English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

While we're at it which prominent Democrat said:

#1 "I want you, to hear directly from me what is at stake for America in the Persian Gulf, what we are doing to protect the peace, the security, the freedom we cherish, why we have taken the position we have taken...Those who have questioned the United States in this moment, I would argue, are living only in the moment. They have neither remembered the past nor imagined the future...Saddam Hussein's regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us...And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use his arsenal.

#2 "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."

#3 "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."

2007-08-01 08:35:27 · 8 answers · asked by ? 6 in Politics & Government Politics

None of you are correct...a pity.

bbbriggs...you are simply flat out wrong, since the quote predates the current president.

2007-08-01 11:15:01 · update #1

8 answers

Bill Clinton?

2007-08-01 12:55:15 · answer #1 · answered by Tommy B 6 · 1 0

I would probably go with Hilary Clinton. Of all the Democrats she is the only one with that level of eloquence. In truth, of all the politicians out there she is the only one with that level of eloquence.

I assume this question was to show the hypocrisy of the Democrats. While I certainly agree that they aren't exactly the most trustworthy individuals around (what politician is?), in this case I don't consider it valid. Everyone was lied to about those weapons of mass destruction. To be fair I'm not entirely sure that Bush intentionally lied about those weapons.

I think he honestly thought Saddam Hussein would do that but that Hussein was hiding the weapons very well. I think Bush thought this was the reason his intelligence services were not finding the weapons. I think Bush took a gamble and said they were there; back then which of us wouldn't have thought the odds were with him? I believe that is the major reason no one questioned it when he said this. Even those who were against the war then didn't question whether Hussein had them, only whether he would use them.

Nevertheless, back then almost no one knew the truth for sure (except maybe those in the Bush adminstration upper echelon--maybe not even them). I don't think it is fair to hold it against any Democrat who supported the Bush adminstration and later changed their mind after more evidence came out saying otherwise.

2007-08-01 08:45:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

initially WMDs are no longer merely nuclear weapons they're additionally chemical and organic and organic. additionally there's a confident and no to that question. We did discover 50 loads of enriched uranium (useful for grimy bombs). inspite of the incontrovertible fact that we did no longer discover the chemical weapons that we initially meant to discover. those have been the weapons we gave them years in the past whilst they have been combating Iran. the only factor although is that we knew he did use all of them and the rest we gave him disappeared. there have been comments of the Russians and the Libyans taking them yet they weren't pursued for diplomatic motives. So the WMDs are nevertheless accessible, yet they do no longer seem to be in Iraq anymore. as quickly as our troops landed Hussian in all probability had loads of the WMDs shipped out like how he did along with his fighter planes throughout the time of operation desolate tract hurricane.

2016-10-13 09:34:39 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

I hadn't realized that Saddam was still in power, or that Iraq still had WMDs.....

Because your point could only be relevant to current issues if those were still the case.

Otherwise, you're just doing a history check of what people believed 5 or 10 or 15 years ago -- which is not relevant to any current issues being discussed.

2007-08-01 08:39:25 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1 2

Yawn

2007-08-01 08:38:24 · answer #5 · answered by Follow the money 7 · 0 1

We sure wish they had said he HAD the WMD instead of some talk about denying him the programs to develop them, anyone can do that.

2007-08-01 08:39:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

The one that fell for bushes stupidity.

2007-08-01 08:39:43 · answer #7 · answered by bbbbriggs04 3 · 0 2

hill?

2007-08-01 08:39:33 · answer #8 · answered by evilmonk66 2 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers