Those who keep harping on Bush (41) for not taking out Saddam in 1991 seem to be forgetting their history.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait, the US sent F-15s to Saudi Arabia to stop him from invading there, too. Within a matter of weeks, Bush worked to assemble a coalition of countries, including many Arab ones, to oppose Saddam.

At the same time, sanctions were imposed on Iraq and the UN issued a series of proclaimations condemning the invasion. Eventually, they authorized the use of force to liberate Kuwait.

Here in the US, many politicians (mostly Democrats) were predicting "thousands of body bags" would be coming home if we dared to tangle with the battle-hardened Iraqi Army. Some went so far as to proclaim "no blood for oil."

Finally, Congress met and debated whether to authorize the use of force to liberate Kuwait. After heated debate, they narrowly passed the measure. The bill allowed for liberating Kuwait, nothing more.

At no time did the UN authorize the overthrow of Saddam. At no time did our coalition partners authorize the overthrow of Saddam because they feared a power vacuum in the region, leading to a more powerful Iran. At no time did Congress authorize overthrowing Saddam.

It galls the hell out of me to hear some of the same Democrats who opposed the use of force in 1991 now complaining that Bush (41) didn't ignore the mandates of Congress, our coalition partners, and the UN. Had he done so, odds are the coalition would've fractured, possibly leading to a wider conflict. In all probability, Congress would've probably considered impeachment as well.

In retrospect, I do wish our forces would've been allowed to finish the job in 1991. However, those who blame Bush (41) for it are either ignorant of history or distorting it for their own purposes.