I disagree that the first Bush should not have taken out Saddam, or, at least, should not have because it wasn't feasible.... You are correct in that many of our allies at the time (notably the Sauds) would not have signed on had regime change been part of the equation. However, the climate just just as difficult for W. Bush in 2002, yet he stuck to his guns. W. is getting accused of sorts of things, just as his father would have been; 'Illegal' 'war-monger' 'unilateral' it 'sosts too much' "too many soldiers are dying' etc, etc etc. I think W. clearly learned from his father's mistakes in paying too much attention to international opinion. In fact, I would even argue that his Dad is telling exactly that, regardless of what he says publicly about his decision to fall back in 1991. (I have no basis for that statement, just opinion)
The same people who were in H.W.'s administration are in W's and they have clearly learned from their mistakes in 1991, IMO.
We can't defer blame from HW just because idiotic liberals were gumming up the works with their hysteria back then. That's what liberals do. The real test is how whether or not a President lets that hysteria affect his strategic vision and implementation. HW did, W didn't. There's really no getting around that.
Yes, Clinton was alseep at the switch and essentially ignored the problem, which let it get even worse. His response to the Khobar Towers and 1993 WTC attacks were shameful....