A recent poll showed that 49% say that W. is more responsible for starting the Iraq War than Saddam Hussein. In the run-up to the war, it was about 25%.
I’m not sure what to think of this. Bush mishandled, distorted and lied our way into this war. All the same, he wouldn’t have been able to do it if Hussein didn’t have a long history of being a sadistic filthy tyrant who wanted his name up with the real powers of the world. He spent a decade trying to shoot down American planes, playing chicken with the politicians. He was purposefully coy with the whole WMD thing. He probably felt it was better for the world to think he had them even though he didn’t. So I have a hard time with this one. It’s no secret I think that Bush is the worst thing to happen this country since… well, at least since I was born. But to say he’s more responsible than Hussein? I don’t see it.
Maybe this is just the new wave hippie liberal do-gooder Stuart Smalley in me, but can’t we say they were both responsible? It wouldn’t have happened without either of them.
Comments welcome, curious to see what others think.
The fact is that Hussein was doing the same damn stuff that he’d been doign since the end of the first Gulf War. The war ended and he started shooting at planes, etc. He did the same stuff throughout the entire Clinton administration. But when Bush II comes along, all the sudden we’re at war again–seems to me like “President” was the only variable that meaningfully changed. So to me this means one of two things (in a very boiled down Bushian kind of way)/ Either:
a) Clinton was responsible for NOT starting a war or
b) Bush is responsible for starting a war.
I agree with the (so to be) majority on this one.