Originally Posted by jimmac
So you admit that I was right about the fact that Bush won the election in 2000 because of what Clinton did.
I would agree his actions had something to do with it. I would disagree his actions were the sole reason.
If Hillary runs this time she'll win. Because she's a woman and because people will like her better than anyone the GOP can pit against her. You know it and I know it. That's why the GOP is afraid and trying to attack her as if she's already announced her candidacy. Like usual it's pretty transparent.
Who knows. She'll be a formidable candidate for sure. The sense of inevitability is gone, however. Of course the GOP is afraid of her and is attacking here--that's obvious, and that's politics. That doesn't invalidate everything they and others say, however. She's got some serious drawbacks as a candidate.
And SDW we can all see today all these years later after the GOP's boy decided to an end run around everyone and invade Iraq what the end result is. It's much like Bill Clinton said. The situation in Iraq wouldn't be what it is now if we've never invaded. Saddam wasn't a saint but he kept the other elements in the region out because he wanted to control Iraq. Now we've got a much worse situation there. Instead of Bush's stupid plan he should have left well enough alone and did what the UN wanted by continuing the sanctions.
Tell me SDW what good did we do there? WMD found? Huh uh? Freeing the Iraqi people? So they could look forward to this? I don't think so. Set the Iraqi army up so they could defend themselves? Yeah right. Stabilizing the region? LOL! These were all excuses you used at the time. But of course like usual you'll make excuses or just plain flat out say you don't remember saying those things ( selective memory loss ). I was right about all of it ( believe me when I say I wish I wasn't ). You just will never admit it. Fortunately or unfortunately ( as we've got a real toilet of a situation over there now ) that fact has no bearing whatsoever on the reality of the situation.
I'm not sure I see the point of the above rant, other than gloating that things aren't going well in Iraq. If you want to gloat about not finding WMD, I guess that's fine. If you want to portray current events as somehow proving that you were "right" all along, OK. Where I will disagree with you is when you absolve Obama of any wrongdoing and responsibility for the current situation. Support the original invasion or not, Obama was handed a relatively stable Iraq in 2009. He is responsible for failing to get a Status of Forces Agreement and for precipitously withdrawing our troops before the Iraqis were ready. This withdrawal, done for political reasons in my opinion, caused what we are seeing today.
The other place where we'll disagree is on the notion that had we not invaded, Iraq would still be stable under Saddam today. There is no way to tell what would have happened had we not invaded. There are little hundreds of scenarios, from things being relatively stable, to Saddam continuing to support terrorism, to Saddam being overthrown during the Arab Spring. It might be fun to blame Bush (who did not conduct "an end run around everyone"), but it's not useful for determining where we go from here.