How would Hilary have handled Iraq if she had been president instead of Bush?

Question

At the time, there were apparently intelligence reports that Saddam did have WMD's (although that turned out not to be true). Still, based on those reports at the time, what would she have done differently?

Just curious about opinions....

Answer 1

THEY ALL WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME THING. THEY WANTED CLINTON TO GO INTO IRAQ BUT HE WAS TOO SCARED. BEING THAT A REPUBLICAN DID THE DEED THEY ARE MAD.


"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.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"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 alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (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, 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. "[W]ithout 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 prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Answer 2

President Hillary Rodham Clinton would not have jumped head first into the abyss of Iraq; instead, like any person with common sense, she would have weighed the risk at the present moment with the risk Iraq posed to the United States before. The evidence did not support an escalation in Iraq's arsenal of WMD's, nor did it provide glaring proof as to whether they actually existed or not. Perhaps, Bush would have seen that if he hadn't been reading the evidence through his novelty beer goggles.

Answer 3

sory but we have been finding the WMD - so yes it was true - would she had done anything differently- well she have had to start it by running for president but oh she never did that - so how can we compare. Remember another thing the Clinton administration wrote a report to bush telling him that Iraq was very dangerous to this country and that military action was gonna be needed soon.

Answer 4

I think she would have taken the same approach as her great husband (he had the same Intel and even talked like he would do something) and done nothing at all. Even if someone attacked (like on 9/11) I don't think she would have done a thing. I don't think that using the military is something that the libs feel is to be used because someone might die. It is a nice view but it is not based in reality.

Answer 5

I don't think we would be in Iraq right now, because she would not have manipulated intelligence to give her the excuse she needed to go into Iraq. If 9/11 had happened, she would've concentrated on getting those responsible first.

Even if Saddam did have WMDs with her as President, I think she would've tried every last diplomatic option first before attacking, and made sure that we had real international support before going in.

Answer 6

I'm not sure of the handleing as far as entering the war would have been different but I believe the exiting that nation and leaving the unrest of civil war to them would have been handled diffrently. Instead of prolonging I think getting out would be the topic instead of "send more". How that would be handled is WAY over my head.

Answer 7

Well, she voted to send the troops to Iraq, and also voted to instate and to reinstate the Patriot Act.

So what does this tell you? Like all the other left-wing kooks put there, she doesn't give a rip about the troops. She's just conforming to the left wing hidden agenda: "Bring home the troops (so Bush will fail).

Answer 8

I would like to think that instead of invading Iraq as Bush did that she would have attempted to impose stronger sanctions against Saddam!

Bush told the American Public that "War with Iraq would be his Last Resort" - Then two weeks later after he had passed out all of those No Bid contracts to his friends and fellow contributors - he decided to Invade the country and go to war!

This was was one of the mose un-necessary wars that this country has ever been involved in - Thanks to our Village Idiot - George Warprofits Bush!

Answer 9

Well its actually hard to say what she would or would not have done. Shes always been supportive of the presidents strategy. I think she might have some ideas about it that she isnt commenting on because of her close affilliation to Bill Clinton. During his presidency he actually oversaw quite a bit of military action in Afghanistan and Syria but that was all overshadowed by Monica Lewinsky.

Answer 10

President Bush is handling Iraq.
hillary would have fondled Iraq.

Answer 11

OK ,,,the skinny is,,she would be smarter than bush,,,need i say more,,,ignorance only works for the repugs and bushter,,,,now and for the time he is ,,,unchecked by the brain,,,,,cheers civilian