What do you think about Democrat Intel from 1998-2002?

Question

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"[W]e 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 Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.

BeachBum, you're the biggest idiot on answers, MHO

Answer 1

I love it!!

Answer 2

What exactly is your question.

Let me explain this to you because you obviously aren't very bright:

The difference is: while those democratic leaders had some of the same intel that Bush used, those democratic leaders recognized the importance of global and UN support. That is why leaders like Bill Clinton are so admired and respected around the world; whereas, Bush is hated and thought of as an idiot.

Those wise democratic leaders value American life and would only have invaded Iraq as a last resort when all diplomacy had failed. AND btw, diplomacy had NOT failed as Fox News would have you believe. The inspectors that were there have stated repeatedly that they requested 6 more months and that Saddam was finally giving them complete access... but no no Bush was going to invade no matter what.

Answer 3

thank you for your thorough report from the past and i do agree you provide information about the role our government as a hole played in the U.S. becoming involved in Iraq.

i STILL am firmly against the war and all wars as they only destroy the people of this earth and serve no purpose . When you look at the cause rather then the result of our former actions going back 45 years you will see we have had ample oppertunity to leave the region peacefully and unless it is our intention to denie the entire world the ability to defend itself with nukes then i see no point to this argument.IF however you agree and we need to denie the world nukes then we ourselfs andd all othernations must begin to disarm today and ban all people from having nukes start at home and show the rest of the world we seek peace and not war or terror by being the only power on earth with the ability to wage war with such weapons .
WORK to end war and bring peace to the planet .

Answer 4

Its funny that a lot of the people you mentioned are Skull and Bones. They are all on the same team. Don't let the title Dem or Rep fool you. America is a progressive machine, meaning it has to move forward. The next logical move for America to progress is take control of the middle east. We don't want a democracy there. We want our influence to be there. We were going to that part of the country no matter what. We just needed a cause to go. Just like WWII. Forget conspiracy theories, just know that America will do what ever it takes to be the only true world power.

Answer 5

your point is weak becasue clinton was in office for 2 terms and did not go to iraq, i think a president that felt a country was a such a threat would have taken action during 2 terms, clinon went and captured milosev, and we withdrew troops unlike bush as soon as capturing a dictator. also the congress and senate are both republican as well as the oval office. republicans control all national policy since contract with america, you do know that right?

Answer 6

And the Republicans still cant do better than Bush. Sigh.

Answer 7

Oh my gosh it sounds so. . .so. . . so. . .Republican ahhhhhhhh.