC development.
3. Aiding other terrorist organizations aside from Al Qaeda that have attacked both US interests directly as well as our allies.
4. If he does not have NBC delivery capabilities now, he surely will in the near further and one would be a nuts to think that he would be reluctant to use them himself or to transfer them to those who would quickly use them against us or our allies.
The time is right to take him out for several reasons.
1. In 1991, there was no viable replacement for a Sunni dominated Iraq. The opposition then were the marsh Arabs (Shiites) who would have quickly turned Iraq into a Islamic Republic or a province of radical Shiite Iran. Or the Kurds in the North who would have not only degenerated into inter-tribal civil war not so different than Afghanistan, but also destroyed our relationship with Turkey, our only predictable ally in the Moslem world. Now, there is a viable, well funded and highly organized Sunni opposition who can replace Saddam and hold Iraq together as a secular republic with a pro-Western orientation. Bush I was right to pull back from toppling Saddam via either of the opposition groups that existed in 1991. The situation is very different today.
2. Saddam is the lynch pin that holds the official anti-Westernism of the Mid East together. The Islamic radicals of Iran are in trouble and seeing Iraq go to a pro-Western secular republic will be the straw that broke the Ayatollahs back. The pro-Western majority of Iran will welcome Saddams demise. Socialist Syria will have a "epiphany" and decide that they are really pro-Western too. The Saudis and other "moderate" Arabs will understand that they can no longer play "good" cop vs Saddams "bad" cop and be much easier to deal with. Ousting Saddam has no downside now whereas 10 years ago it may not have been the smartest thing to do in terms of long term commitment of US forces for occupation. It could well have been disastrous in terms of further radicalizing the mid-East. Contrary to the impression we get from the popular media, in the year 2002, there are many millions of people on the "Arab street" who have had more than their fill of radical Islam and anti-Americanism. They would much rather be modern and prosperous and out from under the heels of tin-pot dictators and religious zealots. Showing that we have the resolve to arrange a face to face between Saddam and Allah is the key to giving those people a chance.