2006-08-24 02:33:44 · 14 answers · asked by tough as hell 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Are you saying Clinton maniulated intelligence???????
"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.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 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.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, 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.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
2006-08-24 02:36:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
See nicolasraage the best answer above. If the intelligence was being manipulated it was happening long before Bush took office. Clinton and the Democrats believed every word of it, too.
2006-08-24 09:53:29 · answer #2 · answered by Azriel 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Like FDR and his belligerent Acts of War (Lend-lease, escorting British vessels far into the Atlantic, etc) against Germany prior to Pearl Harbor?
or LBJ and his manipulation of the little incident in the Gulf of Tonkin to get the power to make Vietnam a full-scale war?
Or Clinton and all those 'Kosovar mass graves' when he wantonly attacked Serbia without UN approval, and bombed them from high altitude, ensuring inaccuracy and lots of unnecessary civilian casualties?
2006-08-24 09:50:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Thank you nicholas -
I am tired of the true subversives, who are continuing to hold on to the idea that the President deliberately manipulated intelligence when he did not.
And... what is your solution to a murderous dictator whom allows anti- U.S. terrorist activity in his country? Just hope he and the other factions that want to destroy the U.S. just become nice guys and go away?
Please realize that your shallow and ineffective point of view are only harming your country.
2006-08-24 09:45:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
He will run out his term and write a book and live happily everafter. President can only be thrown out of office for moral shortcomings. Starting a war and losing lives for nothing is morally correct coduct.
2006-08-24 09:38:54 · answer #5 · answered by Kenneth H 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The same thing that happens to a president who breaks the law and subverts the Constitution. He sould be impeached (and convicted)!
2006-08-24 09:36:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess we shouldn't elect a Democrat again. That should solve the entire problem!
2006-08-24 09:54:29 · answer #7 · answered by Joy S 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In retrospect, He was re-elected to a second term.
2006-08-24 09:39:25 · answer #8 · answered by Tim C 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
can you say..."IMPEACHMENT" (I also think prison, convicted felon status...etc..) Also..not being invited to Exxon/Mobil's annual shareholders holiday barbecue in Texas. That would kill him!
2006-08-24 09:36:29 · answer #9 · answered by Studmuffin 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Somewhere in Texas there is a village that is missing an idiot.
2006-08-24 09:48:01 · answer #10 · answered by rumpled 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋