That may have some merit is the present administration clearly and actively distanced themselves from those actions. Eg by stating unequivocably that the policy of supporting Saddam had been a mistake, and they were seeking to rectify that mistake. But they didn't do that, they simply pretended that it never happened.The Mad Hatter wrote:You can not blame the present administration for the actions of the previous.
The volte-face on Saddam is perfectly simple. At one point he was politically advantageous to the American government, at another point he was disadvantageous. I'm not so naive as to not understand that that's what a lot of politics consists of - I'm simply calling a spade a spade. It's the Bush administration, not me, who insisted on the ludicrous fiction that there was some kind of "moral" dimension to it.
Because without that, they would hardly have been able to convince people that invading a foreign country who had done nothing to them, and had no WMDs that posed any kind of international threat - and killing hundreds of thousands in the process - was "justified", would they?
I wasn't even aware that they had. But yes, since you say so. I was certainly equally angry with Britain as America.Secondly, are you as equally angry with the Dutch for taking part in the war?
