http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/ I know you will post without seeing this. You cannot defend the facts.
2007-03-21 03:36:48 · 11 answers · asked by carolinatinpan 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
The fact remains Clinton knew the weapons were there. If not a WMD what killed 180,000 kurds ? we never found the gas. This proves it was hidden. That was pre 911 also. We cannot afford to turn our heads to intell anymore.
2007-03-21 03:53:52 · update #1
Hey Donie the reason Clinton didn't follow up was because he was afraid his poll numbers would drop. All Democrats are cowards. Bush did what had to be done. Thank God Gore wasn't in office on 911. We are at war with Radical Islam. They want you dead. Liberal policies make them hate Americans most. Peace is not possible with these whacko's.
2007-03-21 16:15:29 · update #2
If there were no WMDs in Iraq can somebody please explain the two 'live' mustard gas artillery shells my unit recovered (and I personally saw)?
2007-03-21 05:05:32 · answer #1 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no longer all liberals bash Bush for speaking to God. some human beings purely bash him for the hubris he reflects in questioning that he on my own is conscious what God needs accomplished. no longer all liberals are atheists. Many liberals are Christians. in case you do no longer understand that then, i'd say you particularly are not paying lots interest to the international around you, yet enable a handful of pundits inform you what to think of.
2016-12-15 05:22:52 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Seriously, I thought this was cleared up by now. Saddam has had multiple weapons programs in history. There were ones we gave him in the 80s, ones he made in the 90s, and ones he supposedly made after 2000. The ones made in 98 were taken care of through pressure, sanctions, no-fly zones, inspections, and bombings. Clinton took care of these. Bush then explained that in the 2000s, Saddam started new weapons programs. These weapons were never found.
So your link has nothing to do with the current War, or the weapons we went to war over.
2007-03-21 03:46:42 · answer #3 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Just because you always go off half ****** and put you measly two cents in when you don't know how to defend this President doesn't mean we all do.
As you may have noticed in the article
Troops were NOT put on the Ground and an Occupation DID NOT OCCUR
3218 troops did not die during these strikes.
2007-03-21 04:05:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
/me isn't a liberal..
Clinton murdered people over WMDs that still haven't been proven to exist in Iraq? Hang him high, too! Hell, sanctions on Iraq during Clinton's years killed half a million children, he's responsible for their deaths as well.
Just because Clinton murdered innocents in Iraq doesn't mean Bush has the authority or legitimate reasoning to do so..
2007-03-21 03:44:13 · answer #5 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
That explains why Bush didn't find any WMDS. Clinton took them out for him...
2007-03-21 03:54:28 · answer #6 · answered by Carpe diem 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yawn
2007-03-21 03:47:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Didn't Republicans cry foul when Clinton did that?
2007-03-21 03:43:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
And you Republicans responded with "Wag the Dog!!! Wag the Dog!!!" How short your memory is.
2007-03-21 03:47:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I will be the FIRST to give you what you think you will get.!
2007-03-21 03:41:01 · answer #10 · answered by dianamapley59 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋