2007-05-08 13:55:48 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Clinton was so bogged down with his own troubles and worries about his "legacy" that he paralyzed his own presidency. so the answer is all of them.
2007-05-08 14:02:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 5⤋
Good question. I have seen some of them saying Obama favors further negotiations with Iran over the nuke issue, but that he won't take military action off the table. Sounds good doesn't it?
Until you consider that he voted against going to Iraq, after the US spent a decade dealing with Saddam before the invasion.
2007-05-09 08:13:38 · answer #2 · answered by Shrink 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The UN is a joke. I pointed this out in a recent question regarding what Democrats are planning to do regarding Iran's refusal to stop making weapons. A lot of good the UN did in asking Sadaam to undergo a weapons inspection. I doubt it's because they didn't say pretty please with sugar on top?
2007-05-09 08:27:06 · answer #3 · answered by Truth B. Told ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
are you able to thrill % out the particular determination he handed over? I save listening to this grievance, yet while finding on the resolutions, I certainly have a difficult time determining which particular one he violated. it may be very powerful in case you ought to % out the two the determination, by ability of huge style or text cloth, and his movements that constituted a violation. that's not meant as a crass comeback...i certainly might want to work out the language. thank you.
2016-10-15 03:46:36 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's not why we went to war and you know it and we would not have about 3500 Americans dead and about 35,000 wounded
and 500,000 Iraqi dead and the countless wounded, in poverty and living is a shithole and lets not forget Afghan,
A democrat President would have keep President Saddam in check before racing off to war, because they have brains unlike the loony coon that you voted far, so the blood is also on your hands!!!!!!
2007-05-08 14:10:18 · answer #5 · answered by man of ape 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Well, ask the first Bush. Didn't he go into Iraq the first time and write in his book that trying to eliminate Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War in 1991 would have "incurred incalculable human and political costs."
2007-05-08 14:01:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
I'm surprised Clinton didn't invite Bin Laden to the white house for a pajama party.
2007-05-08 15:28:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
That depends on how pathetically contained he is. Don't go killing what isn't a danger to you. I think events in Iraq are proving that Saddam is more trouble dead than he was alive. Let him dress up in double breasted suits, fire guns in the air and pooh in gold toilets all he wants, truth was that he couldn't ruffle a single feather on that majestic bald eagle featured in your avatar if he tried.
2007-05-08 14:01:47 · answer #8 · answered by I'll Take That One! 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
I love simplicity... the answer would be ALL of them.. deep down they dont care about America.. its all about self gain.
2007-05-08 14:30:11 · answer #9 · answered by Hannibal 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Too many to count or another 9/11 attack, MAYBE!!!!
2007-05-09 03:13:54 · answer #10 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Simply put, all of them, no matter how many the UN made
2007-05-08 14:01:22 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋