Please inform us how American intervention in WWI was better than an American presence in WWI.
That was your original objection. It is a strawman because it was this that you claimed was one of the statements that discredited author. He never claimed that our mere presence was what caused WWII. He said that our intervention in WWI is what helped predicate WWII. And he is exactly right. He is of course looking back. But his view is not unique. Churchill stated this explicitly.
Secondly, while you can nitpick that Bush originally sent in the marines. He also withdrew the marines as has been also pointed out on this thread. Since Clinton sent in the rangers in order to stop the looting of food supplies, it isn't that inaccurate to say that Clinton's orders were in fact related to the feeding of hungry Somalians. There were two distinct missions and Bush did not order the Rangers into Somalia. Your statements are just as inaccurate if you want to nitpick in this fashion. Shall I now believe all your statments to be just as irrelvant as you claim this entire article is on the basis of a very minor "error." (if indeed it is an error at all).
"Baliff, whack his pee-pee!"
Cheech and Chong
Trippin' in Court
/humor