This is disheartening:

This phony forgetting is really getting old.

Yeah, I'm sure it was a bunch of right-wingers who invented the "Where's Saddam?" game.

If you want me to flood the board with all the articles I can find with a simple Google search, then you had better vow to read them all. A search with the words "Where's Saddam" has yielded 123,000 articles.

For now I'll just just post this small paragraph from a CBSNews.com story shortly after Saddam's capture: "The mantra, "Where's Saddam?" had become an effective two-word indictment of the Mr. Bush's Iraq policy delivered daily by Democratic presidential candidates. No more."

 

Seems the left is doing the bob and weave. Half the time he's incompetent, half the time he's evil.

All I've ever believed is he's human. Some times he does the right thing, some times he doesn't.

Removing Saddam -- after years of Clinton talking tough as though an invasion was just around the corner, and then always backing down and doing nothing -- was the right thing.

 

In other words, any source that doesn't fit with your opinion doesn't count? Even Sandy Berger, in his attempt to mask his bungling, has blamed it on George Tenet. So someone within the Clinton administrations was at fault.
And the bungle at Tora Bora? what the hell is that supposed to mean. That we couldn't find one guy in a mountain range?

 

But, as long as you're asking:

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/03/cf9e2ef4-f7df-4267-91fb-ba39091988d1.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/international/asia/17osama.html?ex=1281931200&en=2b945263d3848ee1&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/pol/204092500.html

 

Old Tony, if you want to continue to beat the drum of the Bush administration (or hell, the Clinton administration, too) that getting Saddam and rebuilding Iraq was a job we HAD to do, even if it cost of thousands of American lives in the process, that's fine, but you're not doing a very good job convincing anyone else.

And, of course, instead of responding to the meat of the comments, you'd rather focus on semantics.

 

hondo,

It would have been super if Clinton had bagged bin Laden. He at least tried and failed to get him with cruise missles.

Bush has had five years and what's he got to show for it?

 

What makes you think those two traits are mutually exclusive?

 

I do much better with audiences that actually think.

 

They found him in the mountain range.
He got away because they bungled it. Now the presdient "doesn;t spend a lot of time on him," and he's got a safe haven supplied by our staunch allies, the nuke-peddling generals of Pakistan.
The links are good, though. I'll give you the first one. The third one's from the WashTimes, so who knows? The middle one is mostly about "monitoring" OBL, which the previous administration did. However, the incoming administration had different priorities.
http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorismfoi/whatwentwrong.html

 

Insulting instead of debating or even reasoning. Good response. About what I expected from you.

 

Shall we come about, sir?

 

As in the enemy you know is easier to combat than the enemy you don't?