Liberals say that we should NOT be in Iraq.?

Question

Im confused, which one is it today?
"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 Bill 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 Bill 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

These are just a few quotes that I have. Why cant you make up your mind?

More quotes for the ignorant
"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 weapons 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, tha

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons 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 pr

Answer 1

you are preaching to the quire here...
They will never listen.
They only know there tired old diatribe.
No use even trying to show them intelligence. They don't argue with intelligence...they argue with emotion.
That is why they will continue to lose.

Answer 2

Yes, they all supported the President going to war, then when the WMD's were not found in huge quantities (there were WMD's found, but not in the massive stockpiles expected) they felt they were lied too and now discount earlier endorsements. WMD's were not the only reasons why we should go in and take out that jerk SADAMM..since the gulf War, our aircraft have been continuously fired upon by IRAQI aircraft, and although Saddamm is not considered to have been involved in 9/11, he was meeting with AL Quaida, HAMAS, Hezbollah and others terrorists groups regularly and giving them money to conduct suicide raids on ISRAEL. The problem with Democrats is backbone..they do not have any. They would rather cut and run then stay and get the job done right. We never lost VIETNAM, but the antiwar crowd turned our national will to abandon VIETNAM just as we neared total victory or at least a lasting agreement with the North. (they didn't go to the peace talks becuase they were winning, but because NIXON's bombing campaign was actually working). The democrats talk a good line about compassion...but they really didn't seem to give a **** about the IRAQUIIS under this oppressive regime of Sadamm...We are the champion for freedom in the world, and if Democrats had shut up for a while, we would maybe already be out of IRAQ. their naysaying and constant whining is what emboldens the insurgency to keep fighting even though they could have had a very benevolent occupation force willing to rebuilt IRAQ if they would stop attacks. The insurgency hopes to keep draining our national will and encourage Democrats to continue to flap their jaws until we cut and run again like Vietnam.

Answer 3

I was there in 1997-98.... Eskan Village Saudi Arabia... WERE YOU?

Saddam kicked the UN Inspectors out of Iraq... In addition he was threatening to shoot down a U-2 Plane that was flying missions over Iraq supporting Operation Southern Watch...

At this point the UN was involved. After the Inspectors were kicked out Iraq suffered huge sanctions from the UN....

In 2002 The UN Inspectors were allowed back into Iraq.... They were still inspecting when the first Bombs went off to start the war....

Saddam did not want any American or British Inspectors... So don't use any....

The UN Denied Bush The Authorization to Attack Iraq....

As I recall he said that he did not need a permission slip....

HE invaded and found nothing..... What a fool.....

Answer 4

You're comparing apples to oranges right now, 1998 and 2006 are two different times..... Where we should be is trying to find the man that caused 9-11 and last time I checked it wasn't Saddam.. last time I checked Saddam was Bin Laden's biggest enemy... funny how that all worked out. We caught Saddam but Bin Laden is still somewhere to carry out another threat on the US, while Saddam was just over there killing his own people and not bothering us. Oh but that's right Bin Laden is probably dead because he was on dialysis and all so we don't need to waste our time finding that terrorist when we can just make thousands of new ones in Iraq after we kill children's families by mistake during our war and they grow up to hate the US. So no we shouldn't be in Iraq, we should have dealt with the situation at hand.

Answer 5

Way to go MoMatt! This guy has his stock answers stored up. Nothing but Old Democrat quotes. Today is reality. Forget that Rumsfield was on the board of directors in 2001, that sold the materials to N. Korea. That your same hero's sold all the weapons originally to Saddam back in the 90's.

Answer 6

It is not just liberals who don't beleive we should be in Iraq. Your use of the term to describe anti-war sentiment held by some people shows how small-minded you are. Try watching some other news besides Fox.

We shouldn't be in Iraq because pre-emptive strikes have opened the door for any nation that is more powerful than another nation to attack it based on a perceived threat, without proof. It sets a dangerous precedent, and now it is our reality.

Hopefully China never perceives the US as a threat or they may be justified (by your logic) to invade the US. Pucker up to kiss some major Chinese ^**.

Answer 7

Similary one could ask Republicans why they think we should removed Saddam from power, when our Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, was photographed shaking Saddams hand in Bagdad and supplied military support to him in Iraq's war against Iran? If it was a good idea to take out Saddam in 2002 why wasn't it a good idea when Bush I had the chance in the first Gulf War.

Answer 8

I'm as confused as any one ,,, i wished i knew how to solve all this mess not only Iraq but in Africa , China , korea , Mexico , and all the other places where people are being slaughtered daily , mankind is not very kind , but what bothers me more than anything is most people want the same thing i want , peace and happiness , but the minority is causing all the problems and everyone is pointing their fingers at the other guy saying its their fault so who do we believe ?? Each of us have to do our best to be honorable /// I would not want to be the responability of the welfare of any country ??

Answer 9

Exactly. Saddam stopped his nuclear program due to Clinto's and the UN's sanctions. Clinton was successful! Even the cherry picked national intelligence estimate right before the Iraq war did not say Saddam had nuclear weapons, it said he could have them by 2010, the end of the decade. Saddam allowed inspectors into his facilities for several months before Bush invaded, they found nothing and asked for more time. Bush had no intention of stopping his invasion plans and the inspectors were ordered out of the country. By contrast Kim proudly announced at the beginning of 2003 that he was restarting his program, and Bush did nothing despite well documented reports that Kim was purchasing plutonium and ramping up his program.

Answer 10

“You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.”

George W. Bush

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --George W. Bush, Sept. 6, 2006

"I aim to be a competitive nation." --George W. Bush, April 21, 2006

I can keep going too!

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." –President Bush, May 2, 2003

"Had we to do it over again, we would look at the consequences of catastrophic success, being so successful so fast that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped and lived to fight another day." —President Bush, Aug. 2004

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." —President Bush, discussing the Iraq war with Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, after Robertson told him he should prepare the American people for casualties. March 2003

And, finally...

"I strongly believe what we're doing is the right thing. If I didn't believe it -- I'm going to repeat what I said before -- I'd pull the troops out, nor if I believed we could win, I would pull the troops out." --George W. Bush, April 6, 2006

Answer 11

Cause Sadam Hussein DID have weapons of mass destruction in the 90's. Then he destroyed them, under the orders of the UN. That is what Clinton was talking about - not invading a country based on faulty intelligence, then lying about it, imposing "democracy" on people who probably don't want it, and never EVER admitting you're wrong about anything, ever.