The UN and Clinton said Iraq had WMD, why the libs don't call'em liars?

Answer 1

Clinton can do no wrong in their eyes

He never lied, he never perjured himself, he never cheated on his wife, he never assaulted or raped anyone, you see.

Answer 2

Your claim seems to be: "Democrats got the same intelligence and reached the same conclusion, so blaming Bush for misleading America is purely political." The conclusion is that if Bush was lying, they must have been lying too.

There is a false assumption underlying this argument, namely that Dems received the same intel as Bush (they didn't), but setting that aside, here are two reasons why this is a straw man:

a) The issue is not whether people believed Saddam had WMD (many did), or whether there was any evidence that he had WMD (there was), it's the fact that Bush and his administration made an absolute, unconditional case with the evidence at hand, brooking no dissent and dismissing doubters inside and outside the government as cowardly or treasonous. That's what "manipulating the intelligence" and "misleading the public" refers to, the knowing exaggeration of the case for war (whether by cherry-picking intel or using defunct intel or by speaking about ambiguous intel in alarming absolutes). There we were, more than a decade after the first gulf war, two years after 9/11, and Saddam hadn’t attacked us, he hadn’t threatened to attack us. And then suddenly, he was the biggest threat to America. A threat that required a massive invasion. A bigger threat than Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran, Bin Laden. A HUGE, IMMEDIATE threat. It simply defied belief.

b) In addition to the fear-mongering described above, the contention that Bush 'misled' the public is not simply about Saddam's WMD, but about the way the administration stormed ahead with their plans and invaded Iraq in the way they did, at the time they did, with the Pollyannaish visions they fed the world, all the while demonizing dissent and smearing their critics.

In both (a) and (b), the crux of the issue is proportionality. Whether or not Bill Clinton or France or the U.N. believed Saddam was a threat, the administration's apocalyptic words and drastic actions (preemptively invading a sovereign nation) were decidedly out of proportion to the level and immediacy of the threat. THAT is the issue.

Answer 3

the genuine subject human beings have isnt a lot WHY we went to conflict, their subject is they cant make the problem, money, and attempt to confirm something by to the top. Esspecially whilst it gets messy and complicated. conflict is conflict, theres no longer something set in stone as to the way issues destroy down, how long it is going to take, and what all there is to be accomplished. Iraq, like countless historic united states, is nearly a can of worms, no you will understand what all is in contact until you open it up. so some distance as commencing this conflict, i think Bush believed there have been weapons of mass distruction, and having a small window of possibility to take out this obvious international possibility, he did so. there are a number of many different the rationalization why saddam and the previous iraq might desire to have been torn aside, yet none of them have been sufficiently vast to hold until now the UN as useful reason to justify a conflict until now the international communicate board. interior the begining there became no person balking on the belief-approximately conflict, no longer until human beings began dying. it is what happens with those damn stinky hippies breed and take over the country. existence isnt neat and tremendously and gorgeous, its approximately protecting whats stable, and combating against whats incorrect. Killing your man or woman human beings is inaccurate, mendacity to the international approximately weapons is inaccurate, and refusing to artwork with UN officers and meet consumer-friendly requests is inaccurate, as is harboring and investment international huge terrorism. The iraqi human beings have an precise to existence freed from dictatorship, yet they werent in a position to offer it by their own skill. Thankfuly there became ONE united states keen to combat for his or her behalf. It isnt the liberals or the conservatives that reason a subject, a lot as people who want to show palms and argue, and that i've got yet to confirm everyone keep away from this type of difficulty.

Answer 4

Ask them, if they were told that an armed force was coming in two months to look for and destroy something in particular that they had, do they believe they would have had enough time to hide it. I think anyone who really believes that there are no WMDs is extremely naive.

What happened to them? Are we to believe that Saddam Hussein used his entire arsenal of chemical and biological weapons on his own people? Are we to believe that the single assault (Operation Desert Fox), during the Clinton Administration destroyed all the technology and facilities for developing chemical and biological weapons along with their complete arsenal?

I believe more realistic theories of they are buried somewhere in the vast desert areas of Iraq or they were transferred to Syria before the initial invasion by allied forces. At least those are the stories some of the POWs are Guitmo said, and credible source or not, definitely more believable than WMDs didn't exist.

Answer 5

Because everything that comes out of the UN or Bill Clinton's mouth is the gospel truth. Just like Al Gore doesn't mention that during the 1992 elections, he tore Bush Sr. up over how he didn't go and "finish the job" in Iraq and get rid of Saddam. Or the letters John Kerry and his buddies wrote Clinton demanding that he do something about Hussain.

They are fine when it is just rhetoric, but when people are actually dying, they prove that they are full of nothing but hot air.

Just like Republicans in Congress that railed against spending, and then went hog wild. Or who preach values and hire hookers. They are just as bad.

Answer 6

Of course Iraq had poison gas at one time, we supplied it to them during the Iran/Iraq war (Reagan administration). Ever see those pictures of D. Rumsfeld visiting with Saddam?The idea at the time was to use Iraq to keep Iran at bay. Later on, after the Kuwait invasion, there was fear that Iraq still had stockpiles of WMD. Weapons inspectors found there were none. Then along came the neocons with their own agendas and spin of the facts.

Answer 7

They went into investigate the claim, (operation desert fox) after the UN inspectors were satisfied that the programs had been dismantled Clinton ceases action.

Bush kicked the weapons inspectors out and proceeded with a war based upon what were found to be unsubstantiated claims.

There was a huge difference as to how the two leaders dealt with intelligence.

Answer 8

Its like you said "Iraq had WMDs" past tense. There is no argument there as it was well documented that Saddam used them against the kurds. But the airstrikes and the UN inspectors as part of UNSCOM destroyed the remaining stockpiles and had nothing left by 2000. This is an ancient question and the answer is equally old.

Answer 9

Because Bush actually did something about it. Clinton saw a threat to our security and ignored it, like good liberals do.

Answer 10

Because Clinton destroyed every one of them (without any proof) with the 100 cruise missiles he randomly delivered to Iraq.

Answer 11

As I've said before, libs are obligated by the DNC Charter to be duplicitous whenever possible.