if Liberals keep demanding arresting Bush for Iraq War.
Remember it was Clinton starting "Saddam has WMD" in the 90s.
2007-12-31 07:42:15 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Why the LIBERALS keep denying that the WAR was authorized by the CONGRESS????? WTF?!
2007-12-31 07:46:26 · update #1
False Information???? Why those DEMONcRATs never accusing Clinton when he mentioning WMD in Iraq??
Never mind... I am wasting my time....
2007-12-31 08:00:52 · update #2
They voted for it based on bogus information. Whoever in the CIA provided that information should be fired.
2007-12-31 07:58:23 · answer #1 · answered by P L 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
for a President to have dedicated a conflict crime might mean others alongside with members of the Senate and the Congress have been occasion to it and agreed upon its decision, took section and till they completely resisted and had no expertise in spite of might they be harmless. whilst Reagan stated he knew not something approximately weapons advertising to Iran, replaced into this genuine ? extra important whilst North advised Congress he knew and replaced into happy with it, why replaced into he not in contempt of Congress by potential of his strikes? Congress grew to become complicit alongside with North.
2016-11-27 01:07:55 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The US and the UN knew Iraq had WMDs. He used them against the Kurds after the first Gulf War and he used them against the Iranians during the Iran/Iraq war of the 80s. Moreover, US troops, followed by UN inspectors found archaic centerfuges in Iraq following the first gulf-war. NO ONE knew where or how these items were disposed of. In fact, no one didn't think Iraq was without WMDs, which is why Iran was contained for as long as it was.
So to argue that Iraq did not have WMDs is blantantly ignorant and moot. Anyone who argues we entered Iraq under false pretenses is by themselves ignorant of the facts. It was later discovered by Coalition Forces that Iraq had shipped the bulk of their WMDs to Jordan under a humanitarian aid scheme. Moreover, countless contra-band pieces of military equipment were discovered buried throughout Iraq (which means that there may still be more in the open deserts of Iraq), which were supplied by the French and Russians.
So, should Congress also be arrested?
Not in the least. They, like the President, operated off of the intelligence the rest of the world was operating under. And yes, Clinton was also preparing for an Iraq invasion but never mustered the gaul to do it. I was in the Marine Corps under Clinton, as my unit was given a blank check for training specifically for Iraq. It was mentioned on multiple occassions that we needed to be ready for it.
"It" never came under Clinton. He was too convinced that his image was far more valuable than maintaining a strong US presence in a region that has a known history of thumbing its nose to the UN.
Moreover, as we are discovering now, Bill was attempting to leave as little a mess as possible so Hillary could enter herself into the Presidential Bid...
2007-12-31 08:26:37 · answer #3 · answered by Kiker 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The war was not authorized by Congress. None voted for the war. What they voted for was to give the President the ability to do what was needed in his estimation. They were lied to and made to believe (A) - that Bush had a mind to use, and could make estimations of such, and (B) - that Saddanm Hussein had nukes aimed at us. Bush lied to congress, and so is to blame. Congress supported us going to war if it proved necessary. Bush went, and said it was necessary, when it was not. Congress can not be held responsible for Bushs' lies. The GOP congressmen who continued to support Bush after his lies were made known will pay by being voted out of office.
2007-12-31 08:20:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
NO, and for one good reason, all those Dem"s who voted for war, voted on false information, contrived or otherwise. In the shadow of 9-11, domestic terror, Anthrax letters sent to Dem. offices, false CIA WMD info I ask how could they not vote for war.
More compelling reasons than, "baby's being thrown out of incubators", used in Daddy's war.
2007-12-31 07:58:03 · answer #5 · answered by Dave M 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That would be a start.
2007-12-31 07:53:40 · answer #6 · answered by airmonkey1001 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Welcome to the wonderful world of US Politics where the truth is never allowed and denial accountability is everything
2007-12-31 07:50:23 · answer #7 · answered by Arthur W 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The difference is that he lied to Congress to get them to vote for the war. He or his crony Cheney thought up all this crap so that his friends in oil and Haliburton could line their pockets. Do you not think that what he did was wrong? How can you defend him?
EDIT: They authorized it, yes, all those Republicans and Democrats. But who is the one who decided we should attack Iraq? Did that come from Congress first? No, it came from the White House. BTW, no one is denying that Congress gave him the go ahead. Read the answers, friend.
2007-12-31 07:47:38 · answer #8 · answered by slykitty62 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
No i think you got it twisted...That would papa Bush.....And yeah we should arrest Little George, papa George and papa's wife George Washington..... Oops my bad, she just looks like George Washington....
2007-12-31 07:47:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes, as we are on our way to impeaching Bush. LOL
No, Clinton didn't invade Iraq nor did he do anything when the USS Cole had a hole blown into it and sailors killed and he forced the marines in Somalia to leave men behind--some who may have still been alive. Clinton was too much of a coward to actually take a stance against terrorism. If he had, maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened. (Sorry, but that kind of thing really makes my blood boil!)
2007-12-31 07:46:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋