but it is. it gave bush a casus belli. bush's original plans called for invading practically all of the middle east but they had to pick and choose those they could reasonably pass off to the public as dangerous. good thing clinton just happened to mention hussein's WMDs.
But it isn't................, W (read halliburton) needed justification and just did a pick and mix to get the war they wanted and he started....... and it ended up not being a Cassus Belli at all but a complete hoax they just shoved down everyone's throat. If I would use your reasoning i could say Jesus was responsible for child abuse because churches........
but when somebody is trying to bomb your home its a mighty good reason to pay some saudi nobodies to fly some planes into buildings. i'm not saying bush isn't a monster for throwing darts at a map and invading those countries but clinton escalated the situation to an untenable level.
You might have missed Osama's 1998 US embassy bombing, The bombing plan on Clinton's motorcade in the Filipines that barely was prevented and the USS cole bombing, you know the reasons why Osama was on a list and had these operations against him in the first place. I'm not saying Clinton did well in the middle east, not at all, but he chose bombing operations over complete war with boots on the ground...... that is a massive difference
Anti-American rethoric has been used all around the middle east by all kinds of big political groups to use on their population. Much like the US used commies and now uses muslims as the big external threat. This is because the west (read US) and the USSR indeed played blood chess all over the map for decades, oh yeah and Isreal.
tldr: W had all the options open, but wanted a war two wars, he chose a war two wars; so he did a pick and mix in a filecabinet, ducttaped them together and shoved them down our throats when he needed reasons to go to war to "show murican strenght" and deal with 9/11 trauma
I'm all for criticizing Clinton, but do it on solid logic mate, this shit dont fly
jesus isn't at fault for child abuse, paul is.
i did forget about osama's embassy bombing and was not aware of the bombing plan on clinton's motorcade but do remember the uss cole but those, like i said, are all far flung places, with little value to the average US citizen. these aren't things that made the average american think they were at risk. WMDs are.
i have serious issues with precedent and clinton gave bush all the precedent he needed to run an illegal presidency in a post USSR world in my opinion. that being said, clinton is still the best president in my lifetime.
but when somebody is trying to bomb your home its a mighty good reason to pay some saudi nobodies to fly some planes into buildings. i'm not saying bush isn't a monster for throwing darts at a map and invading those countries but clinton escalated the situation to an untenable level.
but it is. it gave bush a casus belli. bush's original plans called for invading practically all of the middle east but they had to pick and choose those they could reasonably pass off to the public as dangerous. good thing clinton just happened to mention hussein's WMDs.
i did no such thing. i never mentioned israel and palestine. that failure was largely separate from all of this (*in my view). the US-USSR dick measuring contest in the middle east fueled war for decades and once there was no more funding for constant war, there were only relatively poor countries and groups resisting US policy, targeting vaguely US-affiliated foreign targets. Instead of dealing with the situation diplomatically/pressing regional allies to deal with their own problems, the US showed it was willing to use its overwhelming force to suppress dissent from a people we had no right to suppress and had no significant strategic reason to do so.
tldr; clinton gave bush all the precedent he needed to carry out his insane foreign policy and picked fights with random nobodies he thought were too far away, too small, and too poor to do anything to the US.