I see how you can think GW's withdrawal was a turning point, but honestly it was a drop in the bucket. I've spent a long time trying to trace the origins of the

I see how you can think GW's withdrawal was a turning point, but honestly it was a drop in the bucket. I've spent a long time trying to trace the origins of the current policy, and I mostly lay it at Woodrow Wilsons feet (and his handlers). Handlers being a key word. Do you not think Bush had them? The real power players in DC exist through multiple presidencies. This idea of POTUS being king-like (and therefor X is POTUS fault) is so unrealistic and a very sophmoric analysis of the real power dynamics at that level. ps. What most people mean when they say "democracy" is "IMF conditionalities", et similar.