"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
Isn't this EXACTLY what Bush did yet he lied about WMD in Iraq?
2006-06-12 08:00:12 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Where are the hords of liberals rationalizing this queation?
2006-06-12 08:17:53 · update #1
histrystudent - actually if you look back at the news stories of the time, it was "Vietnam" all over again for the liberals when Bush Sr. went it no Iraq, just as it is today. Screams of "war for oil", "war monger"- you know, the same sh*t these cowards are saying today.
2006-06-12 08:32:03 · update #2
Everyone believed that he had WMD. They couldn't find them, but that doesn't prove that he didn't have them. So, after 9\11 if the Dems, Republicans, British, other Arabs, Saddam's own generals .......believed that he had wmd and Bush did nothing, what would be said about him if something did happen?
I think that he did what he believed was right at the time and I would rather see him err on the side of caution rather than trust Saddam or the UN to handle the situation (which they didn't).
Now it's this Bush lied crap, which is really old.
Congress voted for this and now the political cowards on both sides want to re-write history.
2006-06-12 16:20:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Here I am. You'll have to excuse us. Some of us have lives that require us not to be chained to Yahoo Answers debating politics with 12 year old children. Anyway the answer: to approve Operation Desert Fox.
"Operation Desert Fox was the military codename for a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets from December 16-December 19, 1998 by the United States and United Kingdom. These strikes were undertaken in response to Iraq's continued failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors."
I think this is very different from "Shock & Awe" and bringing utter chaos to the former country that was once Iraq. Clinton actually listened to the UN Inspectors, I believe Bush defiantely ignored Blix. The outcome of what is now a civil war in Iraq cannot be determined by American military force. It has to be solved by Iraqis brought together to hammer out their differences. Period. It is time for Iraqis to stand up for Iraq.
Our soldiers are fighting and dying in the third war in Iraq -- not the war for mythical weapons of mass destruction or the war President Bush said had to be fought against armies of foreign jihadists, but an escalating civil war between Sunni and Shia.
And actually toughguy, not everyone knows that. In fact, many don't believe it anymore.
2006-06-12 08:32:03 · answer #2 · answered by Pitchow! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not at all like what Bush did. First off, the Democratic Senators made recommendations which did not include ground troops. Secondly, while they may have made suggestions, Bush put American troops in harms way based on flawed, and potentially cherry picked intelligence. Nobody, including W's father, thought that invading Iraq was a good idea. After the first gulf war, George HW Bush said that deposing Saddam was a bad idea, because it would likely start a civil war, and endless sectarian violence. Clinton did attack Iraq, with sanctions and missile strikes whenever necessary. Not one American died in Iraq. Oh, and we had a budget surplus instead of the largest deficit in US history.
2006-06-12 08:25:15 · answer #3 · answered by histrystudent 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
But Clinton balanced the budget. He was the best president we ever had no matter what you elephants who can't forget about that blue dress thing say. Face it, anything to do with Bush is all about:
OILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOIL-
Sorry about that, the dumb f*ck key on my keyboard suddenly got stuck.
Some of that long winded bullsh*t up there must have put me to sleep.
Anyway, my final answer is:
For the same reason they were behind Bush when all this started. And for the same reason they are still voting to fund the war. We just didn't have time for the UN to quit scratching its head and get off its *ss and do something about Saddamn.
2006-06-12 15:30:54 · answer #4 · answered by meathead76 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ive been remembering this for a while, and it would be funny if it werent so big of a deal apparently, see if clinton had done what bush did, then the news would be sure to present it in a positive light and they would make up polls showing clintons approval rating at high levels, but since Bush is doing what they should have done they can make him look like a bad guy while doing it and improve the chances of getting liberals elected next time around because the last few elections have shown them that they are sinking in the ship of holes that they have built for themselves, and they need a miracle to pull themselves out of the water, and they will lie cheat and steal to get back in the game
2006-06-12 08:14:26 · answer #5 · answered by shssta 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everybody knows including liberal Democrats that they did have wmd. President Bush gets criticized for something he ishould not be blamed for. The Democrats said yes and the inspectors were not allowed to check all areas. Then the wmd were probably transported to Syria. Hussein for a fact used them on his own people.
2006-06-12 08:09:20 · answer #6 · answered by toughguy2 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
.... you know as well as I do... whatever party is on the other side hates the war... conservatives hated WWII... I guess they were the cowards you speak of too....
and an attatck and all-out invasion are two different things...
In my own opinion... I don't mind the Iraq war so much as an idea... but we needed to focus on bin Laden first... you know... the guy that attacked us...
it just seems sloppy and we're not doing a good job on either front... if you ask me...
2006-06-12 09:56:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He did exactly what they suggested. Without needlessly ending thousands of lives. He ordered Operation Desert Fox. That's why we couldn't find any wmd's. The U.S. took out Iraq's capability of producing them in Dec. 1998. It was effective and didn't cost 100's of billions of dollars to achieve.
Maybe you were too busy worrying about his penis to notice.
2006-06-12 09:24:05 · answer #8 · answered by scott j 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you remember, Saddam kicked out the inspectors after each
location they looked at ended up getting bombed.
So, anyway, Bush is the one that halted inspections so that he could
start the current occupation.
Quit being such a jerk off!
2006-06-12 08:32:45 · answer #9 · answered by wlday2002 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well its different because Clinton was Democratic. The Left is full of Hypcrites, on here and all over the country.
2006-06-12 08:05:40 · answer #10 · answered by 3rd parties for REAL CHANGE 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋