The majority of Saddam's weapons were destroyed in the aftermath of a war where he was thoroughly beaten by a coalition lead by GB1. Clinton's lobbing of a few missles had nothing to do with it. Once Clinton came into office Saddam steadily raised his resistance to inspections as Clinton kept doing the same weak responses which Saddam found bearable. Clinton's actions were so weak that no inspectors were in Iraq at the end of his term and Russia and France were pushing for lifting sanctions despite that and we should all have a good guess why.

Saddam's defiance was one of the most misleading reasons to believe he had WMD. Inspectors were only allowed back in when GB2 projected a credible threat of force. Once France and Russia seemed to undercut that again, Saddam's defiance rose again. The pattern is obvious for anyone who bothers to look. If France and Russia truly wanted Saddam to disarm peacefully the should have backed a credible threat.

In the same way he let the Situation in Iraq spiral out of control Clinton let Al-queida grow. I voted for the man twice and feal personally responsible for 911 as a result of helping to elect a man who allowed such a situation to develop. It's too bad so many who voted for Clinton can't admit his policy failures let alone feel guilty about contributing to them.

Clinton tried the international let's project only a good guy image approach for 8 years. It failed miserably. I won't vote for it again as a response to bloody tyrants and terrorists in my shame. Shame on those of you who will. I feel very passionately about this topic because of my sense of guilt.

Regards,
Mark