Does that mean that Bill Clinton lied too?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/
2007-09-11 15:58:29 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Be careful libs ain't going to like this one I guess they think he is credible
2007-09-11 16:05:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Oh, yeah, I remember that. You may recall that Saddam wasn't allowing weapons inspections. Of course, years later, he did when Bush started the saber-rattling. Remember Hans Blix leading a (very effective) hunt for weapons and getting creamed by the right for not finding any?
WMDs was the given reason for the war, after it was proven Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. Once that was proven wrong, it was Saddam being a bad guy, and the Iraquis would love us for invading and killing a million of them.
Recall that Reagan and Bush 1 gave him the wmds, which he happily used on Iran and resisters in his own country. Just a little puppet dictator who got what he wanted as long as we did, too. We didn't worry about what he did to his own people, until it became a convenient way to demonize him when we wanted his oil. When he decided to go online with the euro instead of the dollar, that was the end of him. His being a bad guy was a known fact long ago. It didn't matter as long as our military got the oil it needs to dominate the world. It's gonna run out someday. Hope we've got all the little countries where we want them before that happens.
Otherwise, we may have to live within our means and use diplomacy to deal with other countries. Heaven forbid!
2007-09-11 16:18:57 · answer #2 · answered by boogaflickah 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No because Bill Clinton did not present evidence about buying uranium from Niger that he knew to be false. Clinton did not present evidence about aluminum tubes that he knew were useless for a nuclear program saying they could only be used for a nuclear program.
Most importantly Clinton acted responsibly and within the confines of international law, with the support of the international community to contain Iraq's WMD programs. This action has been proven to have been successful.
These questions have all been answered before. Get with the program.
2007-09-11 16:06:27 · answer #3 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not only did Bush lie about the WMD he has been lying thoughout his whole presidency. The difference Between Bush lying and Clinton lying is. Bush is lying and killing Innocent civilians. Clinton lied but it was his own personal problem. We all know he lied under oath, but he did not kill anyone with a bogos war.
2007-09-11 16:49:22 · answer #4 · answered by Andrea 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think they both had bad information that they relied on too much. The difference is that Bill Clinton didn't act on questionable information.
Besides, if Iraq did have WMD, Clinton would not have invaded just because of that. Bush did. When Iraq did not attack us or assist those who did.
2007-09-11 16:04:48 · answer #5 · answered by Kate J 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, it grew to become into vice chairman Dick Cheney who lied related to the WMD. The intelligence comments stated, weren't vetted for the duration of the right channels, and extremely have been "range-piped" by way of Cheney's ops on the Pentagon, which includes human beings which includes Doug Feith. And, the attack grew to become into not in simple terms "related to the oil". it is likewise properly commonplace, that Al-Qaeda and Hussein have been enemies; it incredibly is totally not likely that he might provide help and convenience to them. look into what Donald Rumsfeld grew to become into doing interior the 1980's re help & convenience to Hussein! (re chemical weapons etc) seem up additionally the plan for a "sparkling wreck" for Israel; the present war in Iraq grew to become into planned around 1990 by capacity of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Netanyahu, between others. It additionally has not something to do with the activities of 9/11. seem additionally to varied comments and testimony given by capacity of Scott Ritter, a Republican and a adorned USMC vet, on his opposition to the war, as there grew to become into no data of WMD. individually, i might hesitate to cite Hillary on something at this element. it incredibly is actual that favourite Dems got here out for the war, yet, frankly, a lot of them would be cowardly interior the face of a growling vice chairman. it incredibly is debatable that u . s . is far less shield now-- by way of war, extra terrorists are being recruited.
2016-10-10 10:19:22 · answer #6 · answered by rocio 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it means bush lied.
one isnt based on the other. not only that one doesnt excuse the other which is a big :( for neocons who use bill clinton as their ultra come back for everything
2007-09-11 16:05:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes, in fact it means the whole Democratic Party lied to us.
2007-09-11 16:13:56 · answer #8 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, because Bush did not lie. WMD's are not just nukes.
WMD's have been found in Iraq. The real question is were WMD's found in any quantity that would have acctually been a threat?
2007-09-11 16:16:49 · answer #9 · answered by caseusminimus 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
he was president of the united states, of course he did.
2007-09-11 16:03:39 · answer #10 · answered by che_lives 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋