English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Bush used the intelligence that was there before and after his Presidency began.

Source(s):

"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 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 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

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

2006-12-28 06:25:33 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

I'm sure these quotes where based on lies from the Bush administation prior to his taking office, right dems?

2006-12-28 06:31:24 · update #1

Okay, so now its not Bush lied but Bush planned a bad attack. Whatever.

2006-12-28 06:33:47 · update #2

17 answers

When a Democrat says it, it's not a lie. When Bush says it, it is.

(sarcasm)

But seriously, I don't criticize Clinton as much as others have for talking a lot and doing little. Maybe if we had been attacked on his watch, he would have done what Bush did. (No, Iraq did not attack us. But it heightened our awareness of threats around the world.)

But the "Bush lied" canard is pure nonsense.

2006-12-28 06:58:37 · answer #1 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0 3

Yeah, this is all very well and good but you have to understand these people didn't have inspectors on the ground. The Bush white house massaged the avaliable intelligence and lied to the nation in order to go to war. Inspectors were in Iraq before this and found nothing so Bush pulled them out. Instead of worrying about trying to justify the massive mistake that is Iraq why don't you look into the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act and see how the Bush White House is taking our Constitution apart. They're a much more immediate threat than Iraq ever was.

2006-12-28 14:42:47 · answer #2 · answered by anecdoteman1 2 · 4 1

I think that the Clinton Administration showed admirable restraint in not attacking Iraq because they had no proof, only conjecture to go on. It was much more responsible to delay invasion until proof could be found. Obviously, since we now know that what Hussein really had amounted to a hill of beans. I only wish that Bush had showed the same restraint and responsibility in requiring proof positive before attacking over b.s. intelligence. It is very unfortunate, to say the least, that Bush used 9/11 to help support his invasion, and then had no choice but to admit later that Hussein had nothing to do with it. Bush was determined to attack Iraq, with proof, without proof, using trumped up intelligence, it didn't matter. How can anyone have anything but contempt for a President who used the horror of 9/11 to further his own obsession? Clinton, at least, required actual evidence before he would attack another country. Wish we could say the same about Dubya.

2006-12-28 14:34:36 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

it shows that clinton was talk. like all liberals. they will not defend the country and it led to 911.

not only are they cowards but when president bush went out and defended the country they attack him.

clearly the libs cry of "making up the weapons of mass destruction" is a lie, these quotes prove this.

its been known since the beginning. its a tactic. the liberals call other people what they are--they claim other people are lying about wmd while they actually do it

2006-12-28 20:54:37 · answer #4 · answered by my name is call me ishmael 1 · 0 1

the lack of WMDs show clinton did a good job.


http://www.splicedonline.com/patriotfacts/quotes.html
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-- George W. Bush on Kosovo (Houston Chronicle April 9, 1999)


"If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us....That's why we have to be humble. If we're a humble nation they'll respect us."
-- George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

"I'm worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use."
-- George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building....Our military is meant to fight and win war. And when it gets overextended, morale drops."
-- George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

2006-12-28 14:42:17 · answer #5 · answered by kissmy 4 · 3 1

ahhh, now THERE'S a good defense. "Well, my ideas are good and yours suck, so whatever." you sound a 3rd grader, grow up and see that clinton wouldn't have gone to war unless iraq really actually had WMD's and that bush is a moron who planned NOTHING after the invasion. THAT is why i think bush is a moron, not because iraq didn't have wmd's.

2006-12-28 15:12:50 · answer #6 · answered by The Frontrunner 5 · 0 0

1. I must have missed the part where Clinton took us to war in Iraq.
2. Bush had further intelligence which said this was no longer true, but chose to ignore it.

2006-12-28 14:40:14 · answer #7 · answered by capu 5 · 2 2

One important fact you're missing. Non of these people made the horrendous mistake of invading Iraq and totally screwing things up even worse. Think about it.

2006-12-28 14:37:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

Both Bush the elder and the younger were aware that there was a problem in Iraq, yet they did nothing. Where are the WMDs?

2006-12-28 14:29:56 · answer #9 · answered by Preacher 6 · 6 4

almost everything bush says about iraq is a lie. he's stupid anyways.

2006-12-28 14:44:45 · answer #10 · answered by !{¤©¤}! 4 · 4 0

fedest.com, questions and answers