why aren''t they outraged that ronald regean created sadaam and bin laden, there always outraged about clinton not getting bin laden.
2006-06-29 02:30:07 · 15 answers · asked by david c 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
But it's OK, Saddam was our friend when Reagan put him in, right? Dictators are cool when they're on our side. The whole "freedom and peace worldwide" thing doesn't count when the dictators back our interests..
2006-06-29 02:34:10 · answer #1 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Reagen didn't put Saddam in power. Saddam took over Iraq in '79, Reagen got into office in '81. We did however back him in the Iran/Iraq war. At the time it made sense. It wasn't log after Iranian students stormed our embassy and help captive our people. The whole "the enemy of our enemy is our friend" thing. Of course, in hind sight, it wasn't the best idea. We also helped furnish weapons and training to Afghan "freedom fighters" during the Soviet invasion. Again, at the time it made sense. I'm a republican, am I outraged? No, can't say that I am. The Reagen administration did what they thought was best at the time with the information available. I don't think Clinton did, and many Republicans, and historians agree with me. Honest answer.
2006-06-29 09:44:03 · answer #2 · answered by Oilfield 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they're too busy putting the blame on Clinton because according to them, everything that's happening is Clinton's fault. At least that's what I'm garnering from some of the comments I've seen here lately. It's a shame.
2006-06-29 09:34:20 · answer #3 · answered by Kyleen G 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ranger-Bush was elected into power. Twice.
Do liberals realize that GW had nothing to do with Saddam's rise to power.
Do liberals know that GW had nothing to do with Clinton not taking bin Laden when he had the chance.
Do liberals realize that GW is trying to clean up the messes he inherited when he took office?
2006-06-29 10:00:59 · answer #4 · answered by kelly24592 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Study history. We did not put Saddam in power. We did support him against Iran. Not because he was nice. Not because he was a model human. Because he agreed to fight Iran's fundamentalist government and promised closer ties with the west. He lied and broke his agreement. We supported the Muhajadin (sorry if spelled wrong) against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. They turned on us too. But because we once tried to build relationships and supported them, we should let them kill Americans now and work against us? That is ridiculous.
2006-06-29 09:47:50 · answer #5 · answered by alieneddiexxx 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Reagen did not put him in power, but did support and supply weapons to Iraq during the war with Iran
2006-06-29 09:41:31 · answer #6 · answered by David M 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because its not good for the party they support to admit any of these nasty things, and besides, its not like democrats are innocent of having perpetrated similar things, clinton was in office for 8 years and he maintained a very brutal war on drugs domestically and in foreign countries. Don't look for innocents in politics, there arent any
2006-06-29 09:36:02 · answer #7 · answered by Hans B 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
do liberals know that people change and thier actions change.[john mertha, ex.] i believe regan was trying to have saddam wipe out iran. they had a 10 year war w/no winners. it would have been better for the us if saddam would have won, we might not be where we are now w/the iran threat.
2006-06-29 09:40:12 · answer #8 · answered by wally l 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think Reagan was an actor in Hollywood when Saadam came to power.
2006-06-29 09:35:41 · answer #9 · answered by ed 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
and that D1ckhead Rumpsfeld met with Saddam in a show of support
2006-06-29 09:34:30 · answer #10 · answered by softenthecorners101 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋