Why do liberals and dems think its OK for Bill Clinton to go to war with Iraq over the same issues that?

Question

Bush did BUT it's not OK for Bush to do it? I know libs just hate to deal with those little details like facts... but here it is:

Is CNN OK for you.... and your boy Billy good enough sources?

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.

Whats that kids? Without delay, DIPLOMACY or warning?

"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president

What was that?

If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.


In other words... we need to stand strong?

Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.

"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."

Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.

Well now that is interesting... I thought he was a non-threat to anyone...

How can we deal with it most effectively Billy?!

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.

Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.



Really..... so going in and removing current power and setting up a Government would be the best way?

Shocking!

Hey libs... how about READING the article before commenting... you just look silly when you don't.... how do you suggest creating a new Government from air strikes? Simply put... Clinton didn't have the courage to do what he proposed... he is a talking puppet who had the vital intelligence to asses the situation, yet chose a weak half-__sed attempt to fake doing something about it.

The point you all are missing is what the intelligence said.

Just because your guy didn't fully act upon it... HE STILL ATTACKED IRAQ... And I'm not sure I ever remember them attacking us...

Smell that hypocritical double standard??? Ahhh.....

Whoa Deno... according to you guys Saddam wasn't working on WMD's... no sir... he was just a good little dictator. So... it's OK to go in to any country and strike facilities that "could" be capable of creating WMD's?

Henry... the Iraq war was UN sanctioned.

*********************************************

Did any of you guys even read the article? I doubt it. LOOK at the information.. Look at what Clinton was saying... I actually agree with the guy.

And where did we find ourselves in 2002? With Saddam still ignoring meaningless UN resolutions and still doing everything Clinton talked about. Bush, with UN Sanctions, finally had the courage to follow through with the resolutions.

The point is... Bill was saying everything we are saying now... yet, somehow you libs take issue with it now... as if Saddam suddenly turned over a new leaf when Bush was elected.

Give it a rest.

Sky.... My memory is just fine and I agreed with Clinton bombing Saddam but stop being SO NIAVE. You think it all just went away when Clinton did that? Saddam just threw his hands up and said "Shoot... they caught me! Lets be a peaceful dictatorship country."

If that is so.... why did they UN keep sending inspectors in. Why were there several more resolutions made demanding Saddam cooperate? Why did the UN sanction the war if Hans Blix was 100% sure there was nothing there and finally.... with minimal research required:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50746

The U.S. has located some 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003 with more likely to be found, according to two Republican members of Congress trumpeting a newly declassified portion of a government report.

NEXT

LOL @ Spirish....

"Yea and weren't those so-called chemical weapons like friggin 20 years old? Like mustard gas from WWII? Man, you're grasping at straws now."

Yes... that "old" mustard gas is passed it's expiration.... no longer deadly... they should have refrigerated it so it didn't go bad. And yes.. mustard gas, "a so called chemical weapon" it only killed 300,000 Kurds... stupid "so called" weapon. We should sell it in stores huh? No danger there!

And for the love... can any lib actually show me proof that Bush manufactured our own intelligence reports, Spain's intel and Britain's intel all of which all of them still stand by and then... how the "moron" tricked the brilliant minds of the left into voting for the war?

Grow up already

Oh and why your at it... please explain to me why we went into Bosnia?

I don't remember them attacking us either.

Answer 1

War is always justifiable and fully supported when it happens when a Democrat in office. Even republicans get behind it it. If it happens when a republican is in office, well you see what happens. Immature babies like those that back moveon.org are going to act like babies. Calling the enemy "freedom fighters," throwing temper tantrums like Cindy Sheehan and her cohorts in congress yesterday to the point they have to be dragged out kicking and screaming like a spoiled child that won't get his toy at Wal-mart.

Answer 2

Funny how non of the liberals seem to remember Operation Desert Fox, launched against Iraq in December 1998. This was about the same time that the Monica Lewinsky scandal was going, even Bills advisor's warned him that the public would see this as an attempt to deflect attention away from that

dkstringer24, the last time YOU checked Clinton never attacked Iraq, perhaps you should check again

EDIT: Note to youve_been_schooled

FACT Check, yes he did, now you have been SCHOOLED

Answer 3

They think conservatism is evil, so they think conservatives are evil. And if a conservative is in office, he is only allowed to go to war with the liberal blessing but he MUST cut and run the instant they tell him to.

Well Bush didnt cut and run so now he no longer has the liberal blessing even though people like Clinton herself stood on the senate floor and made case for WMD's and military action.

The far left thinks that conservatives automatically get involved in unjust wars and stay too long even though they have the same foundation of reasoning liberals use to make the case for war.

Hypocrisy and elitism.

Answer 4

The weapons of mass destruction did not exist. The Srebenica bloodbath on the hand, incredibly got here approximately. American casualties interior the Bosnian intervention consisted of the team of one helicopter that crashed there. American casualties interior the Iraq occupation happened on a month-to-month foundation. try against operations in Yugoslavia lasted for 2 months and consisted in simple terms approximately entirely of air operations. try against operations in Iraq lasted for 4 years and grew to become into boots on the floor each of ways. The invasion of Iraq grew to become into undertaken collectively as the war that persons incredibly cared approximately continued in Afghanistan, and incredibly ensured an ongoing stalemate there by capacity of removing many of the yank forces from the area.

Answer 5

It's irrelevant. I'm sure you won't like that answer but it's the truth. My stance against going into Iraq in 2003 had nothing to do with what happened previously or anything to do with Bill Clinton. It had to do with the situation at the end of 2002 and the early part of 2003.

Answer 6

the thing is, Clinton struck at targets that would allow himto create wmds, or be offensive against its neighbors, while upholding the order Saddum Husseins government cast over the country. That idea i think is alot better than sending 300000 troops into a country without a clear idea of what the hell they are supposed to do. He did not occupy Iraq, which is why Bush's war has failed, something the few cons left can understand. I cant wait for the day the GOP dies.

Answer 7

I hated Clinton but your question is ridiculous if you are saying that Clinton conducts his foreign policy in the same manner that Bush does. Clinton's foreign policy towards Iraq was containment... i.e., he used air strikes instead of overwhelming force to topple the Hussein regime which risked an imbalance in a very fragile region of the world. Clinton succeeded and Bush did not. It is that simple.

Yes, Clinton advocated force when dealing with Hussein but not overwhelming force... It surprises me that you can't grasp the difference. There are degrees to using military force.

And to anyone says that Bush will succeed if he has more time then you still can't explain why Iran has become more powerful in prestige and military development in the Middle East. The Hussein regime checked Iran's power, now Iran is unchecked...And I certainly wouldn't say that a 7 to (infinity) years is a success. And we still have WMD's in Iran in a matter of years and it looks like no one can stop them now.
We actually did Iran a favor by invading Iraq.

And by the way, Bill Clinton is history now. We need to deal with the present.

Answer 8

We went to war with Saddam because he finally lost a poker bet with Bush:

Let me explain.

Think back to the Iran Iraq war. Saddam used Mustard gas to stop the advancing Iranian army. He kept that front up for years. Hey it kept Iran on their side of the border didn't it?

Bush 41 thought Saddam had WMDs and that played into the decision not to push for Baghdad in desert storm.

Clinton thought he had WMDs. Saddam used them in the past right so when Clinton attacked he used a couple of cruise missles to blow up the chemical factory and a couple of bases.

Bush decided to put boots of ground. There's a considerable difference between launching ordinance into a country and putting boots on the ground. You can't maintain the bluff with Abrahams tanks moving up the Tigris and stealth bombers blowing the top of your palace.

Answer 9

Bill Clinton didn't go to war with Iraq. There were a few reminders dropped in his neighborhood that were UN sanctioned and not unilateral but no all out attack with the shock and awe etc.

Answer 10

Things were different back then--if you ever cared to REMEMBER CORRECTLY.

Clinton bombed Saddam in 1998 because he refused to follow the mandate handed to him by the UN. So he took steps to further disseminate what little WMD capability he had left.

But what Bush did was LIE about Saddam's fabled WMD stockpiles by offering cherry-picked intelligence and trying to prove that something which HAD existed prior to the first Gulf War--NEVER existed prior to invasion of Iraq in 2003.

What we discovered was the TRUTH.

That Hans Blix and his inspectors had been right after all: There were no stockpiles. No threat. No nothing.

Answer 11

Clinton didn't go to war against Iraq so his opinion on the subject is irrelevant. Bush DID go to war in Iraq so his reasons for doing so ARE relevant. Clinton didn't know that we would have a greater mission to accomplish - you know, bringing the people who actually attacked us to justice or did you forget about them? Bush decided to divert resources and manpower from the real mission for his own, yet to be discovered, reasons.