and drafted war plans, but never did anything? Why did liberals agree and confirmed it to be true and believed the intelligence reports during the Clinton Administration that Saddam had WMD and never did anything?
Were they waiting to be reactive again?
2006-10-25 05:43:50 · 10 answers · asked by on_themountain_top 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Regime change was US government policy since 1998.
To be fair, one could say that people did not take the threats against America seriously enough until 9/11. Maybe a Democrat would have taken the same course in Iraq as Bush did - responding to treaty violations and working to pre-empt threats. Possible, however unlikely, given the Democrats' relative lack of support for the war.
I'm no Clinton fan, but there's another point of view.
2006-10-25 05:49:36 · answer #1 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I STILL agree that regime change was necessary in Iraq. Saddam was a nasty rotten scoundrel.
Clearly, this wasn't the time - and this wasn't the leader.
Let's see now, nearly 3000 Americans have died, and at the same time, nearly as many Iraqis have died as died under Saddam.
When Bush says liberate the Iraqi people, does he mean from this Earth? Because that's the way it seems to be working now.
Thus, your "reactive" jab means nothing, because "pre-emptive" has been nothing but a disaster.
2006-10-25 05:51:06 · answer #2 · answered by WBrian_28 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush began his administration in January 2001 with national risk-free practices Council discussions centred on regime exchange in Iraq, making plans an invasion and invisioning the occupation technique and factors, such by way of fact the distribution of oil wealth. for sure it quite is not common contingency making plans, by way of fact the making plans in touch the optimal stages of the administration: George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Iraqi national Congress, Colin Powell, George guideline, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill, and Richard B. Myers. data jointly with those make Bush modern-day assertions that the alternative became made with Congress using the comparable intelligence total insufficient. no longer even a number of his defenders have self belief he became telling the reality approximately Iraq. This week, Democrats have been provided an risk to step out of their silent help for the conflict in Iraq. between the Democratic hawks from blue collar twelfth Congressional District in Pennsylvania surrounding Pittsburgh, John Murtha, a retired and extraordinarily embellished Marine veteran says its time to get the troops out of Iraq now. In reviewing the debate on the two facets of the argument approximately what to do in Iraq, it quite is sparkling there is quite little information of Murtha's factor.
2016-10-16 09:47:10 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have a question for YOU. Why do you assume that all liberals or leftists supported Clinton? I felt that his support of free trade and his lack of an immigration policy were god awful. Awful enough to make me a life long supporter of third parties. I have been voting Greens, reform, and Libertarian parties for years. And yes, Clinton did not do a stand up job when it came to foreign policy. Especially with his botched attempt at taking out Bin Laden with missles. I am an old political science graduate with an emphasis in international relations. I followed those events as they happened in the 1990's.
2006-10-25 05:49:45 · answer #4 · answered by cannonball 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
just before the Iraqi war Hans Blix FINALLY gave the final answer that ther was no WMD Clinton probably would not have gone to war with the info Hans had
2006-10-25 05:55:59 · answer #5 · answered by jpknute1 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We want to trust what our government tells us. We want to get along and help others. But, we don't like being lied to and manipulated. If you want the cooperation of people, tell us the truth and let us decide for ourselves.
The US has war plans against most every country in the world (if we don't, we should). It is only prudent to do so.
And, any statement that has "all" in it about a diverse group of people is surely wrong, especially when it comes to politics.
2006-10-25 05:47:48 · answer #6 · answered by Your Best Fiend 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
why has dishonesty and fudging become one of the hall marks of a once great party.this is revisionist thank god we would not have to hear "stay the course" any more
2006-10-25 05:51:23 · answer #7 · answered by miraclehand2020 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Faulty intelligence, and the ability to admit when wrong. Now, if only we could get Bush to do the same...
2006-10-25 05:45:37 · answer #8 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Lol not it was because we knew he wasnt a real threat.
2006-10-25 05:45:24 · answer #9 · answered by stephaniemariewalksonwater 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
They would rather switch than fight.
2006-10-25 05:46:07 · answer #10 · answered by Have gun, will travel. 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋