This was the guy, after all, who criticized Clinton committing troops to conflicts with no clear mission or exit strategy, and pledged on the campaign trail to end the "nation building" that, with the complete desolation of the strongest economy in world history, is his legacy. However, since there's extensive White House documentation that Bush and Co. were actively and aggressively seeking, not just to remove Saddam, but to take control of Iraq and its oil reserves, I see no way reasonable way to argue it's even true. Further, none of that excuses White House efforts to tie Saddam to 911, or GOP Congressmen who accused Clinton of reducing our military preparedness and trying to distract from domestic problems with expensive and unnecessary action against a harmless Saddam. Even though NOTHING had changed those same Congressmen repudiated each of their own original objections one by one during the stampede toward for war with Iraq; Democrats don't get a pass for spinelessly laying down in the face of that, but the primary fault does not lie with those who simply failed to oppose Republican madness more strongly.