My Interview With Admiral Snuffy Smith

I had the pleasure recently of interviewing Four Star Admiral Leighton “Snuffy” Smith.,_Jr.

In the annals of great military leaders, Snuffy Smith ranks sky high. Respected military men such as Colonel David Hunt and Colonel Bill Cowan have sung his praises.

For those wondering if hard work and gritty determination led me to earning an interview with him, that would be the case if I ignored the fortunate dumb luck that was the real reason. Snuffy is a golfer, and his golf partner is the father of a girl who is a dear friend of mine. I introduced that girl to the man who is now her husband, so her parents like me. The girl’s mother plays bridge with Snuffy’s wife, and thus the interview was established.

Admiral Smith offered to do the interview over the telephone, but I just do not like to disturb a golfer during golf season (which for some is year round). The interview was done by email. It took a couple months to complete, because Admiral Smith gave thoughtful, detailed answers. From a quality standpoint, I could not be more delighted with the result.

With that, here is my interview with Admiral Leighton “Snuffy” Smith.

1) What were your military experiences? Where were you stationed, and what is the Snuffy Smith Story?

I graduated from the Naval Academy in 1962, went through flight training and received my wings in 1964. I was an attack jet carrier pilot, flying the A-4 Skyhawk and A-7 Corsair II from several different aircraft carriers. I made three deployments to the Tonkin Gulf and flew over 280 combat missions in Vietnam. I commanded an A-7 squadron, a Carrier Air Wing, a Functional Wing, a supply ship (USS Kalamazoo) and the aircraft carrier, USS America. I was selected for Flag rank in 1985. As Flag officer, I commanded a Battle Group, was Operations Director for US Forces in Europe and then Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Plans Policy and Operations. I was promoted to 4 stars in April 1996 and assumed command of US Naval Forces Europe and Allied Forces, Southern Europe, a NATO command. Since my theater of responsibility included the Balkans, I was responsible for operations in Bosnia. In late 1995, I commanded the NATO ground forces responsible for implementing the Dayton Peace Accords. I retired in 1996 after 34 plus years on active duty. During my career, my wife and our family (one son, two daughters) lived in Florida, Virginia, California, Texas, Germany and Italy.

The “Snuffy Smith story” is rather simple. In 1968 I was flying production test flights in the A-7 Corsair II at the manufacturing plant near Dallas, Texas. I wanted a “callsign” or “handle” as some call it. I had hoped for something like Reno, or Vegas, or Eagle. But, we are not always the masters of our own destiny. As it turned out, about that time my Dad, who lived in Mobile, Alabama, rented his farm to another man. That individual set up a sizable still on the property. This illicit booze manufacturing operation was ultimately discovered by my Dad who reported it to the local sheriff. The still was very quickly raided and destroyed. Reports of this reached friends who decided that I should be called “Snuffy,” after the comic character in Barney Google who was always running from the “revenooers.” Despite many attempts to ditch the name, it stuck.

2) What can ordinary citizens do, besides supporting the troops, to help win the War on Terror? What obligations do we have, and how can we help? What is the best way to support our troops?

I think the first thing is to understand the magnitude of the problem. Most of us are not touched on a daily basis by the war on terror, other than to read about this, or that, event and the injuries and death resulting from either attacks on our forces, or from offensive operations against our enemies. One thing to always remember is that no matter whether you support the war on terror, supporting those who are taking the fight to the enemy is critical.

3) Is it possible to support the troops without supporting their missions? Are Iraq and Afghanistan connected or separate, and should they be seen as connected or separate?

I think we can support the troops and be opposed to the war. Regrettably, many of our citizens got that mixed up during the Vietnam years. As previously mentioned, a stance opposing the war should not be a reason to denigrate those who are charged with following the lawful orders of their civilian and military leaders. The men and women who are on the front lines, and those supporting them, are courageous and are conducting themselves with honor. There are, of course, a few exceptions and it seems that those garner a great deal more publicity than the everyday heroic and patriotic actions of the great majority of our service men and women. As for the two fronts; they are, in my opinion, linked but clearly separate actions. We are trying to root out the Taliban in Afghanistan while underpinning a government that is attempting to bring about a political solution. There is a great deal of “nation building” going on and some of it is succeeding. Many of the troops there are from NATO and, regrettably, are operating under various Rules of Engagement and operation procedures. This is a dangerous situation. Anytime we have forces in a combat environment, they need to have unity of command, unity of purpose and should operate under the same Rules of Engagement. In Iraq we are operating as a coalition of the willing. There is also a great deal of what I would call “nation building” but of a somewhat different nature. No matter the mission, or which country, or alliance, is in charge, the environment is dangerous and those working therein deserve our support.

4) It is one thing to ask people to have faith in God. It is much tougher to ask people to have faith in Government. What does our government do right, and what does it need to do better so people can start believing in their government again?

While there are many things our government does “wrong” one merely has to look at the rest of the world to realize that we do much more good than bad. Consider, for example, the number of people who strive to come to the United States simply because of the way we live, the way we are governed, the opportunities presented. A great example is the ongoing elections where, despite fierce competition, there is no bloodshed, no power struggle that results in a militant government that restricts the rights of its people in the name of “restoring democracy and order.” Our government may not be perfect, and it will never satisfy the needs of all of the population, but it is about as good as it gets anywhere in the world. If people don’t like what the government is doing, they can always vote those in power out and those who can, and will, make the changes desired, in. As for restoring “belief” in our government, it seems to me that the first thing needed is honesty among elected officials. “Campaign promises” are, for the most part, hollow. Conduct of many politicians is criminal and/or unethical and there is very little in terms of realistic punishment for those who are guilty. The attitude in many of our elected officials seems to be that they are above the law. If I were “king for a day” I would make the congress adhere to the same standards of conduct that we require of our military officers and the same punishment if those standards are compromised.

5) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the three remaining presidential candidates? Who do you think they should choose for their Vice President?

I am a McCain fan and work on his campaign as one of about 140 senior retired General and Flag officers. I will speak to his qualifications and decline comment on the two democratic candidates.

What I like about McCain is “what you see is what you get.” He is courageous, smart, honest and experienced. Like any President, he should, and I believe will, select men and women of equal intelligence, integrity and experience to serve in his cabinet. McCain’s experience in national security affairs is unmatched by either of his opponents. He has engaged, and established serious relationships with many foreign leaders. He already has good working relationships with many of the leaders of other countries. He understands our military, their strengths and limitations, and the fact that we will have to devote considerable resources to “resetting” the force. He will not be precipitously drawn into conflict but will also be swift and decisive when and if there is a legitimate need to employ our military against an adversary.

As to a running mate, I cannot attempt to second guess who McCain may select but I would suggest it will be someone a bit younger who shares McCain’s values and isn’t afraid to make the tough decisions.

6) With regards to foreign policy, what have we done right, and what have we gotten wrong, in the last 8 years, and what steps need to be taken to improve the situations that require improvement? If you had 5 minutes to interview President Bush or Vice President Cheney, what would you ask them or say to them?

We have done a lot more things right than wrong. Developmental and diplomatic initiatives have resulted in many improvements in countries that much of our population doesn’t even know exist. We have also stood by our friends and worked to bring about peaceful solutions in troubled regions such as the Middle East and Africa. One thing we must do to improve our relationships with other governments is to be better listeners and to heed advice from our friends and allies. We cannot always be the lead sled dog and we are not always right. Our interests are inextricably aligned with many other nations and we need to understand that they are as important to us and we are to them. What follows is an excerpt from an editorial piece by my friend, retired Marine General Tony Zinni and me, published in the “Forum” section of USA Today on March 27th 2008.

“Our experience, both in and out of uniform, leads us to make a direct, personal appeal to all of the presidential candidates that what America urgently needs is a new and vibrant strategic agenda for its national security and foreign policy. The reality is that many of the threats we face in our country today — illegal immigration, radical jihadism and terrorism, public health and environmental problems — originate from complicated circumstances and from places outside our borders. And we know that young people who live in countries where they feel disenfranchised and without hope are prime recruiting targets for our adversaries.

We cannot inoculate our nation from these threats as some would believe; instead, we must address the roots of these complex problems. Simply put, it is time to repair our relationship with the world and begin to take it to the next level. A level defined not only by our military strength, but by the lives we save and the opportunities we create for the people of other nations.

And so, we call upon the next President of the United States to elevate the use of tools such as development assistance and diplomacy as integral parts of our national security strategy”.

I think that would be the thrust of my discussions with either of them.

7) Our country is incredibly polarized. Outside of another 9/11, is it even possible to unite Americans? What can be done to help reduce the acrimony among Americans today?

I truly wish I had an answer. We, as a nation, have shown great courage and character in the aftermath of natural disasters and enemy attacks. However, there seems to be a fundamental distrust which prevents us from coming together in a common purpose absent some sort of polarizing disaster. I know that, individually, people really want harmony but I simply don’t have a clue how we can make that happen. The closest I have seen reasonable harmony among our citizens was under President Reagan. He simply made us feel good about America and, more importantly, about being Americans. Perhaps what we need is to hear and read more good things about America than the bad that seems to have captured the front pages of our news media and nightly news. I certainly don’t mean to dump the blame on the media, but, on balance, it does seem to me we read much more about what is bad about America rather than what is good. The other thing that I wish could be tempered is the animosities that arise over simple differences of opinions. It seems that we have forgotten the term “agree to disagree.”

8.) Is CAIR a terrorist organization? Either way, which moderate Muslim organizations should Americans know about?

I am not familiar with any of the Muslim organizations. I would say, however, that many Muslim organizations have not been heard from (at least not by me) when it comes to seriously denouncing acts of terror. They have a responsibility to employ all of their powers and influence to reign in the fanatics who chose to use the tactic of terror to advance their causes and personal biases. It would be helpful to know which of the Muslim organizations have stepped up to this responsibility.

9) Colonel David Hunt has on more than one occasion mentioned you among his list of all time great military leaders. Who are your three favorite military leaders of all time? Who are your three favorite political leaders of all time?

General Jack Galvin, US Army. (I worked for Jack as his Director for Operations, US European Command, when I was a Rear Admiral)

Admiral Page Smith (my Uncle). My Uncle, Page Smith, was chiefly responsible for my getting into (and out of) the US Naval Academy. He retired shortly after I was commissioned but he was my mentor and advisor for many years until his death in 1993.

The two, above, are obviously personal. There are so many talented military leaders who have contributed so very much to our nation that it is difficult to select one, or two, as my absolute favorites. The traits that most attract me in leaders are: Moral courage, decisiveness, intelligence, and the willingness to take personal responsibility for the actions of subordinates. Admiral Bill Crowe, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and another of my mentors, demonstrated those characteristics, in spades so he would be among the top.

I’ll pass on the political leaders except to say that President Reagan had many faults but he did create an atmosphere in this country that put the “WOW” back into being an American.

10) Do you support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive action? Do you feel that it may be necessary to take pre-emptive action against Iran? How does it differ from the Smith Doctrine?

The notion that President Bush is the first to consider “preemptive action” as an available option is curious, at best. Many before him have (and we should continue) considered preemptive action for a variety of reasons. Let’s postulate that we have solid intelligence that a nation is about to take some sort of action against us or an ally with which we have security arrangements. The action would have grave consequences insofar as the security or economic viability of our, or an ally’s, country. The President has the means at his disposal to neutralize the threat. Should he wait and take reactive measures to the attack (assuming that we would still have that capability after the attack) or should he preempt? To me the answer is simple. The number one priority of the President is the security of this country and he should take action, as necessary, to fulfill that responsibility. If that action is preemptive, so be it.

11) What Americans call 9/11, Israel refers to as every day life. Israel is then asked to show restraint. What is your view on Israel taking pre-emptive action, including a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities if necessary? What about with regards to the disputed territories such as Gaza? What about against Damascus, who funds Hezbollah?

Israel is, in fact, attacked on a routine basis by state sponsored terrorist groups who have openly declared that their mission is to rid the world of Israel and its inhabitants. They employ considerable intelligence activities and are, on a daily basis, evaluating and analyzing information that points them towards individuals or groups who are going to mount an attack. It is not a matter of if, only a matter of when. In my opinion, they are justified in taking action to neutralize these serious and very real threats. There is always the issue of “proportionality.” There have been times when actions taken by Israel do not appear to meet the criteria of proportionality, at least in out eyes. But, I wonder, if we were surrounded on all sides by nations sworn to (or supporting those who have sworn to) destroy us, would we not act in similar fashion? It seems to me that in Israel, and to the Israelis, proportionality takes a back seat to survivability.

I have no way of knowing if Israel will ever take action against Iran’s nuclear capabilities but I would have to believe that this is under serious consideration. Again, ask yourself this question: If the man who runs a country has sworn to obliterate your country, and is close to developing the means to do just that, what would you do? This is a huge issue and every nation on this planet needs to understand that every single diplomatic tool must be employed to try to prevent this from occurring. We DO NOT want to see a nuclear exchange, anywhere. We also do not want nuclear weapons in the hands of known sponsors of active terrorist groups.

Insofar as “occupied lands” it seems to me that a Palestinian state, which eschews terrorism as a tactic and recognizes Israel’s right to exist, is a noble and worthy goal and could lead to the resolution of these questions. We, in my view, should work toward that end. However, until the Israeli’s are confident that there is a true chance for peace and that they will not be subjected to cross border attacks, they will be very reluctant to take any actions that might provide their enemies an advantage.

12) Is Iranian President Armageddonijad a terrorist? If so, should he be banned from any functions not directly related to the U.N.? Can and should the U.S. Government prohibit such people from visiting American universities, and should poison ivy league universities face sanctions or pressure for hosting such people?

I don’t know if he is a terrorist but he certainly seems to embrace the tactic of terrorism. I think it is fairly clear that Iran sponsors terrorist activities so I find it difficult to separate support for, and actually participating in, acts of terror. I would support any measure that would ban Armageddonijad, and anyone even remotely of his ilk, from visiting the US.

13) How can the USA win the War on Terror when we cannot even win the public relations war? How do we balance freedom of speech and freedom of the press with the problem of media institutions such as the Jayson Blair Times revealing troop movements and getting our own soldiers killed? Should such actions result in criminal investigations and possible criminal sanctions? How can we win the public relations war?

Shaping public opinion is important but it must be done with honesty and forthrightness. President Richard Nixon wrote an article many years ago (I can’t recall which weekly magazine published it) in which he said that you shape public opinion to gain support for an action well in advance of taking action. I know of several events in which there were considerable public relations efforts before the fact. In Bosnia, we developed specific talking points which I used every single time I met with the press. If there was a specific point to be made, that talking point was at the top of the list. The main themes were about our primary mission was to stabilize Bosnia and provide an environment in which the elected officials could work through their difference and achieve some sort of lasting peace. We developed our own newspaper, published on a weekly basis, which highlighted our activities. Not surprisingly, we publicized the good things being done so that the people of that country would know why we were there and what we were doing to make their every day life better. This example, admittedly, is very narrow in focus and was much easier to carry off than it would be in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. But, the principle is the same.

As for reporters tipping off troop movements, I recall a session in “media training” when I was going through what is referred to as “Capstone.” This is a course for all newly selected Flag and General officers in our military. One of the panelists was a much respected writer whose editorials were in many of our country’s major papers. He was expounding on the “debacle” of the raid on Libya m a few years before and said that he would have leaked the information about that proposed raid had he had the information. I asked about the safety of those on that raid and suggested that compromising the information would most assuredly create a higher threat and possibly the loss of our aviators. He scoffed and said that perhaps it would have been worth it to halt that “debacle.” I then asked if he would have endangered those same aviators if his son had been among them. It stopped him cold! My personal opinion is that most responsible media folks will respect the confidentiality of information and operations if they believe that publishing that information will result in increased danger to our troops. There are, obviously, some who could care less. I would favor legal action against those who knowingly endanger our forces by publishing information that would compromise operations.

14) Without delving into your personal life, what would you want Americans to know about Snuffy Smith the person? 100 years from now, what would you want people to remember about you, and what would you hope the history books say about you?

I doubt the history books will contain much more than a footnote about Admiral Leighton W “Snuffy” Smith but the one thing I guess I am proudest of, outside of our three children, their spouses and our grandchildren, is that I really did try to listen to the young folks on whose advice I truly relied. I also challenged my superiors if I thought they were heading off track. One comment in a fitness report I received once from a four star Air Force general was; “Snuffy Smith’s almost brutal honesty sometimes hurts.” I was, and remain proud of that statement. In a speech I delivered at the US Naval Academy in 1996, I advised the Midshipmen to “Take the educated risks because risk takers are success makers. You should also consider saying yes to your subordinates and no to your bosses more often because both will appreciate you more.” I still get calls from men and women with whom I have worked and they have thanked me for what I was able to do in shaping their lives by doing just what I advised those Mids to do. I would hope that my legacy is not so much what people think about me, but how they feel about those whose lives I may have had some positive impact upon.

I am beyond appreciative of the thoughtfulness and care with which Admiral Smith undertook this task.

I wish him and his family well always, and of course that includes low golf scores for him and high bridge scores for his wife, except when she is playing my friend’s mother.

Thank you for your service Admiral Smith. Thank you, and welcome home sir.


17 Responses to “My Interview With Admiral Snuffy Smith”

  1. How the heck do you get these interviews? I can’t even get my congresswoman to look in my general direction? You should work for NRO or the like.

    I do wish, however, that you could occasional break with your thematic inquiries and ask some different questions. For example, I would have asked these questions:

    How long can we maintain troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan?

    Do you believe that our presence in Iraq is only compounding our problems in the Middle East?

    How do you feel about Bush threatening to veto the Webb GI Bill?



  2. J.Rock says:

    Good work. This is something to be proud of.

  3. micky2 says:

    Excellent, and very insightful.
    I always love what the uniformed men at the top have to say.

    Makes me feel good.

  4. Micky’s into uniforms.


  5. micky2 says:

    “How long can we maintain troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan?

    Do you believe that our presence in Iraq is only compounding our problems in the Middle East?

    How do you feel about Bush threatening to veto the Webb GI Bill?

    And do you think the doing rate for a ding dong will affect our foreign exchange policies ?
    And is it a fair price ?

  6. Charly Martel says:

    Dear Jersey,

    “How long can we maintain troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan?”

    I would only hope his answer would be “As long as necessary.”

    I would NOT want to telegraph stuff to the enemy to encourage him to hold out for the few months more until we are played out and go home. I want him to realize the hopelessness of his attempting to outlast the richest and most powerful nation on earth, and that we will be here (and prosperous) long after he and his are grease spots on the desert sands.

  7. micky2 says:

    “long after he and his are grease spots on the desert sands.”

    He he.
    Fossil fuels.

  8. Hey Charley!

    I agree that would be the answer. He can’t, after all, admit to what we’re facing. Thankfully, you picked that up. I read Eric’s post, and I noted the Admiral was not fond of the press leaking strategic information. On the other hand we all know, just being Americans, that we can’t keep this up forever – not without a draft, and of course our enemies know that too. It’s public information. The whole world knows it.

    What we’re doing now is abusing our volunteers, and that’s irresponsible at best, despicable at worst. In all our history, when we were faced with a mortally threatening enemy, we as a nation stood up together and with a draft filled our ranks and won the fight.

    What’s the problem this time? I thought you guys said we we’re facing some existential threat. Why would not the draft be apropos? I know why. You know why. It’s because the threat is not worth the cost. Period.

    Fighting terrorism is not worth thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. I hope Americans remember that come November.


  9. “Fighting terrorism is not worth thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. I hope Americans remember that come November.”

    And to our most gracious host, remember, that’s true for Israel too, and they manage it pretty well – a lot better than us.


  10. micky2 says:

    “What we’re doing now is abusing our volunteers,”

    You mean to tell me that all these guys volunteered for a mission that was secret until graduating boot camp?.

    JMJ;”Fighting terrorism is not worth thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. I hope Americans remember that come November.”

    I hope they remember the thousands that have died as a result of terrorism.
    I also hope they remember the thousands that died because we took our eyes off of terrorism.
    I hope they remember the thousands that died because we thought we had terrorism at a safe distance.
    I hope they remember that since 911 we have not been attacked once.
    I hope they remember that we can never, ever let anything like 911 happen again.
    I hope they remember that the benefits of preventing Radical Islam from achieving its goal far outweighs the cost.

  11. Micky, we’re losing more people and money to fighting terrorism than we have ever suffered from it. Would you care to show me the plus side of that cost/benefit analysis?


  12. micky2 says:

    Would you care to wait and suffer some more due to a true and proven threat ?
    A threat that has been proven to grow when left unchecked ?

    Tell me , what do you think would happen if we paid any less attention to the threat than we do now ?
    ( I’m gonna be sorry I asked that )

    Analysis ?
    Without going into the charts that show the progressive nature of the threat I’ll attempt to explain it to you in a simple way.


    Cost ?
    I think losing our entire finacial structure and having the whole country plummet into chaos and starvation due to pipelines, shipping lanes, refineries and drilling sites all being blown to hell would justify the cost.

  13. Eagle 6 says:

    Gosh Jersey, “. On the other hand we all know, just being Americans, that we can’t keep this up forever – not without a draft, and of course our enemies know that too. It’s public information. The whole world knows it.”

    I’m an American, and as far as I can tell, we can prosecute the war on terror for as long as we need to. There’s a difference between public information and media propoganda… There’s also a difference between public information (a lot of which stems from the aforementioned propoganda) and the truth. The truth is, we are winning in Iraq, and the media is so devastated by this good news story they refuse to acknowledge it. In May, casualties were the lowest since the conflict began. Who reported that? I learned it from one of the brain-washing briefings I get, and some of our more naive populace learned it from Fox News…so it must be irrelevant. This is also the first time the Iraqi government has had operational control over Baghdad, Sadr City, Mosul, and Basra…and Maliki, his army, Security Forces, and Sons of Iraq, spearheaded the attacks during the clear phase and are in the lead for the hold/build phases, supported by the Iraqi National Police and the US, Australian, and British Armies…. but we must be losing because a US sniper put a few holes in the Koran and a 1,000 or so Iraqis refused to participate in one of the raids… perspective…let’s BE Americans and stand behind our country for a change.

  14. “Would you care to wait and suffer some more due to a true and proven threat?”

    Of course not. Don’t be silly. But that doesn’t mean we have to get into all-out ground wars with nations unrelated to the problem. That’s just nuts.

    The War on Terror is the single stupidest thing I’ve seen my nation do in my entire lifetime.


  15. micky2 says:

    “Of course not. Don’t be silly. But that doesn’t mean we have to get into all-out ground wars with nations unrelated to the problem. That’s just nuts.”

    What the he** are you talking about ?
    No, why it would mean that we have to get into ground battles with unrelated nations ?
    If they are sponsoring, supporting and/or training and giving aid to terrorists well ,uh ,
    Y E A ! Then they would be related.

    “The War on Terror is the single stupidest thing I’ve seen my nation do in my entire lifetime.”

    With all due respect, I know I can be snippy.
    But that statement is the single stupidest thing I have heard anyone say.
    And please, I can see it coming. Dont equate the war on terror to the war on drugs.
    There is no parallel. The two are driven by totally different agendas.

  16. I’m not equating the war on terror with the war on drugs. The war on terror is far more stupid. The war on drugs is a race/class war. It’s self-destructive and cannibalistic. It’s bad, “um-kay?” The war on terror is disasterous on a global scale, well beyond the scope of the war on drugs. The war on terror has been the most counter-productive endeavor in American history aside from the Civil War, and perhaps the Banana Republics. We’re going to seriously regret this mistake – we already are.


  17. micky says:

    “not equating the war on terror with the war on drugs. The war on terror is far more stupid. The war on drugs is a race/class war. It’s self-destructive and cannibalistic. It’s bad, “um-kay?”

    Yea well, you’ve done it before, glad you saw the light , somewhat.
    Its a money war. Its not directed at any class or race intentionally
    It just so happens that people who are addicted usually don’t have two nickels to rub together for obvious reasons. And addiction knows no race or class. White/black it doesn’t matter. Most inmates are there as a result of addiction or poor choices made a result of being under the influence or the parallel destruction and they caught up in a chaotic system.
    For every dealer there are 8 inmates in for possession only. 80% of inmates are in for possession.

    “The war on terror has been the most counter-productive endeavor in American history ”
    That’s why we haven’t had an attack on American soil since 911 ?

    “We’re going to seriously regret this mistake – we already are.”

    Where have you been ?
    We have already been regretting not doing more sooner .
    As a matter of fact everything that was done in previous administrations was insufficient and let the threat grow to a head on 911.
    I will always hold Clinton accountable for dereliction of duty.
    Its historical fact that he had ample opportunity to do more than he did, but did very little.
    Bush senior went after a destabilizing force in the middle east by pushing Saddam out of Kuwait and back into Iraq.
    Clinton only took pot shots at another destabilizing force for expediency purposes only with no real intent of dealing with the problem.
    The civil war was counter productive ? I guess you’re one of the any moonbats that think that was an unnecessary war also ? Ask a black man.

    As far as Saddam goes.
    Any leader of state that thinks he can just march into another country and take it over has already made himself out to be a rip roaring lunatic and needs to be ousted.
    We should of done it then. But hey , we had to show diplomacy , trust and benefit of the doubt , right ? And so we did by implementing sanctions and rules stemming from a surrender agreement that said if you screw up we will come a knockin.
    Well, Saddam screwed up and we kept our promise. and at the same time he proved along with the rest of the middle east that all the peace treaties and agreements made in the middle east have never amounted to squat.
    Tell me Jersey , where were all the kumbaya human rights activists when Saddam was feeding families to lions , starving his people and gassing thousands of Kurds and committing horrible human rights violations ?
    Why was there no outcry from the left during these atrocities ? Where was Clinton ?
    Where were you ?
    So please, give it up already.
    As often as you have tried to make your asinine case I have always shot it down with blatant undeniable truth and fact to which you have only tried to controvert with emotional idealism and opinions.
    The war was legally deemed necessary, with or without WMD’s.
    Much of the intelligence supporting the invasion came from foreign intelligence agencies, as many as 21 different countries contributed to this gathering of intelligence. Much of which could never have been influenced by any American bias.
    Those 21 countries also saw the threat Saddam was to middle east stability and join us as part of the coalition.
    Yea, remember that line of crap that was floating around for a while ? The one all you moonbats were trying to pass off as truth?
    “Bush thinks we can just go it alone”

    The thinking on the left is flawed.
    This is why you lose elections.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.