becasue she got the same info that the troops got
2007-02-21 02:41:38 · 14 answers · asked by WMD LIE p 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Hillary was too busy following the crowd. She heard the evidence and voted for it, now she's renegging. Too late Hillary, you're not as good of liar as your husband. Go Obama, he's been consistent with his morals!!!
2007-02-21 02:46:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because it wasn't the popular belief back then. Hilary will only agree to something as long as everyone else agrees with it. She has no brain of her own.
Besides, there were WMD in Iraq.
2007-02-21 10:47:12 · answer #2 · answered by TRUE PATRIOT 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Even though it was obvious as they had none for Gulf War 1 and went downhill from there, she hedged her bets, just in case. That's not leadership, that's taking her husbands advise (which he gave her because he's afraid for her). Not a sensible/good way to run a country.
2007-02-21 10:49:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hillary. Well she needs to take about 1000 steps back.
I Cr 13;8a
2007-02-21 10:51:22 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because there weren't any. Bush manipulated the info HE got.
2007-02-21 11:07:39 · answer #5 · answered by Kookoo Bananas 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There were WMDs in Iraq and So Dam Insane was using them on his own people!
Hillary is as big a crook as her slick willie, lying, cheating husband!
2007-02-21 10:52:45 · answer #6 · answered by Starla_C 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. You're supposed to only look at what that war monger Bush is saying, not Hillary.
2007-02-21 10:49:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
What killed the 180,000 Kurds? The flu?There were WMD'S.And the fact that none were found shows that they were hidden. Otherwise at least some gas would have been found. Bush hatters ignore facts.
2007-02-21 10:57:07 · answer #8 · answered by carolinatinpan 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Heh. Good question.
Maybe when our Idiot King retires to his 100,000 acre "ranch" in Paraguay and hobnobs with Nazis and drug dealers, he'll enlighten us about that whole "WMD" lie.
2007-02-21 10:55:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
She said there were WMD's before she said there were no WMD's.
(Haven't we heard this before from an uber liberal northeast senator running for president?)
2007-02-21 10:49:22 · answer #10 · answered by radical4capitalism 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋