Read other letters about this article

• Thursday, December 4, 2008 07:01 AM

  @Groenhagen

  Groenhagen: " think Bush deserves the bulk of the credit for removing a murderous dictator and state sponsor of terrorism from power."

  That's a joke. You conveniently ignore who PUT him in power. You also conveniently ignore the failure of the occupation planning, the hundreds of thousands of deaths, the manipulation of the media, the lies to the public, the corrupt process of contract rigging, etc.

  So Hussein isn't in power anymore. Big whoop. He was a relative small-timer anyway. He was just playing shell games to hold on to his local power. It's not like he'd ever go near Kuwait again. It's equally doubtful he would touch Israel. What was the U.S.'s benefit in removing him? What was gained? The occupation of Iraq wasn't a humanitarian mission.

  You really don't have answers, do you? Just a blind belief.

  Groenhagen: "Let's see, when Clinton became president in 1993, there were, according to the State Department, seven state sponsors of terrorism (Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Syria, North Korea, Libya, and Sudan). Those same seven nations were still on the list in 2001. Since 2001, three of those nations have been removed from the list."

  Wait -- since when is any of this a pissing match between Clinton and Bush? The jist of this article is that Bush blew it, not that Clinton was better. You've created a pretty narrow method of finding a way to give Bush an advantage, but so what? Is North Korea really under control? Um, no. How about Iran? Syria? Hardly. Sudan? Nope. Cuba? Still pallin' around with Russia...

  Libya = granted. Wow, we got Libya! Gold star!

  —Xrandadu Hutman Read Xrandadu Hutman's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel