Mark wrote: There wasn't the political will to spend loss of American life on finishing the job in Iraq until after 911 when the threat of people like Saddam became more real to most people. We waited until 2003 instead of right afterward to tackle the obvious first priority of Afghanistan, to build up enough troup and weaponry strength to do the job, and to give the UN one last chance to do its job right. I also doubt Clinton or Gore would have done anything effective in the same circumstances so the President in charge probably had something to do with it as well.

Right, well you have no evidence Clinton or Gore would have done nothing if they had been in charge after 9/11. Clinton had attacked al Queda and Iraq for far less. Contrary to what the right would ahve us believe the left does fight when needed.

The Republicans and Democrats were very hesitant to pursue violence against Afghanistan and I doubt an Iraq war would have gone over well either.

I brought up the fact there was no political will till after 9/11 and Tom poop pooped the idea. Clinton could do no right with some folks. Funny how now they blame bad intel for every problem and when Clinton had them bomb the wrong place because of bad intel he get blamed. The guy did lots of wrong stuff, but it's not fair to make him the scapegoat for bad intel and now for Bush's mistakes as well...is it?

BTW, we will never "finish" the job in Iraq unless you only mean getting rid of Hussein. Who we helped put into power in the first place and ignored his violence when it suited our needs.

The answer to my question is: We needed Hussein then.