Thank you George W. Bush

"The bodies are believed to be those of hundreds of Kurds killed by Saddam's feared regime in a deadly campaign in 1987 and 1988, for which the toppled Iraqi leader is facing trial on charges of crimes against humanity"

Right Time? Funny, doesn't seem to me like this President was in office back in '87 or '88. And I love the fact this came out today of all days.

---

Updated On: 10/13/04 at 11:27 AM

GREAT article!

"a young boy still clutching his ball"

If Al Gore were President that boy would still be in that mass grave.

That's the real question... would we be better off if Al Gore had been President the past four years? I don't think so.

Let's not forget that Clinton had 8 years of doing nothing about the situation over there.

---

But let's not also forget the great things Clinton did for THIS country. Why is America now the lowest priority for any candidate? Don't tell me what Clinton did or didn't do in other countries when I clearly saw the benefits of his presidency RIGHT HERE.

---

not true. he did bomb those aspirin factories into oblivion.

of course, if gore were in office, we'd have osama by now, I'm sure. he's not buddies with him.

---

That would have been the FIRST Gulf War then, right?

You're saying that Bush Senior should have pushed on into Baghdad then, right?

But here's what Bush Senior said in "A World Transformed" about invading Iraq:

"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

---

rodney,

slanderous, but true none-the-less. Why does the White House refuse to answer little ol Michael Moore's questions? Seems a little fishy to me. and, i can put 2 and 2 together. If you're content to believe everything the white house spews to you...feel free. My little brain won't let me do so.

---

Clinton, however, did go into the Balkans. There was (and still is) turmoil in that region of the world. Clinton also went into Somalia, until Mogadishu happened, and we had to pull out. Not to mention, I believe Dubya said we shouldn't be into nation building. So the arguments against Clinton doing anything over in Iraq are rather moot, given all the whining his opponents were heaping on him...

more families drive SUV's than yuppies...

OK.. I think I've figured out the pattern here.

I see my shrink on Wednesday evenings.

If I fall into a political debate when it's been a week since my last 'fix' then I start getting nasty then people get pissed. So I'm gonna say "fock it" and just not participate. I mean nothing I could say will ever change your minds, just like nothign you say will ever change mine.

I don't think anyone is trying to change anyone else's mind here. There is room for debate and discussion.

Oh, yes. Ann Coulter is such the authority...

touche' joeyjoe...