yes...good question...as stated today on the history channel...hmmm seems Dem's forgot to elicit their legal eagles to thwart the history channel
2006-09-10 09:39:32
·
answer #1
·
answered by bushfan88 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Because, as Clinton said, Iraq was the greatest threat to the US and to international stability.
The only thing that changed after Clinton/Congress made the Iraq Liberation Act and bombed the hell outta that country is...
Saddam laughed, kicked sand at Clinton and said, "Is THAT all you got?? No, I'm NOT letting the inspectors back in so kiss my fuzzy behind."
Clinton's miserable failure was an embarassment to the US.
Bush got the job done. That is why Democrats are freaking out and trying to defeat the US now. Can't have a Republican succeeding at what they insisted had to be done but failed to accomplish.
2006-09-10 16:36:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by speakeasy 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
In point of fact, Iraq did have WMD's, as the liberals know very well despite their current denials; satellite photos clearly showed them. Clinton's '98 bombing of the country was intended to make himself look tough on foreign policy, and to distract attention from the Congressional impeachment inquiry.
2006-09-10 16:32:20
·
answer #3
·
answered by nacmanpriscasellers 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
To a liberal, its irrelevant that Clinton attacked Iraq for the same exact reason that George Bush did. Its irrelevant that every intelligence agency in the world said that Iraq had WMD. To a liberal, its irrelevant that the world changed on 9/11, that America was attacked on its own soil and that the US had to change its policies to be pre -emptive to insure the security of our country. They also forget that Iraq did not honor the terms of its surrender to the first gulf war. Every time they tried to launch missiles at our fighter planes in the no fly zone, they were committing an act of war that Clinton chose to ignore.
2006-09-10 16:38:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
"His (Saddam Hussein) regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.
What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?
Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998 http://www.cnn.com/allpolitics/1998/02/1...
2006-09-10 16:51:10
·
answer #5
·
answered by scarlettt_ohara 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
HE WANTED OIL!!!!!!
------
the reason the Bush supporters are not attacking this question, is because we realize it was asked solely to show the hypocrisy of the liberal mindset. We know, that Clinton, nor Bush lied about WMD.
2006-09-10 16:29:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Is this another "Bush is God" rant, a "Lefties Suck, Righties Rule" rant, or a "Clinton did it, so Bush can too" rant? Tell me right now, and MAYBE I'll feed that monkey on your back with an equally immature response.
2006-09-10 16:36:10
·
answer #7
·
answered by Huey Freeman 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Terrific point. It doesn't surprise me the Bush Bashers aren't attacking you for this question. When an intelligent question is asked, the Bush haters have nothing. I applaud your question.
2006-09-10 16:36:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 1
·
2⤊
0⤋
Why did Sadam lie about having destroyed them?
2006-09-10 16:33:13
·
answer #9
·
answered by WheeeeWhaaaaa 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
stop the Clinton blame game,, it won't work,, Bush has to be accountable,, he has to take responsibility for his failures,,,
2006-09-10 16:31:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋