Why do Liberals think President Bush lied when they believed Clinton?

Question

Perhaps it is their way of not being confrontational towards their savior Clinton? President Bush used the same intel that Clinton gave him.

Answer 1

because they were not listening to his state of the union speaches, they were paying attention to cigars and blue dresses..... and by their responses they still don't know what you're talking about
Subject: bush lied people died?
> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:54:16 -0400
>
> Halliburton must have spent a fortune paying all these people off!
>
> Quotes from Democrats leading up to 2003 Iraq invasion
>
> "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
> develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
> is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
>
> "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
> want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
> destruction program."
>
> - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
>
> "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
> here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
> chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
> security threat we face."
>
> - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
>
> "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
> since 1983."
>
> - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
>
> "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
> Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
> air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
> the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
> programs."
>
> - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
> Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
>
> "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
> destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
> has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
>
> - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
>
> "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
> destruction and palaces for his cronies."
>
> - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
>
> "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
> programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
> continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
> continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
> licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
> the United States and our allies."
>
> The effort by many Democratic politicians to appear every bit as bellicose
> as their Republican counterparts generated some irresponsible rhetoric.
> Their failure to take a more principle, more critical view of miltiarism
> eliminated the most improtant obstcle to the imperialist adventure in Iraq
> that the second Bush administration was determined to launch even before it
> had defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan. That means that Democrats own a
> share, albeit far less than the Republcians, of the responsibility for the
> quagmire in Iraq and the unfinished war in Afghanistan.
>
> - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
> Dec, 5, 2001.
>
> "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
> threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate
> of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the
> means of delivering them."
>
> - Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
>
> "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
> weapons throughout his country."
>
> - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
>
> "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
> deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
> power."
>
> - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
>
> "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is useing and developing
> weapons of mass destruction."
>
> - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
>
> "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident
> that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological
> weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his
> chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate
> that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
>
> - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
>
> "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
> to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
> that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
> and grave threat to our security."
>
> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
>
> "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
> to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
> next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the
> progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
>
> - Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
>
> "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
> significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
> chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
> refused to do."
>
> - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
>
> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
> Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
> stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
> given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.
> It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue
> to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will
> keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
>
> - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
>
> "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
> Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
> the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout
> question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous
> dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly
> grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And
> now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
> destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
> destruction is real..."
>
> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

who gives a thumb down when i used the words of democrats to make my point? are you retarded?

Answer 2

You are right to a point. The intel was the same up until Bush came into office and Cheney looked for anything and everything he could find to create a link between Iraq and terrorism. The Yellow Cake Uranium story was part of this effort.

Why was this necessary?? Because the prevailing intelligence was not proving the earlier held notions that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, Blix wasn't finding anything either.

Saddam didn't help matters by being evasive and confrontational, but it was probably his only way to tweek the powers that be.

And lastly keep in mind that Clinton's intel stopped after 2000...after that it belongs to Bush...and remember conservatives take responsibility.

Answer 3

Perhaps, the biggest lie that will permeate the nation will take place with the oath swearing in the President. The noise exhibited at that moment is the annunciation of the subversion of the Constitution and that which has been the good contained within the nation. When George W. Bush says the words below he radiates the admission to high crimes and misdemeanors for which he should be impeached,

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God.

for the Constitution does not allow lying to the people. Nor, does it allow the executive branch to declare war on any nation based upon a lie -- not even based upon the truth, for that matter, as only Congress can declare war.

Answer 4

President Bush did no longer make his decision approximately Iraq based on the opinion of those interior the Clinton administration. in certainty that bill Clinton accompanied a coverage of containment concerning Iraq. After Bush invaded Iraq, using manipulated intelligence (he in no way used Clinton's stand as a foundation for invading) to realize this, he chanced on that containment had incredibly been working. No WMDs, as he admitted publicly the day in the past as we communicate. looks Clinton had the stunning thought in spite of everything. somewhat everyone had the comparable opinion approximately Hussein and WMDs, yet to his credit Clinton desperate containment became wiser than military action. Bush, whilst given his risk, took the different action and nicely, all of us understand how that has ended up.

Answer 5

Well, congress and the President all had the same information. Based on what was presented to them, they voted to go to war. Of course, being the armchair quarterbacks they are, they all ducked and run saying Bush lied and that if they knew then what they know now, they would not have voted.

If I knew the Power Ball numbers now, I wouldn't have put down the ones i did the other day. If I had known the results of Sundays car race, I would have bet on that guy to win, instead of the one I did Saturday.

Its easy after the fact because you are not second guessing you have facts in front of you.

Besides, how many times did Bill deny having sex with Monica?????

Answer 6

Clinton never said Hussein was an "imminent threat" or that there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Saddam was a threat, not a big one. After all, we were flying over both his northern and southern borders with impunity (never a single fighter shot down), he clearly had no conventional means of deploying WMDs in the US (his best scud missile could barely reach Israel) and he had no navy. Even a blind man could see he was not an imminent threat.

Answer 7

We knew Clinton lied about Monica and it was disgusting. But it was a personal matter and did not result in 3300 US troops being killed, 25,000 wounded, maybe 200,000 Iraqis being killed and billions of dollars being wasted. It did cost us $50,000,000 because of GOP crusade to impeach Clinton but that's the GOP for ya.

Answer 8

President Clinton told one lie and got impeached for it. Bush rarely tells the truth and the die hard cons love him for it.

Answer 9

WHAT?!? Bush didn't do anything but blame Clinton for every imperfection in the gov't when he took office. There's nothing but gun sales and defense contracts that are better since Clinton left office.

Answer 10

Bush misused the intelligence he was given to LIE us into a war in Iraq.

Answer 11

Well Clinton didn't invade a country leaving it a shambles with his lie.

His lie was about his personal life, and again liberals don't really care about peoples personal lives. No that is the conservatives who try to dictate bedroom behavior.