And it was Bill Clinton who made it official US policy to remove Saddam by force and install a new government.
Clinton's 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, and three day bombing campaign, was approved by Congress just as Bush's effort was.
What I think of Democrat leaders is that they depend on their constituents to have short attention spans. They make use of folks with short memories or people who are too young to have been paying attention to news events more than a couple of years ago - like College Students.
2007-02-03 06:42:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by speakeasy 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
I really fail to see your point, that the Democrats were as wrong as the republicans and the intelligence community on Iraq's WMD's? So What? Also it wasn't a specific declaration of war so your arguement is BS there as well. The better point would be to question the alternatives to a massive expensive war that has no clear strategy. We should be asking why ALL options weren't exhausted prior to the commitment of blood and treasure on this ill fated adventure, but hey let's not try critical thinking here, why would we want to do that when simple slogans and finger pointing go so much further in advancing our national interests, now if you want to have a discussion on what we could have done as an alternative to invasion I'm game for that and my answers might suprise you & provide illumination on what far better options we had prior to the war.
2007-02-03 06:51:11
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
both celebration equipment on a nationwide leval is clearly staged so apparently that us of a is a democracy. also 2 partys?????? 1000's of tens of millions of human beings and a pair of activities represents the overall public of those. hmmmm...that would not upload up. this entire media orchestrated liberal vs. conservative is created to divide and conquer and the overall public are eating it up. both Democrats and Republicans obviously have an similar agenda on significant topics and use pretend stupid wedge topics like gay marriage etc... to distract human beings from expenditures that bypass together with the single which states Bush could have sole skill interior the variety of a catastrophic experience...to be determined through Bush. you need to be extra in touch with the prospect of Martial regulation and un ending wars interior the middle east than pretend partism politics.
2016-11-24 21:21:03
·
answer #3
·
answered by chamberland 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
At the time, the political climate was such that anyone who was against the war, was ostracized as being unpatriotic.
Remember the furor over the Dixie Chicks and Michael Moorer's academy award speech?
They taectly and overtly approved the war, to protect their politicl careers.
2007-02-03 06:50:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by MenifeeManiac 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think that they were misled as was the American public and even Colon Powell, even some repuglicans have said they were misled by this administrations and are beginning to break from traditional party politics and join the effort to stop George Bush and his evil agenda.
2007-02-03 08:02:33
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
He was told he COULD go to war. It was a scare tactic to get Saddam to let the inspectors do their job. He went in without a plan for the outcome. Thats the sticky point. How long do we stay and referee a sectarian feud?
2007-02-03 06:43:54
·
answer #6
·
answered by popeyethesadist 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
"W"HY
2007-02-03 06:46:26
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋