Both houses of Congress voted for 23 writs authorizing the war with Iraq, why do the DEMS forget this fact?

Question

"Both houses of Congress voted for 23 writs authorizing the war with Iraq—a post-9/11 confirmation of the official policy of regime change in Iraq that President Clinton originated. Supporters of the war included 70 percent of the American public in April 2003; the majority of NATO members; a coalition with more participants than the United Nations alliance had in the Korean War; and a host of politicians and pundits as diverse as Joe Biden, William F. Buckley, Wesley Clark, Hillary Clinton, Francis Fukuyama, Kenneth Pollack, Harry Reid, Andrew Sullivan, Thomas Friedman, and George Will." (NYTimes, 12 Jul 2007, VD Hanson)

Can former President Bill Clinton speak to the fact that it was his administration that initiated the regime change policy for Saddam Hussein's Iraq?

Clearly the regime change of the dangerous Saddam Hussein regime was not only determined, but also feasible. Nice quotes Rukidding.

Answer 1

It's convenient! Here are some quotes to add to your facts:


"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 Bill 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 Bill 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:
-- Democratic Senators 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."
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 th! e 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (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."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his 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

Answer 2

Just in case you didn't notice, 1933-80 were some of the most prosperous years for the vast majority of Americans in our Nation's history. And there were three Republican Presidents in there. Dwight Eisenhower, 1953-61, Richard Nixon, 1969-75 and Gerald Ford, 1975-77. Of course, all of them were Commies by today's standards, but they were considered Conservatives back in the day. Nor, is a one party system, the only alternative. The Republicans could become a third Party again, while a more Populist Party steps up to the plate. To provide a balance to the nuttier Dem ideas. Cutting our losses in Iraq, which is only necessary because Bush refused to accept the Victory we had back in '03, is worth doing on its own account and let the chips fall where they may. Enough Republicans are starting to show willing to put Patriotism over Party to make it look like a possibility. In the end, the Party that puts America First will dominate the next 50 years. And, on most of the issues, Iraq, Free Trade at all costs, deficit spending, Health Care, immigration, National Security and a host of others--it ain't looking like being the Republicans.

Answer 3

Dems always conveniently forget what there stance was on an issue when they want to make a case about failed legislation. Take Hilary for example. She voted yes to invading Iraq, but would you ever know that listening to her know. No, because she won't accept the fact that she voted in favor. If she did, then she would have no ammo to go after the White House with. She changes her mind on issues more often than a runway model changes clothes. It is a joke.

Answer 4

They don't.

That's why the "Bush lied" screed is so very important. It excuses thier past aproval of the war, leaving them free to criticize it.

Were the war to miraculously turn around and become a glorious victory, they'd change thier tune.

It's just politics. Just spin. Don't take it too seriously.

Answer 5

It is a lot easier to point the finger than to except any responsibility. As was stated above, if there was a turn around, they would change their tune. Talk about flip- floppers. You mentioned a bunch of them. How quickly people seem to forget.

Answer 6

The polls said it was OK at the time....they are poll driven..if the polls said it was popular for a politician to have purple hair...Hillary would be the 1st to get one.

Answer 7

MAJOR DITTOS TO RUKIDDING!! His answer speaks volumes about the Hyprocrisy of the Liberal Democrats! They jaws flap but nothing important ever comes out!!

Answer 8

George Bush was the responsible party because he lied his way into the vote that authorized him to start the Iraq War.

Answer 9

Is that the only argument that conservatives can come up with? Why do they keep saying because Clinton done it, it's alright if Bush does it. 2 wrongs never make a right. So all in all it's no excuse.

Answer 10

times change