You're kidding, right?
Taking advice from people that know more about their job than you is cowardly?
So a leader should tell the head of her/his intelligence agency what the intelligence in a region is reporting?
Bush should have told an expert on Middle eastern politics "Hey buddy, I think you've got it all wrong. *I* know what is really going on over there."
Haven't spent much time in upper management, have you?
'Cause it doesn't work that way.
You surround yourself with the best people and *listen* to them when they talk.
Has either leader backed down from their position that war was the right thing to do?
Hardly cowardly, then, yes?
The Roosevelt topic is really interesting. Since we make judgements based on experiences (history), would a 21st-century Roosevelt have an isolationist view? Or would he react the same way? The 21st-century Roosevelt would have the knowledge of men like Hitler and Stalin, Idi Amin, etc. After all of that history, would he believe "the problem will go away?"
World War I had more to do with an unsustainable arms race and "bluff calling gone wrong" than powermongering or "world domination." So the basis for WW II was kinda unbelievable in a "modern" 20th century.
If the stage for World War III had been set aound 1960, would world leaders have been anxious to get it over with or anxious to do anything to prevent another large-scale war?
Anyway, I don't think it is fair to equate a "regional" war to a war that touched 6 out of the 7 continents on earth (no fighting in Anartica was there?
A *lot* more was at stake in th '40's, and the outcome was a bit uncertain.
This time around no one doubted who would come out on top.
BTW, the nobel prize should list Hussein. It was his flight and ultimate surrender that ended the war. So all three should be prize winners.
Enough rambling for now...