If so,Did he not Aide and Abet George W. Bush in his so called Lies?Or was Bill Clinton Simply Incompitant?
2007-12-14 05:08:01 · 12 answers · asked by Clarance C 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If Bill Clinton had known that there were no WMDs in Iraq then it was certainly his duty to inform the world of this. However, all of his claims on the matter indicate that he believed the exact opposite. He did believe those weapons were there and that Hussein posed a substantial risk. Any claims to the contrary are pathetic attempts at revisionist history and should be ignored as the rantings of the chronically misinformed. Further George Bush did not lie about WMDs in Iraq. This was the widely held belief of most of the world when he took office. Personally I will ignore anyone who makes these claims of lies, because they ignore facts and statements which are in evidence in favor of supposition with no verifiable support whatsoever.
2007-12-14 05:17:29 · answer #1 · answered by Bryan 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bill Clinton told the world that there were WMDs in Iraq as did Hillary and every other person who gave the President of the United States of America the authority to take this country to war. Do your homework people. The WMD thing wasn't something that was made up during a drunken weekend on the boat. It was going on long before Bush took office.
Lets really take a look at what went down. I think everyone will agree that the dems hate Bush, they hated him before he took office and they hate him now.
They hated him so much that they believed every word that he said? Come on people, your kidding me right? I got some ocean front property in Kansas to sell you.
Believe it or not sometimes intelligence is wrong and you find yourself in the middle of something that you may not like. You have two choices, QUIT or finish the job you started. It is apparent that there are quite a few of you out there that were raised to be quitters.
Bush has made a lot of mistakes and quite honestly I think he is an imbecile. But, at some point the sh t in the middle east had to get unf cked and there is not better time than the present.
Bottom line, all of them in DC are pieces oshit.
2007-12-14 05:49:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Maybe you should review B. Clinton's statements that reveals that he believed there there were WMD in Iraq.
Also, consider the following by Bill Clinton...
"I supported the President when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." [05-18-2003 New York Daily News]
'Saddam is gone and good riddance' former president Bill Clinton said yesterday. Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found."
"I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock...that is what I was always told."
[04-16-2003 New York Daily News]
2007-12-14 05:38:25 · answer #3 · answered by AILENE 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, human beings seem to forget that this intelligence became into available for the period of the Clinton administration besides. i believe it became into 1998 that Clinton made the statement. because of the fact that we did no longer invade Iraq till 2003, does no longer that have given saddam sufficient time to do away with those WMD's? How do all of us understand he did no longer delivery them to Syria or Iran? Is it purely coincidental that Iran impulsively introduced it is enrighment of uranium while we invaded Iraq? purely like for occasion, a drug broking knows of he's gonna get raided a week till now it occurs. Do you think of this broking is gonna save his stash, or is he gonna hide it someplace else? this could be a no-brainer.
2016-11-03 06:24:31 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely it was his obligation. It would have saved allot of people but he did not want to give any help to the American people.
Bill Clinton is devious and would do anything to hurt Bush during his presidency and make money doing it. There is no excuse as to why he did what he did.
2007-12-14 05:20:30 · answer #5 · answered by ♥ Mel 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most of this story is not being told. Clinton was only a late chapter in a long Saddam Hussein story that began with Donald Rumsfeld during the Reagan administration in the early 80's. Rumsfeld has worked for every republican administration since Nixon. If you are truly curious about the "whole truth" and nothing but the truth, google Donald Rumsfeld and read about how the US first empowered Hussein with weapons during the Iran/Iraq War and then decided he was too powerful and might threaten the stability of the OPEC nations. Read how he was once a US ally that we turned our backs on and decided to prep the American people for his removal by demonizing him. Read about how all of this was done for the benefit of American defense contractors and favorable oil import agreements. Read the whole story not just the last chapter. We have had many presidents since chapter one, but Rumsfeld was present throughout all of them.
2007-12-14 05:19:49 · answer #6 · answered by David M 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's not Clinton's job to fix Bush's war. As I recall it was George Bush who took the country to war.
No one in the world is "incompitant." It's not a word.
2007-12-14 05:14:30 · answer #7 · answered by Citizen1984 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
So now you want to blame Bill Clinton for what George Bush did? Hilarious.
2007-12-14 05:16:06 · answer #8 · answered by Spirish_1 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Why would he be obligated to tell the world something he didn't know ?
2007-12-14 05:12:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes.
george w bush is responsible for his own lies.
Or is all that conservative talk about "personal responsibility" just BS?
2007-12-14 05:11:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋