Y!A Libs, why are you opposed to these statements by the President regarding Iraq?

Question

#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."

For all those who suggested that the statements were lies, are they impeachable offenses?

Dear Y!A Libs. You may want to adjust your answer. The quotes in my question by "the President" were made by Bill Clinton in 1998, not George Bush. It seems that your answer was directed at George Bush. I offer you this opportunity to adjust your answer.

Be sure to add your update to the bottom of your answer, rather than changing any of your original text, so that folks can see how you updated your original answer. I've saved your original answer, and I'll be happy to include a note at the bottom of my original if there is an error.

Be sure to explain how you believe that the quotes in the question were true before Clinton bombed Iraq, and false afterwards.

Witness the hypocrisy of the Y!A Libs!

pink angel, Socrates, Eyota Xin, m d, Deidre K, Mr. Taco, dadacoolone, Rosebee, delphi, grumpy, none of them had the guts to come back her and adjust their answer. Hypocrites all. I sent them two emails with details,.they just ran away from their own foolishness.

Note how "justgrandma", "sprcpt", and "Chi Guy" say the offense is impeachable, except when the Dems do it, And oh by the way, granny thinks that the Dems thwarted Saddam. Funny, I don't recall an announcement from Clinton that the threat of WMD was gone. In fact, both Hillary and Bill and *ALL* the Dems said Saddam *STILL* had WMD in 2002. I don't recall these folks calling for the impeachment of Clinton when he bombed the snot out of Bagdhad in '98. Hypocrites all.

xialou1 says its a good yuck, but can't admit his own hypocrisy. His only retort is liberal hedonistic orgies. Pity.

KooKoo Bananas, and hichefheidi stuck with the lunacy of the left. But we all knew them to be loons....

Answer 1

I bet you won't get any honest answers from libs!

Answer 2

1. Ya wanna talk about living in the moment? The terrorist threat was no where near as great while Saddam Hussein was in power as it is now. He had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with al-Qaeda and no weapons of mass destruction. Bush sent far too few U.S. troops into Iraq with no plan for post invasion anti-insurgency measures though he was warned repeatedly of the danger. If Saddam was a threat to his people, the region...etc. he had been for some time and gave no indication of becoming more threatening between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. Odd that at the beginning of a new "war on terror" Bush would pick an unnecessary battle. 2. I don't remember Saddam rejecting peace. The U.N. inspectors reported that he had no W.M.D.s, the U.S. intelligence community confirmed it, Bush sent the troops in anyway. He and his cabinet were determined to find a rationale for the invasion long before 9/11. Read The Price of Loyalty by Ron Susskind. 3. One way, not the other Bush was determined to secure the Iraqi oil fields for Exxon Mobil and keep them from Russia, China and the Iraqi people. That (and distraction from his shredding of the Constitution and the civil liberties of U.S. citizens) was always his bottom line.

Answer 3

Because he lied.
Aren't you tired of being lied to? Doesn't it bother you?
Have we given them safety and stability? Saddam is dead, do you feel any safer?
There were no weapons of mass destruction, not a one, a fact that Bush ignored and downplayed while making his case for war. There were none and we knew it because the UN inspectors were on the ground and they reported it was nonexistent and we ignored it or overlooked it and pretended we knew for a fact things that were not in evidence, and in some cases there was strong evidence that it was the opposite.
He lied, and if he didn't know he was lying, that's even worse in a way than knowing and doing it anyway, and it doesn't bother you, I just don't understand that. The lie isn't just a political thing or a Dem v. Rep, or lib v. con. The man either had no idea what he was saying and was duped or he knowingly lied to get us into a war. History has proven that.
The results of his march to war has left us split from each other and the rest of the world. Its inspired terrorists to new recruits. Its cost us untold billions even while our country is falling into the rivers.
Edit.
It is truly an impeachable offense, it certain rises to the standard of High Crimes, and Misdemeanors. But Bush has a stooge in our hightest crime fighter and defender of the Contstituion, the man without a memory, Gonzales.
And a Supreme Court packed with appointees who weren't so much brilliant legal minds as good friends with the Boss.
So don't look for much action there. Its only 546 days left of Bush. Not worth it unless he declares himself a king.

You are aware that during the Clinton administration, there was work going on on WMDs, the climate and the ability to continue with those plans were put on hold by the UN inspectors. During Clintons tenure, Saddam was thwarted by policies designed to insure that the weapons would not be made or available for the next administration to deal with. Bush ignored this and lied about Saddams capabilities. Its not that Saddam never had the ability or the will its that by the time Bush took office they weren't there anymore. Bush deliberately raised a paper tiger to scare people into going to war, and anyone who disagreed with him was labeled unpatriotic.

Answer 4

1. Bombing for peace is like screwing for virginity.
"Someday he will use his arsenal" What arsenal?

2. WMD did not exist.

3. see #2

No one ever said that he wasn't a mean evil dictator, but at least he kept a lid on religious extremists otherwise known as terrorists. He executed them on a regular basis.

Edit - Although we now know that these allegations are false, without releasing official information to the congressional investigations and or the public, there is no way to prove one way or another what the administration did or did not know beforehand other than the hearsay from multiple ousted advisers that indicates that Bush knew full well that these were false.

If this were provable, which seems unlikely due to the BS executive privilege assertion, this would definitely be grounds for impeachment. There is no executive privilege when it comes to criminal acts.

If you are looking for an impeachable offense, the low hanging fruit for an easy impeachment is the warrentless wire taps.

Our administration admitting this crime and these were declared unconstitutional by the supreme court.

Edit 2 - It is irrelevant that these allegations were presented in more than one presidency. Every single excuse for the second invasion of Iraq has been since proven false.

Furthermore, the intel that came from Britain on the Uranium issue came with the caveat that the source was far from reliable. The source was aptly code named "screwball" due to his reliability issues.

Taking out radar tracking facilities as well as anti aircraft missle instilations under Clinton was justifiable as a defensive measure for our air patrols.

Answer 5

Simple, because he LIED about them trying to purchase uranium. Also, Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attack as Cheney claims. Plus, Iraq was the natural deterrent to Iran. And, America's most pressing enemy, Osama Ben Ladin, hated Saddam making the feeling mutual. AND, the US was making great progress in Afghanistan against the Taliban that gave Al-Q a safe haven to train and plan their attack (key word=WAS). Thus, Bush's failed efforts have been extremely counter productive to the war against Al-Q.

The war on terror is NOT a question of political party or acting tough. Its simply a question of prudent strategy. All of the speeches in the world won't transform Bush's lemon of a war into lemonade.

PS I'll take BA when available. Thanks...


edit: I think that Rove has played the game well enough to afford Bush a weasel worded way out. He can simply say, the Brits said it was true and so forth...

edit: Great decoy. Even though it was Clinton, this does not effect my response other than replacing he LIED with Bush LIED (first line above). Nothing excuses lying about uranium buys, mobile chem labs, and aluminum tubes that could not be used to enrich uranium as was claimed.

Answer 6

I don't have a problem with invading Iraq, never did, and I fully admit that Saddam was a bad man and needed to be taken out of power.

I don't like how 'terrorist' and 'Al queda' and the fear tacktics were used to convince that we americans were protecting ourselves by invading Iraq.

hell if Bush just came out and said, "I'm taking the US forces and going after the man who tried to kill my father, and would like your support in doing so" I might of actually voted for him in his second election.

oh and #2 & #3 I'm still waiting on those WMD's to show up. I'm actually shocked that we didn't plant them once we invaded just to prove his point.

Answer 7

Well now don't do that.... how can they go beat the drums of "Bush always lies" if you bother them with facts? They will disagree with you and say that cute little dictator Saddam was never a threat to anyone (they don't believe Iraqi citizens and Kurds are real people)

Answer 8

Why? Because they are untrue statements. How do you diminish a threat that doesn't exist? There WERE NO WMDs! Since Bush said those statements, he has even admitted it. So how can the arsenal be used against us when it didn't even exist? And how do we protect the security of the people of Iraq by starting a civil war that has so far killed tens of thousands of them? And how do we protect OUR security by destroying the stability of a country in a volatile area, causing it to become overrun by terrorists?

It is all a lie. That is OUR bottom line.

Answer 9

They are all lies, Iraq was no threat to anyone except their own people, and that is nothing new..... The UN did not support the war because there was no threat...... it was created by the neocons.......

also we are not free here in america....
we can not do drugs, we have to wear seatbelts and helmets against our will.... why cant gays marry? or abortionists do as they like,,,,,,, we have some freedoms,,,,, but we are not free




haha you got me....... you are so smart..... 2 kudos to you but you are still brainwashed ..... try more sex,,,, more than one partner,,, and try loving a woman stronger than you.... love will cure conservativism,,,,,,,

Answer 10

OK LIB'S Get with the program here. Deal with it and drive on. Quit your sniveling and crying and grow up.

Answer 11

"what we are doing to protect the peace, the security, the freedom we cherish"

I love this one. How in the world is blowing up 20,000 people making them "free"? I don't see how Cons can be so arrogant to think everyone has the same definition of "freedom" as the western world.