I've got to ask...
By serialmommy
@serialmommy (639)
United States
6 responses
@Lady_Justice (969)
• United States
23 Apr 07
If you actually want to have a debate on this topic, it might help to do some research and attempt to debate specific facts. You'll note that Clinton also believed Saddam's Iraq was a threat, so much so that he had troops ready to go into Iraq, until Saddam backed off at the last minute.
Also, "not found" and "do not exist" are two entirely different things, and there were weapons of mass destruction as detailed in numerous UN resolutions. Where they are now is anybody's guess. Syria seems to be the most believable guess, but many WMD have yet to be accounted for. Not knowing where they are now isn't the same as making up something non-existent or "lying."
@serialmommy (639)
• United States
24 Apr 07
However, he TOLD us that they were in Iraq, and that they were an IMMEDIATE threat. He had Colin Powell go before the UN and tell them that too! And it's ok for you to believe that Saddam got rid of them some other way. And it's ok for yo to think I'm totally wrong for NOT supporting our President 120% because I can't bring myself to do it. He's and idiot, and a stupid one at that. I never thought a stupid man could become President. But I digress, and just because you say they are "not found" doesn't mean that they DO exist. He can't prove that they are there, that simple. So we are in a war under extreme false pretenses.
3 people like this
@Lady_Justice (969)
• United States
24 Apr 07
That was based on the intelligence he was given. As I said, you might want to dig a little deeper. You can check out snopes (as just one example) of what Democrats had to say on the matter when Clinton was president, as well as reviewing Clinton's own words. http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Of course, this was before Democrats changed their minds and now they want a "do over."
As for the perjury charge against Clinton, I'm sure you're equally as outraged over the sham trial and conviction of Scooter Libby.
2 people like this
@jormungand (91)
• Turkey
29 Dec 07
Syria seems to be the most believable guess? Well, let's go devastate Syria too! If we can't find something there, than we have Iran too! After we'll mess the whole Midde East up, we can go and take the oil.
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
26 Apr 07
I am going to make this brief, however I do have a lot of information at my disposal that shows not only that Saddam possessed the WMD's, but that he had used them against the Kurds.
How did Bush and Clinton both know that Saddam had the WMD's?...Because the US supplied him with them for one thing.
Here are some excerpts of statements from the Clinton years that I found concerning the WMD's...
On February 4th, 1998 Clinton said, "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
On February 17th, 1998 he said, "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."
In his defense of Operation Desert Fox on December 16th, 1998 Clinton argued that, “Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons” and that, “The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government.”
On February 18th, 1998 Secretary of State Madeline Albright said, “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Clinton’s National Security Adviser Sandy Berger warned, “he [Saddam Hussein] will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”...
I find it interesting that all of those people are telling the same "lies" as Bush concerning WMD's.
As far as this war being left over from Bush's daddy...you ain't even close on that one.
We are in Iraq because Regime Change in Iraq became official US Policy in 1998 when Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law.
Bush didn't put us into war in Iraq...Clinton did.
We have been at war with Iraq for over 10 years. Bush merely escalated Clinton’s aggression against Iraq from a low intensity war to a full-fledged invasion, an escalation that probably would not have been possible had Clinton not been laying siege to Iraq for his entire term. Clinton’s bombings of Iraq were completely unilateral, without UN approval and carried out solely by the US and UK.
Clinton was bombing Iraq throughout his presidency in order to weaken Iraq's military to the point where the invasion of Iraq would be easier. It was Clinton's intention to invade Iraq all along, and Bush is merely finishing the job that Clinton started.
The democrats in Congress know all of this, most of them were involved.
To hear them tell it though, this is all Bush's doing...but they are lying to the people because the war in Iraq is now unpopular and they are trying to save their political hides at Bush's expense.
Why do you think the Clinton's have not come out against Bush on Iraq. Hillary has said a little, but she has never backed off from supporting the war other than claiming that she was misled along with most of the other democrats.
She knew exactly what she was voting for and so did the rest of them.
Since you mentioned Slick Willie's impeachment, I think you should also be aware that the day after he was acquitted, Clinton decided to invade Kosovo for no other reason than to deflect attention from his impeachment.
He did this despite his advisors warnings that invading Kosovo would make the US a target for terrorist attacks within our borders.
I believe that Clinton's foreign policy and his bombings and invasions led to the attacks of 9-11.
Clinton bombed more countries than any other peacetime president, including Yugoslavia, Sudan, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan.
So you see, this war in Iraq has very little to do with Bush Sr., and everything to do with Clinton...with Bush Jr. picking up where Clinton left off.
I don't think it would really have mattered who was in office. We were going to Iraq regardless.
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
12 Jul 07
A couple more point to an excellent reply. We have been at war with Iraq since the start of the first Iraq war and the second invasion of Iraq was done under the direction of the UN (17 resolutions to use military force to force Husane to comply with the Weapons Inspectors). Iraq was in violation of the Cease Fire that halted the military action from the first war.
Hillary Clinton did speak out about WMD very early in the Senate Debate. She stated that her independent invesgation showed that he had WMD. This was not based on the intellagence supplied by President Bush, but from her own independent sources. However with early onset of Dementia she is forgetting many thing lately including this statement to the US Senate.
2 people like this
@thedogshrink (1266)
• United States
25 Jan 08
Thank you so much for stating these facts so clearly, Destiny and Lady Justice!!!! It amazes me how many people choose to have such short memories -- not to mention so little insight.
AS to the question about lying: Clinton lied under oath in a court of law. You are accusing Bush of lying in the day to day struggle of being President. Two entirely different things. Furthermore, as you can see from the eloquent writings here from Lady and Destiny, Bush didn't lie about WMD. That is just the way the liberals and the ever fickle and undereducated press decided to paint the picture when, as someone said, they wanted a "do over".
By the way, there are many who believed that if Clinton had taken more/better action during his term, then 9/11 would never have happened, besides what Destiny has written about his Kosovo antics. But that's a subject for another day -- still I wonder where all these war haters crying about lost lives were back then! They sure were not slamming the then President the way they are slamming the current one, even tho at the very least, a weak argument could be made that they are the same issue -- unwarranted war (no that is not my opinion, but it should be the opinion of those who are against this war now.)
PLEASE follow the snopes link that Lady left!!!!!
1 person likes this
@lpetges (3036)
• United States
23 Jan 08
ohh, i hate this topic, but choose to say something anyway,!! I dont think impeaching for any of the above is really what we need to think about. one president cannot possibly have ruined the economy,.. it takes at least 20 years of bad presidents to do this to america. but, have you looked into living in other countries? we still have the best by far, and protecting it is of utmost importance. i would say that we all need to stand up and be proud of the united states., and hopefully this mess will see an end to it.. but by no means has one man done this. If clinton were not so busy under his desk,, maybe paying a little more attention to this world, we would not have had such a bad start with bush. so, yes, read up a little bit more on this topic, and get some of your facts straight before coming on and ruffling up more feathers here!
1 person likes this
@clrumfelt (5490)
• United States
8 Jul 08
We can't impeach President Bush about the WMDs because he was not lying! The media has only widely reported what it wanted the people to hear. Their leftist attitudes have cause them to put one over on the American people, and they buried the stories that would have given any credibility to the president. Here is the news about the WMDs:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=300323577877918
@JanisRemaxRealtor (432)
• United States
2 Feb 08
He did not lie, he was given false information. The same information that was given to Clinton before him and all of the other free world leaders. So what if Clinton was supposedly "impeached"..........he didn't go anywhere.......strong words like impeach and treason used to mean something. They don't anymore.
@RhythmWalker1 (825)
• United States
13 Jul 08
We can but no one has the GALL to do it.
For many reasons, never doubt that!