See Clinton bombed foreign nations every time he was about to get indicted, Now Saddam just wacked people to stay in power.
Is or was there a difference also should Clinton be tried for War crimes?
2006-08-08 07:19:41 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Its equal. Both were horrible leaders who made things worse. Guess who let Bin Laden go? Thats right, Bill did.
2006-08-08 07:26:25 · answer #1 · answered by Bucfan 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You know you're not really Saddam Hussein, you're just a republican with a severe case of mental illness.
2006-08-08 15:51:01 · answer #2 · answered by jellybean24 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd love to hang both Bill and Saddam...but in terms of overall brutality...Saddam was worse!!!
2006-08-09 09:59:43 · answer #3 · answered by betterdeadthansorry 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A part of me wonders if you actually realize that you are not Saddam and are in reality, a delusional republican.
2006-08-08 14:27:21 · answer #4 · answered by Pitchow! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Clinton sucks, thats all there is to it. However, Sadam took it one past sucking, he took it to the "terrorist level" here are the order that the sucking goes in
Great guy
Good guy
Ok guy
Mean
Suck
Realy suck
Evil
Terrorist
Satan (aka barney)
2006-08-08 14:24:43 · answer #5 · answered by Leon K. 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
will ppl leave bill clinton alone? to my knowledge, bill didn't go around killing and torturing ppl just because they disagreed with his dictatorship policy so u tell me who's worse; and no he shouldn't be prosecuted for war crimes. what war crimes?!!
2006-08-08 15:12:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both are the same an yes.
2006-08-08 14:23:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Get over it Bush is the only A**hole we have to contend with now!!!
2006-08-08 14:24:00 · answer #8 · answered by jdfnv 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋