"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." "
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
will one of you tofu eaters answer the D*&M question and stop the rhetoric, I'd really like to hear an informed response.
2006-09-18 06:39:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by JM 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
The official policy has been regime change since the first war if its possible without destroying the country.Second I wont comment on something I dont know about, so if you will please send me some kind of link that shows how much wmds they had during Clintons term that was verified by Clinton then I will comment. Lastly it doesnt matter who the president is really its still the same ****** up system.
2006-09-18 13:54:50
·
answer #2
·
answered by stephaniemariewalksonwater 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Was Saddam a bad guy? Sure. Did Clinton go into Iraq with an ill fitted army to oust him? No. Was there suspicion of stockpiles of WMD's? Sure. Was he willing to risk destroying an entire country and soldiers lives to find out? No.
Getting rid of Saddam is akin pulling an ugly rock out of a dike, without a backup plan, just because it's ugly.
2006-09-18 13:41:22
·
answer #3
·
answered by auld mom 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
I guess that's the difference between a Democrat and a Republican. As a Democrat, I don't accept anything as instant truth simply because the president says so. I didn't agree with war with Iraq when Clinton was in and any more than with Bush.
2006-09-18 13:45:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by Overt Operative 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
I have never been in favor of invading Iraq. It is apparent that no American president has known the truth about WMD in Iraq.
2006-09-18 13:41:02
·
answer #5
·
answered by beez 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
That was official US policy? That must be why the war started in 2003.
You really need to stop blaming your sorry assed president's failures on the guy who was in office 6 years ago. Has Bush done nothing that entire time?
Maybe you should get your new from somewhere other than the official GPO feed.
2006-09-18 13:41:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by Schmorgen 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
hey look everybody a black republican, and you thought they were extinct, nice avatar. Wake up, even though many democrats did agree with Clinton, the claims of Sadaam having WMDs were proved false. Even your buddy gw knew this. he knew this, but decided to ignore it. The republicans control all three branches of govt as well as outnumber the democratic governors, yet you still want to blame the dems. Pull your head out of your butt, stop watching fox news and try watching pbs or bbc. idiot
2006-09-18 13:42:10
·
answer #7
·
answered by Mike Honcho 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
A lie is a lie. And even if we prove that Clinton lied, it does not excuse Bush's lie.
But based on what each president told us I supported BOTH of them. It was only after Bush's lies became evident that I turned against him.
2006-09-18 13:46:07
·
answer #8
·
answered by a4140145 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
A lot of us were against inavding Iraq from the getgo.
The question conveys a blind trust to a president that has broken that trust.
If Bush were a Democrat,you'd rail hard for his impeachment.
Yes you would (nods head)!
Also,you sounded drunk when you said "i love to (something) to liberals with truth.
2006-09-18 13:43:06
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Liberals will not answer this. This does not fit the Bush is a liar template that they use. Good luck on getting a straight answer. I have asked many questions like this and have never gotten anywhere.
2006-09-18 13:40:18
·
answer #10
·
answered by Chainsaw 6
·
2⤊
0⤋