Who said the following:

"that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.   Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member.   This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.   The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home.   I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up.   Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.   The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime ... The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."

Geeze, them's fightin words if ever I did hear them.   They were spoken by the President of the United States.   But the year was 1998.   The President was one William Jefferson Clinton.   He spoke these words after signing H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998."   The Act passed the House 360-38 and was unanimously passed in the Senate.

This Act, the law which proclaimed that it was the official policy of the United States of America to undertake regime change in Iraq through whatever means necessary was never controversial.   It was thought up, written, reviewed and passed into law in just over a month.   It is a fairly simple piece of legislation which says succinctly, "that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government."   It also declares "the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals."

So can someone please explain to me one more time why it is the Bush administration and the Bush administration alone who "got us into this quagmire?"   Do we, as a nation, prefer people who talk tough to those who actually carry through on their threats?   If we do, should we not just crawl into the corner and cower when we are attacked.   We will be attacked again.   Why bother expending all that energy talking tough when we can't withstand fighting for more than a single round?