...for Bush the Father's mistake in not dealing decisively with Saddam Hussein. Or so says Michael Ledeen in a National Review article on what must be done now if America is to remain a credible threat to terrorists, and nations who sponsor terrorism!

Nice blurb from the article -

"We are now paying a terrible price for failing to pursue our legitimate interests in the past decade. Some are now saying that it is all because of our support for Israel, but those who say it do not understand either America or the world at large. [u]Our support for Israel is not a tactical maneuver, subject to regular reconsideration. We support free democracies, and since Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, our support is automatic and obligatory. It is, indeed, the only Middle East country that truly matters to us[/u]. If you want to find the foreign-policy blunders that helped us reach the current crisis, look to our failure to destroy the evil regime of Saddam Hussein when we had him at our mercy; look to our failure to support the opposition to Saddam, even though we had promised it; look to our failure to respond forcefully enough to terrorism over the course of the past thirty years." [[u]Emphasis[/u] added by the Hun]

See the story at:
[url]http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/ledeen091801.shtml[/url]

There is indeed a battle for the soul of the President presently taking place, between those who want to get in, get Bin Laden, and get out,
and those who want to make certain that the events of September 11 will never happen again!

Eric The(InItForTheLongHaul)Hun[>]:)]

I disagree to some extent.  Alot of thimes when a military leader is "taken out of power" an even worse leader comes along.  I belive the same would hold true in Iraq if we would have taken out Sadam.

Now if we would have eliminated his whole military structure and all family members that would be a diferent story.  Then it would be successful, however that would be very, very hard to do to 100% completion.

This time I poray will be different because hopefully we have more of the backing of the American people for the will to see a longer war.

Just my .02 cents.

sgtar15

Eric-

At the end of the GUlf War, I had the same thought. In NOT taking Hussein out, we ASSURED ourselves we would have to deal with him later.

Its begiining to look like later is NOW.

But sgtar15 makes a good point as well. If we capped Hussein, we would have created a vacuum of power.

Ordinarily, this would require that we shore up the gov't with our military, until a "free election" could be held, which would be an ugly business itself.. Further, the liklihood is, the Iraqis would vote in some "Saddam-like."

But at least whoever came to power would then know better than to mess with US.

garand(ThereAreNoEasyAnswers)man
[:D]

sounds to me something the UN would just LOVE to do after we get done blowing up stuff, y'know to justify their existance and all.

I think they would probably still mess with us.

You may be right.

Like I say - no easy answers.

[b]Like I say - no easy answers.[/b]

EXACTLY!!

sgtar15