“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 program.”
2007-10-02 12:10:29 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Bill Clinton
circa 1998
2007-10-02 12:13:20 · answer #1 · answered by DANCER 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Here's the rest of that article:
"In preparing the nation for a possible war with Iraq, President Bill Clinton faces a series of obstacles, including a skeptical Congress and less international backing than President George Bush enjoyed during 1991 Persian Gulf War."
Apparently, not everyone believed Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction, and that included a "skeptical Congress" which was full of... Republicans!
Why would Republicans not believe Clinton when he said it in 1998 but fall all over Bush when he said it in 2002 and 2003?
2007-10-02 12:19:32 · answer #2 · answered by ck4829 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bill Clinton. On Feb. 17, 1998
Answering the letter from The PNAC on January 26, 1998 urging the US to attack Iraq.
He was compelled to address this issue due to the letters contents being made public by The PNAC.
The letter was co-signed by:
Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Robert B. Zoellick
Any of these guys familiar to you?
They were wrong then also.
Clinton was smart enough to know this.
Read the letter.
2007-10-02 12:23:28 · answer #3 · answered by Think 1st 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
at that time it was believed that Saddam did have WMDs, because Reagan sold them to him. It was during the Clinton years, and the first of Bush jr.'s term, that Iraq destroyed them and supplied the required paperwork to prove how much they had destroyed. but kind of hard to destroy the stuff that had already been blown up in the first desert storm.
But Saddam is old news, he is already in the ground, and would have been long before he was if Reagan would have quit arming him with "dual-purpose farm chemicals" and the planes to deliver them as chemical weapons.
2007-10-02 12:24:58 · answer #4 · answered by Boss H 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
MIchael Savage's Website.
Follow up..who said this one?
After you take down Saddam Hussain's government, he asks, "then what are you gonna put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government in Iraq, you can easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off... it's a quagmire ... if you try to take over Iraq... How many additional American causalities was Saddam worth? Our judgment was not very many, and I think we got it right."
2007-10-02 12:14:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Mrs. Clinton's Husband
2007-10-02 12:17:17 · answer #6 · answered by Truth B. Told ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Bill and Hillary in unison!~!
2007-10-02 12:15:20 · answer #7 · answered by Hunter 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋