No, he had "act of war" issues. The real question is, why didn't Clinton go after Hussein?
It is enough to observe that professors are notoriously naïve about real life, which is why the majority of the ones in the soft sciences are liberals. I can look at his CV and see the glaring lack of real-life work experiences. I can look at his photo and see how young he is. I can look at his degrees and see the focus on soft, useless academic diddling and know his brain and his assumptions show no evidence of having ever been challenged.
That's all well and good BUT, the problem is; they don't need to be coddled, understood and tolerated, they need to be discredited and defeated.
BTW, your observation sounds like you're describing Obama.
I agree. I simply don't think the best way to discredit him is to pronounce him "evil." The best way to discredit him is to discredit his work by showing its weaknesses.