How do you feel about the former Clinton adminstration trying to stop ABC from....?

Question

airing a TV show on how the Clinton adminstration could have someway or somewhat prevented the devastation of Sept. 11? Do you think that the former Clinton adminstration has the right to keep this from the public? As in this could just be some huge coverup by the Clinton adminstration or do the American people have the right to know how Clinton and his adminstration neglected to somewhat secure American security? Does this make you think twice about voting for Hilary if she runs for office in 2008?

Answer 1

I adore your questions. Read what they did know.

"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

"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 Sens Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), 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 invigorated 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, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"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

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 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. 23. 2003

SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY?

Answer 2

I feel fine about the Clinton administration may be you only listen when Bush has some dumb thing to say, but it was all over the news today that all of that crap was a lie and Clinton did not thing wrong, why is it you Bush people jump on Clinton every change you get? maybe you should look at Bush's record and look at all his lies and don,t worry about Clinton he has been out of office for 6 years you can,t blame him for were we are today, that,,s Bush,s lies. oh I will vote for Hillary I hope she run,s

Answer 3

Clinton was so pursued by the republican which hunt by Ken Starr it is amazing he accomplished as much as he did. Bush had intelligence that this was going to happen and he went on vacation and left it happen on his watch. Can we not blame everything on Clinton. Bush is now in power with a rubber stamp congress and look at the mess he has made. I would vote for Hillary she is a smart capable lady and that is why the republicans hate her.

Answer 4

The same way I felt when the republicans stopped CBS from airing the show on Reagan.

The Clinton Administration hasn't been in power for 6 years!

Answer 5

it is fiction and an insult to the 9-11 commission that the victims fought hard to get because Bush didn't want them to know the truth,, taxpayers deserve the facts from the fact-finders, the 9-11 commission,, the docudrama will be another attempt to convince the people to blame Clinton for the failures of Bush

Answer 6

Democrats in office today should be ashamed of themselves!
They only admit to saying anything whenthe think it benefits their party... (it doesn't)
They forget that as politicians, everything they say publicly goes down in history.which I find to be funny, because they are only making a mochary of their own party.....Each and everyone's name is, in the future, going to be an embarassment to the future Democrats who would no doubt, not be so rude or ruthless, or backstabbing.....They have no basis for what they say today about MR. Bush or the way he is handling our government.....
I am sure that their families are ashamed of the way they handle themselves as men/women of this great nation who will not be looked up to in future generations...............For shame!

Answer 7

I think they have the right to voice their disapproval of this movie but I do not think they have a right to censor it. It is basically a fiction anyway. A dramatization is a story based on events that is enhanced for entertainment. That is what this movie is. Lets all watch it and base our opinions on the entertainment value and the acting. Not on the historic value of it.

Answer 8

It's funny how people who are left-wing praise Fahrenheit 9/11 as a screen gem because it displays the Republican Party in a bad light, but when it is the Left's turn they are up in arms about it. What happened to freedom of speech?

Answer 9

Replace Clinton with Bush then the question will be valid.

Answer 10

Yes you're right, the Clinton administration is SO powerful now! *sigh*

Answer 11

Seeing the Bush and Clinton administration actually fight about something is refreshing.