Did you know that George Bush and Republicans weren't the only ones to think Sadam had WMDs?

Question

Iraq had been suspected of having nuclear weapons since atleast 1998. So why is everyone calling Bush a liar, and not these other people?

"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.

"[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

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 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.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Answer 1

Why is it that Bill Clinton did not invade Iraq while Bush did, Clinton knew the evidence was shaky.

Answer 2

Lots of people thought Saddam had them. And they thought so because that's what they were told. And in the late 1990s, they had no factual data to prove otherwise.

Here is what is different about Bush: there were UN weapons inspectors ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ, they had been there for months, their access had not been impeded, they had received all the documentation they asked for. And they had found nothing. A couple of weeks before they were to make their final report, Bush decided to attack.

The question in my mind has always been, why didn't Bush wait three weeks for the weapons inspectors to finish their work? After all, there was no IMMINENT threat, so why hurry? And the only answer that makes sense is because if he had waited, they would have reported that Saddam had no WMDs and thus negated Bush's excuse for invading. So obviously, Bush had to invade before the inspectors could finish the job, otherwise he would never get support for the attack.

Bush KNEW that the inspectors, in months of poking around, had found nothing. Those who came before him might have suspected, might have assumed, might have believed. Bush KNEW. And he knew that there were no WMDs, which is why he had to attack before the results could be completed.

The weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq at the time make all the difference.

Answer 3

And Clinton did not go in for a full offensive because he was satisfied that threat was confined. 1998 - 2003 ; There's a five year gap there. Things aren't static.

And I don't know why this isn't obvious to everybody yet, but Bush knew damn well there were NO wmds in Iraq. Why? Because if he had seriously thought that, a land invasion would have been totally, and absolutely out of the question.

Answer 4

a million. Saddam killed no longer purely his very own human beings, however the Kurds, Kuwaitis, and Iranians with chemical weaponry. 2. in spite of his deceitful efforts to the alternative, Ambassador Joseph Wilson helped instruct to the CIA that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Niger. 3. Intelligence from distinctive materials indicated a great kind of the weapons have been moved in another u . s . shortly earlier the invasion, because of the fact by skill of the time the coalition attacked, each and every physique knew it grow to be coming. 4. The UN inspectors have been barred from looking the climate maximum strongly suspected of housing chemical weapons, nuclear components, and missile components. Why could Iraq block inspectors from looking everywhere if it had no longer something to conceal?

Answer 5

Sadaam dropped chemical on the Kurds as well as the Iranians in the 80's. Are not chem weapons considered WMD?
And why is Iraq's army of the 80's equipped with Soviet stuff....just a question...

Answer 6

Every major country's intelligence showed it had WMDs and if it did and the terrorist got them how would the liberals be reacting now if Bush had done nothing. It was a chance after 9-11 we could not take.

Answer 7

Given all this and the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, why did Bush ignore Clinton's advise that something was about to happen to the US and needed further investigation?

Answer 8

NO, NO, NO! I'LL NEVER BELIEVE IT! SADDAM WAS A SAINT, UP THERE WITH JESUS AND MOTHER TERESA! THE REAL EVIL IS THE IMPERIALISTIC AMERICAN WAR MACHINE! DEATH TO AMERICA, THE GREAT SATAN!

CLINTON WAS GOD! BUSH IS THE DEVIL! AMERICA SHOULDN'T DO WHATS RIGHT, BUT WHAT IS EASY, AND WHATEVER MAKES THE USA SEEM WEAK, AND OPEN FOR ATTACK (like running away when things got messy in Somalia, or blowing up a baby-food factory in the Sudan in response to terrorist attacks, rather than actually confronting terror... cause you know that could upset the terrorists... and we wouldn't want that would we, better to just leave them alone to plot their next wave of attacks)!

LOL... there's the leftist response...

Answer 9

Yes, I did know that. I also know that rather than attacking Iraq, Clinton applied containment. When Bush got into Baghdad he found that Clinton's containment policy had obviously been working. Chalk up another mistake in a long line of them for Dubya.

Answer 10

IRAQ WAS A THREAT!!!!!!

(CNN) -- 2004 -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/index.html


"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

-Bill Clinton on "Larry King Live" 07/23/2003

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/

Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 Posted: 10:10 AM EDT (1410 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq!


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/