Is deception the Mainstay of the Former Presidents role in History, why does he now claim he opposed the Iraq war, in 2003 he supported it fully and even expressed concern over the WMD'S?
2007-11-28 05:20:26 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The best part was when during the Democratic debates a few months ago Tim Russert asked Hillarly if she agreed with a statement that supported water boarding and she said no and who ever said it was wrong and then it turned out to be good ol' Bill who told Russert that on meet the press...... Priceless
2007-11-28 05:27:34 · answer #1 · answered by Tip 5 · 8⤊ 1⤋
Like Past president, like president wanna be! Say what you think the people want to hear at the time. Never fully commit, leave yourself an escape route, and be prepared to defend your earlier statement with the comment that is not what was meant! Shift the problem onto some one else shoulder; be ready to say someone else created the problem but I have a lot of good ideas and I am best qualified because I have the most experience, etc, etc, etc. She does have experience in cleaning up after Bill. It makes me wonder why so many women support her after she accepted Bill's indiscretions. Is that a sign that women support men doing those kinds of things? Maybe men have had it all wrong. Maybe we need to take a lesson from the Clintons - maybe extra marital activities are acceptable to more women than we thought. There seems to be a lot of women supporting Hillary so they must support her personal habits and ideas; all the good ideas she has!
2007-11-28 05:41:55 · answer #2 · answered by Dallen B 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bubba's position at the time (to the best of my recall) was that Bush should be given the authority to take military action only as a last option but we needed to pressure the Iraqis to get the inspectors back in. Not surprising that an ex-President would understand that the threat of force is often very necessary when dealing with rogue states.
Clinton was successful for eight years in keeping Saddam from getting WMD's through use of sanctions, threat of force and other forms of pressure. Bush bungled the whole thing and jumped right to the last option, a war which has cost thousands of lives. There is no doubt that a more effective President could have gotten the UN inspectors back in, who then would have determined that there were no WMD's (as we have now seen) without a war.
It's the difference between being an intelligent tough President and an incompetent buffoon who blundered us into a disastrous quagmire.
2007-11-28 05:32:30 · answer #3 · answered by celticexpress 4 · 4⤊ 4⤋
You mean husband, the one that left office with an 86% approval rating? Do you mean the one that balanced the budget, and kept the national debt flat for 8 years? Do you mean the president that presided over 8 years of strong economic growth, low unemployment, and low taxes? Because if you are, i do not see any messes anyone needs to clean up. Now i want to see a republican in 08, but when people like you take an attitude like this, we might as well just hand over the keys. Get a clue and get a life
2007-11-28 05:33:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 5⤋
Tip is dead on once again
and Bill also told Russet to lay off Hillary.
If you have ever followed the Clintonistas deception and innuendo are their stock and trade.
2007-11-28 05:34:08 · answer #5 · answered by CFB 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Sad thing is, if Bill had come out in 2003 firmly and publically opposed to the war, Fox and the Bushie neocons would have jumped all over him for meddling in Bush's business.
I'm not defending Bill or Hillary, just stating the facts of the situation.
2007-11-28 05:27:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 6⤋
Just one week?!? I can live with that, since it's probably going to take the next two presidents to try and repair the harm that this administration has done to the country.
2007-11-28 05:36:07 · answer #7 · answered by Alex G 6 · 5⤊ 3⤋
If elected, Hillary will spend much more time cleaning up the mess George Bush has left here and abroad. I went to a Clinton rally yesterday in South Carolina. The loudest cheer from the overflow crowd came when she said George Bush is "incompetent". Deal with it.
2007-11-28 05:29:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 6⤋
Fox and Friends said that years ago Bill Clinton had supported giving Bush the authorization on Iraq as long as the inspectors stayed and (as Bush begged) as a last resort so that he could keep the peace.
Today they showed a clip of Bill Clinton saying he was never for the war in Iraq.
Fox and Friends said this was an obviously flip flop.
Most of the Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to go to Iraq as long as the inspectors stayed and Bush pleaded with the Democrats that he wouldn't use it unless it was an absolute last resort. This was the lie.
The fact is Bush never gave it the chance to get to the last resort. And frankly, as it turns out, he was wrong. There were no weapons of mass destruction like he said, so he couldn't have gone to the last resort. Even Colin Powell was embarrassed when he did that presentation showing where the weapons were. There was no imminent danger to the United States like he said, also. For all the reasons he gave, none of them turned out to be true. So, when someone says they agreed to give him the authority - it was as Bush said - he begged them for the authority in order to keep the peace. He said he needed it to keep the peace.
He had no plans of trying to keep peace, he just lied to the Democrats to get that piece of paper.
2007-11-28 05:23:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 8⤋
Isn't this the craziest thing?! And when it gets even crazier is the people that see nothing amiss! I'm telling you, this scenario is better than any soap opera!
2007-11-28 05:23:52 · answer #10 · answered by Brianne 7 · 3⤊ 5⤋