Hillary even swore a few years ago that (1) the evidence was consistent that Iraq had WMDs during BOTH Bill's and Bush's presidencies and (2) intelligence agencies of all major countries were in agreement.
Was I an idiot to trust Bill Clinton and Hillary????
I'll never trust either one again.
2007-02-08 08:06:05 · 14 answers · asked by junglejoe 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Oh, we'll need to remind people about this one until election day !!!!!
I trusted both of them too !!
2007-02-08 08:10:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Yeah, people seem to forget that this intelligence was available during the Clinton administration as well. I believe it was 1998 that Clinton made the announcement. Since we didn't invade Iraq until 2003, wouldn't that have given saddam enough time to get rid of these WMD's? How do we know he didn't transport them to Syria or Iran? Is it just coincidental that Iran all of a sudden announced it's enrighment of uranium after we invaded Iraq? Just like for example, a drug dealer knows he's gonna get raided a week before it happens. Do you think this dealer is gonna keep his stash, or is he gonna hide it somewhere else? This is a no brainer.
2007-02-08 08:21:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. The trade towers were attacked under Clinton too. He took care of it...arrested and prisoned the criminals. Bush used the attack on his watch to start a misguided war with Iraq under the pretense of Liberating the Iraqi People. Yes I´d vote for another Clinton. I don´t like the record deficits that Republicans brought us. Clintons veto spending bills. Bush has never used the veto on spending
2016-05-23 22:14:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't want to give you any reasons to trust the Clintons (I don't), but here is something to consider: the President often is privy to information he can't even risk divulging to Congress. I read a very credible report that Saddam shipped his weaponry via truck to Syria. They even tracked the convoys on satellite.
However, for political and security reasons, Bush cannot come out and reveal this information.
It's just like Joseph McCarthy, who is most famous for trying to ferret out Communists from the government (until his massive ego got the best of him, and he started going after Hollywood types). Well guess what? Turns out that he was absolutely right! A newly declassified report called the Venona Report details how we had cracked the Soviets' code they used to communicate with their operatives here.
So, McCarthy already KNEW everything before he even put someone on trial. He had all the communications recorded.
Now I believe the same unfortunate situation faces Bush. He cannot reveal what he knows. He just has to have faith that enough people are sufficiently savvy to realize that he knows what he's doing, and had information we can't even begin to imagine.
2007-02-08 08:19:25 · answer #4 · answered by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Lets add a few more folks that lied during the Clinton adminstration:
John Kerry
Tom Daschle
Ted Kennedy
2007-02-08 08:21:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes you were. And you'd be a hypocrite to say only Bush lies. Both parties have long been in on corporatist wars, not just Republicans. Furthermore, both parties are strongly bought out by oil interests and Israeli lobby, thus have always seeked opportunities to invade the middle east. So the only difference between Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Kerry, Dole, or any other, is that Bush Jr. was lucky to have 9/11 happen in his term.
2007-02-08 08:14:28 · answer #6 · answered by Smartass 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Chem weapons are a form of WMD's,so in essance he was right,just no nuke program....and I remember well on how Saddam kept screwing around the UN weapon inspectors, wich made us all believe he was hidind something more serious.It was when Bill lied to us about having sexual affairs that made me lose his trust.A lie is a lie,and when your the prez thats a no-no.
2007-02-08 08:15:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I know what you mean.
I asked a similar question:
I think people use "Bush lied" as mental shorthand - he said the same things as others did, but he took us to war, and Clinton did not. (See the post immediately below.)
I support the war.
2007-02-08 08:15:49 · answer #8 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Good for you.
I never trusted Bush or Cheney right from the start.
If the Republicans worked with Clinton in the 1990s with Clinton's anti-terrorist initiatives, 9-11 MIGHT NOT HAVE HAPPENED.
Think about THAT.
2007-02-08 08:12:15 · answer #9 · answered by Cut The Crap 2 · 3⤊ 7⤋
If Bill had taken Osama into custody when it was offered to him it would have been nice too.
2007-02-08 08:21:13 · answer #10 · answered by sociald 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
LMAO, you made a great point that the libs will totally not get!
2007-02-08 08:18:46 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋