yet how many babies die
EVERYDAY
with something Mr Clinton and his husband Hillary support!!
ABORTION!
2007-09-19 14:15:25
·
answer #1
·
answered by KittyCatFishApe 3
·
14⤊
7⤋
They say that wmds were there because trusted advisers told them they were there. Are you people so naive as to believe that the President, be it Bush or Clinton or Kennedy, looks into these things individually? Of course not. You are so limited in your outlook as to be laughable. Come on look at a President of a small company. Neither He nor She know everything about the company. But you expect a President of a country to.
Absolutely stupid little rhyme. When he is out of office the same children will blame the new president for every last thing that happens.
2007-09-19 14:18:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by Jim H 3
·
4⤊
0⤋
Well, because you have to stand for what you believe in I would pick GWB. Even in the face of people telling him he is wrong, he is a liar, he was an alcoholic, etc., he did what he thought was right. He followed his beliefs. Whatever else you fault him with he didn't base his actions off of what he thought would be popular. Bill, besides showing he has no morals, and also making comments about the current president that shows he has no class, used a lot of rhetoric. I think he did what was popular, and I don't even know if he knows what is right. He showed he does not respect himself by cheating on his wife (oral sex is sex, that's why it has sex in it's name. and if he had sex with someone else he cheated!), he showed he doesn't respect his wife, and he showed that he was willing to risk a lot for a moment of personal satisfaction. Also, if you want to look at lives and war, look at Sarajevo. You can't isolate Bush as a "war-monger", Bill was doing military operations as well. Based off what we know today, I would pick Bush. Even though he may have faults, he has less than slick Billy.
2016-05-18 23:23:38
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because they have information the public is not privy too...that is the way it is...Saddam had WMD and they are now in Syria, the dems know this but deny it claiming Bush went into Iraq wrongly - this is their politically correct statement, unfortunately if a Dem was in office now he'd be in Iraq too...
2007-09-20 18:50:12
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
OK, lets take a look at the facts. Before a UN investigation of Iraq, Clinton believed that they had WMD's. He chose not to attack despite that, because he was unsure of the intelligence he was getting on it. Bush believed they had WMD's after the UN investigation, and, against much of the world, decided to invade based on faulty intelligence.
Even if Clinton had invaded, we can blame them both. Then they would both be terrible presidents. So how does it change a thing about Bush?
2007-09-19 14:23:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by whiteflame55 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
"Unaccoutable stocks". Which means Clinton didn't no for sure if Saddam had them or not. He couldn't confirm or deny the fact that Saddam had them or not when he left office. And the only way anyone could know for sure is if UN inspectors went in and found some (which they didn't) or a US invasion of Iraq which showed he didn't (which cost Billions of dollars & many 1000s of lives).
2007-09-19 14:19:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
if you remember most of congress and most countries in the united nations thought he had them too. also, iraq was attacked for not following the treaty signed after desert storm.
2007-09-19 14:23:15
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
du no,,but ,,,well,the weapons were there,what ever we chose to believe now,facts like your link prove our memories are not so good,for most of us,over the years one forgets,did Hillary also forget she supported and said Iraq had wmds.oh I du no,how she it got so distorted.,,lol,,,chow & PNAC RULES
2007-09-19 14:34:35
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Clintoon just didn't have the guts to do what was right and take a stand And Hillary voted for the use of force so she is just as responsible along with the other libs that voted for it
2007-09-19 14:17:09
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋
Because according to the best intel we had available it was believed that Saddam had WMD.
2007-09-19 14:17:02
·
answer #10
·
answered by smsmith500 7
·
6⤊
0⤋
If that is so then why did Bush feel the need to lie about the anodized aluminum tubes and the uranium from Niger?
Are you really that obtuse as to believe that someone agreeing with a conclusion justifies arriving at that conclusion through deciet and misinformation?
2007-09-19 14:21:15
·
answer #11
·
answered by Sageandscholar 7
·
0⤊
5⤋