Speaking about Saddam:
"His 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 Bill Clinton
February 17, 1998
2006-12-28 03:51:23 · 21 answers · asked by Abu 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Republican Senate? hahaha. Look how many Democrats voted for use of military force in Iraq in 2002. The Senate is not that lopsided. I guess you are saying Bush is a more persuasive speaker. If Clinton was serious about it he could have gotten it done.
2006-12-28 04:08:31 · update #1
The Clinton policy, on pretty much everything, was "do as little as we can as late as we can"
2006-12-28 03:53:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 5⤋
Clinton did order attacks against Bin Laden. But he wanted to keep things on the downlow. He's a lot like most Democrats, he's too focused on being popular with the people instead of what's best for this nation. He was also distracted by the Monica Lewinski thing and being impeached for lying in court. He did do a lot of good things during his presidency. But I feel If the Bin Laden thing would have been taken care of during his presidency like it should have been, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now. I also feel if the first Bush administration would have taken Saddam out of power when we went over there the first time, we wouldn't be in this situation. I feel that the last two presidencies have a lot to do with what we are dealing with today. Bush had only been in office for 6 to 8 months when we were attacked. He came in with an entirely different plan for this country. This would have happened no matter who the president was. The evidence we saw about Iraq is the reason we are there. It turned out to be false, but I think Bush should be praised for getting that terrorist Saddam Hussein out of power. In case you didn't know, he will be hung in less than 30 days. His policy needs some improvements, but I'm all for finishing the job. People also need to realize that with every long term goal, there will be bumps in the road.
2006-12-28 04:17:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Have you not been paying attention to the news? Do you not see what a CF Iraq has become? He did not want to get the US involved in a war that would be a big mess.He also wanted to be more curious to his successor and his predecessor had been to him. He did not want to start a war and have the next President deal with it the way Bush One had started a war in Somalia and let it for Clinton to finish. Saddam was being kept under control. If he needed to be taken out it should be done by Iraqis.While you are at it why do you not say the same thing about Bush the 1st. He had a chance to get Saddam out but he did not. Or do you only criticize democrats who do the exact same thing as a Republican only you give the Republican a pas.
2006-12-28 04:01:38 · answer #3 · answered by Carlos D 4 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Clinton chose (rightly or wrongly) to work with the UN to maintain and enforce sanctions and no-fly zones in Iraq rather than go to war. During his terms the US flew many, many enforcement runs in the no-fly zones. The comment above was one of the many times Clinton was pushing the UN not to remove or lessen sanctions against his regime. At the time of his presidency it was not believed that Saddam was an imminent danger to the US as there was no proof that he'd yet developed WMDs. Containment and sanctions were viewed as a reasonable solution to his level of threat.
2006-12-28 03:57:41 · answer #4 · answered by Sil 2 · 6⤊ 3⤋
He was also to busy with a republican congress who told him anything he tried to do against terrorism was just trying to get peoples mind off of Monica. And that he was too focused on terrorism.
2006-12-28 04:02:10 · answer #5 · answered by mrlebowski99 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Clinton was a great President who tried to do a lot for this country. He accomplished a great deal and that which he didn't accomplish was due to not having the support from Congress that he needed. Also he was smart enough not to start a war with the proper intelligence or sources needed to win. Look at our country. We are being ridiculed by the world. We are a great nation but we are being run by a chimp.
2006-12-28 04:05:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
He couldn't do anything about Iraq or anything else because he was too busy playing CYA over his numerous trysts with other women and bumping off a whole list of people who could testify against him and his wife.
2006-12-28 04:17:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Clinton told Chris Wallace (look at the confrontation on youtube) that he couldn't get the proper people to okay his efforts to rid the world of Bin Laden. Seriously, go to youtube and watch this. He is clearly frustrated that people like you, and the other little teenagers who know nothing about politics here, hold him to blame for things he wasn't able to get done because his hands were tied while he was president on a few key things.
Why don't we have universal healthcare in the United States? --Because the same sorts of meddlers kept him from being able to get THAT done too, on his watch.
If you are going to come here and sound off on Clinton, at least educate yourself as to what he tried to do, and what he was ALLOWED to do while he was president by his enemies, and passive bureaucracies that tie the hands of anyone trying to get things done.
2006-12-28 03:57:53 · answer #8 · answered by martino 5 · 5⤊ 5⤋
Cause he is not wise, he's a democrat, need I say more? This is something I have to say to the post down there, I just edited this in. It was the WRONG thing!!! Really, so why are the republicans having to clean up all the crap that Clinton left, huh?????? Think about your answer. You democrats believe that you can talk to the terrorist, hmmmm.... why do you think they are terrorist??????? They are willing to die. If Clinton had taken care of business when he was in office all those innocent moms and dads, husbands and wives, sisters and brothers, aunts and uncles, grandparents wouldn't have lost there loves and kids would not be going troughthe death of loved ones.
PS: Remember Monica, he was the president! That was the WRONG thing to.
2006-12-28 03:53:34 · answer #9 · answered by Clearly 1 · 3⤊ 7⤋
He probably favors peace more than war.
2006-12-28 05:11:43 · answer #10 · answered by luvwinz 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well that just proves that talk is cheap. Clinton was offered Bin Laden on several occasions but Bill was busy with "more important" issues. Democrats are not know for their strong stance against an enemy.
2006-12-28 03:57:28 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 6⤋