Why did the left believe President Clinton about Saddam having WMD's and backed him when he attacked Iraq?

Question

Yet they want to say President Bush lied?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

I guess Clinton was after oil as well?

Obviously someone can't read Clintons state of the union speech stating why he is attacking Iraq.READ PEOPLE.

Answer 1

I just read the site you posted and I myself forgot about that.Thanks for the refresher course.I think many of us had forgotten him bombing Iraq,some said it was an aspirin factory didn't they?Its like Hillary now saying that Saddam didn't have WMD's so I guess shes calling her husband a liar..,oh thats right,she is married to "I didn't have sex with that woman,Miss Lewinski".

Answer 2

Obviously Clinton knew Saddams WMD porograms had been destroyed, the attack was to force resumption of inspections, not a pretext to occupy Iraq.

Per posted link:

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

When Bush attacked to occupy Iraq weapons inspectors were working in Iraq and finding Iraq compliant.

Answer 3

because they're politically biased. imagine if this oil spill got here about in the course of the Bush administration and Bush reacted an similar way Obama has. There will be an orgy of anti Bush sentiment everywhere in the television and the media will be showing us each oily chook, useless fish, and out of work kin hugging one yet another and crying alongside with emotional music and definitely each hollywood leftist would come slithering out of their multi million money mansions to spew their venom at Bush and blame him in my opinion for the spill. In a nutshell, they're hypocrites.

Answer 4

I'm not aware of Clinton attacking Iraq. He sent bombers after Osama for attacks on our embassies in Africa. George Bush Sr. was in office when we went after Saddam for invading Kuwait, which is our ally, and Saudi Arabia was afraid they would be invaded next and asked for our protection. It was in our countrys interest for security. I think that our polititians knew that the evidence on weapons of mass destruction were shakey, but wanted to bring Saddam down, I'm not sure why. They knew after 9-11 that the atmosphere was right in the country to get the approval they needed to get the invasion approved. I would feel much safer if we had spent all these million making our border safer. I read and try to figure out things. You can't listen to the left or right hype, democrat or republican, and get the truth. They play games to get elected and for their own agenda.

Answer 5

The difference is primarily with the action taken. The Clinton Administration ordered bomb raids on weapon sites, not a full scale invasion. As I recall, Clinton recieved a lot of criticism from the right for his actions. many claimed he was attempting to cover up the Monica Lewinsky thing by distracting people with military action. It all really breaks down to who was and is in power.

Answer 6

Facts have nothing to do with this.It is all about Democrats regaining power even to the detriment of our country.Saddam had WMDs he shipped them into Syria.The Govt knows this and the Democrats know it as well.Bush's idea ,I think was to take Afganistan and Iraq and thereby putting Iran between the two where we can launch offensives.

Answer 7

It doesn't matter. The situation in 1998, or the perceived situation in Iraq, has nothing to do with intelligence estimates and information gathered over the subsequent 5 years.

Answer 8

clinton had to say it , whether he believed it or not. the suspicion of saddam having wmd's justified our middle east policy. we had saddam in a position that was very advantageous to us. we had world approval to enforce no fly zones, keep weapons inspectors in iraq, bomb anything in iraq that we wanted, and keep saddam under a microscope. saddam, in power, was also a buffer against iran. our policy ,under clinton, maintained a fairly stable mid east.

if clinton had said, saddam has no wmd's, he is no threat, how could we justify continuing our policy that was working well?

Answer 9

Clinton could do no wrong in the eyes of the libs. They even gave him their daughters and wife's for his sexual pleasure. They didn't mind. They said it was OK.

Answer 10

he didn't attack iraq or believe that b s about wmd . iraq attack kuwait and we went to help or allies.