if you're all for war why didn't congress back Clinton against Hussein when he was in office ?
829770
yes Clinton said over and over that he couldn't get things done because of a republican congress\nrepugs seem to not want to work as a team they dig their feet in and refuse to help a dem president but will do ANYTHING a repug wants.....right or wrong
570800
Acting on "Bad Intellegence" bush has, with his war, killed countless thousands. Clinton had consentual sex with an of-age woman, then lied about it when he got caught. Obviously, Clinton is the anti-christ.
801558
Please ignore these other nitwits - it's late and their mommies are out partying and so are not home to put them to bed.\n\nThe answer to your question is that Saddam sent a hit team to kill George H. W. Bush (the current President's father and the 41st President of the United States) in Kuwait when Bush was there to receive thanks from the Kuwaiti government and people for freeing them from the yoke of the Iraqi dictator.\n\nBill Clinton was President at the time of the attempted assassination and, being the Weak Sister that he is, he just sent a few cruise missles into Iraq and called it a day.  What he should have done was to go back to Iraq and kill Saddam at that time - but, as I say, he's a very weak man (he's not REALLY a man, he just has a man's body) and so he did almost nothing.
754802
That was only the first reason for going to war.  Then it was to remove Saddam, then it was to liberate Iraq, and then it was to spread democracy in the middle east.  He keeps changing the reasons to look like he knew what he was doing all along.  And he did all this because he can.  People will follow him and believe him no matter what.  Why should he tell the truth when people keep believing his lies.  There are still lots of people who will say that we did find WMDs.  People don't realize there are differences between the WMDs in the 80s, the WMDs during Clinton, and the WMDs we went to war for.
1029742
If you were cognizant of reality, you would realize just how uneducated your question is.\n\nAfter 9/11, the US and a coalition of nations went into Afghanistan because the Taliban government there was hosting and supporting al-Qaeda and Osama.\n\nBush had also said that he was generalizing the war on terror, and supported going after countries (like Iraq) that supported, hosted and supplied terrorists, including al-Qaeda, Hamas, etc.\n\nAdditionally, Saddam had refused to comply with the UN resolutions in destruction of his WMD (see link).\n\nWe were not OK with Iraq under Clinton; Clinton created the US policy of regime change in Iraq. On 12/16/1998, Clinton attacked Iraq with almost 400 stand-off weapons (cruise missiles) and 600 aircraft bombing sorties in response to his failure to comply with UN weapons inspectors.\n\nYour 'knowledge' of recent history is wrong.
357188
Politics is a question of time and timing.\n\nIran was considered a bigger threat at the time than Iraq.  I agree that the American military must have known about the atrocities within Iraq at the time but they were far more concerned with supporting Iraq against Iran so that a fundamentalist super-state didn't arise in the region.\n\nI think if Saddam hadn't got ambitions outwith Iraq (in order to get out of economic chaos) then the situation would not have escalated as it did.\n\nI really feel for the general people of Iraq as they have jumped from the horror of Saddam to the chaos of post war ... regardless of the reason for it.\n\nPeace out
993023
No. Thats why Clinton was wrong when he invaded Bosnia without UN approval. He then bombed those poor lil' people to kingdom come.
1071597
Mr Clinton stated that the reason he was sending troops was because Milosevic was committing genocide.  He was right and it was stopped.  Mr. Bush claimed he was sending troops because Saddam had WMD's, was starting a nuclear weapon program, had ties to AL Quada and was involved in 9-11.  All those things were wrong and now thousands of people are dead and the killing continues.  If Mr. Bush would have stated he was sending troops because Saddam was committing genocide, then he would have been right, also.  That's the difference: being right vrs. being wrong.
815333
Here's what bothers me most:  Democrats and Republicans voted for this war .  We were tired of Saddam making a mockery out of the UN, its resolutions and inspections.  There were countries in the UN that were undermining the entire effort and making billions while Saddam was in power.\nWE wanted war to remove a serious threat.  But now that we've experienced it,  these same politicians act as if they knew better from the beginning.   The president and legislature acted out the will of the American people.  Bush shouldn't be blamed.
382944
BOY WOULD SOMEONE GIVE ewm90 SOME HELP WITH HIS SPELLING WOW MIND BOGGLING WITH SOME OF THAT GRAMMAR. AS WITH THE WAR IT WAS A MUST. HOW CAN YOU SAY UNJUST SADDAM HAD 18 DIFFERENT U.N. RESOLUTIONS THAT HE THUMBED HIS NOSE AT FOR THE LAST 14 YEARS. IT JUST TOOK SOMEONE WITH BRASS B*LLS LIKE GEORGE BUSH TO TAKE ACTION BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THE "DEBATING SOCIETY" COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE UNITED NATIONS WAS GOING TO DO NOTHING. YOU WANT SAY GEORGE DOES STUFF TO KEEP HIS OIL BUDDIES POCKETS LINED WHAT ABOUT DEAR KOFFI ANAN, RUSSIA AND I ALMOST FORGOT OUR BUDDIES FRANCE. THAT IS WHY THEY OPPOSED THE WAR BECAUSE OF THE MONETARY INTERESTS THEY HAD IN IRAQ. AND WHERE DID WHOEVER THAT WAS GET OVER 50,000 DEAD IN IRAQ YOU MUST SMOKING SOMETHING. ASK YOUR SELF THIS QUESTION. WAS IT JUSTIFIED FOR BILL CLINTON TO UNPROVOKLY INVADE BOSNIA AND START A CIVIL WAR A SITUATION WE WILL BE IN FOR THE UNFORESEEN FUTURE. BOY HOW WE FORGET THAT HUH? I REMEMBER BACK IN 1998 WHEN CLINTON HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE OUT BIN LADEN BUT HE DIDN'T BECAUSE THE PRINCE OF THE U.A.E WAS RIGHT NEXT HIM. THAT PRINCE WAS CONSIDERED PART OF AN ALLY NATION BUT WHEN THIS WHOLE PORTS DEAL CAME UP THOSE GREAT DEMOCRATS CRIED WE CAN'T DO THAT THE U.A.E. IS AN ARAB NATION POSSIBLY LINKED TO TERRORISM. IT ALL CHANGES WHEN THE OTHER SIDE TAKES OVER HUH.
653950
I think we went in not realizing that liberals in our country would support Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, Syrian and Iranian insurgents. Democrats backed these forces with their statements everyday. Ted Kennedy's statements end up in Al Jazeera everyday. How could we have stopped the Democrats from supporting the enemy? Good question! \n\n    Oh by the way, we tried to get the U.N. involved...the Secretary generals son, Germany, France and Russian were taking bribes from Saddam Husein in the (oil for food program) and would not vote on the counsel with us. France and Russia even gave tactical advice to Saddam while we were moving in on his troops. Don't hand me your UN crap.
89825
well, the environment of this wasn't created by Bush, he mearly reacted to the situation, the only way he could. He of course was first provoked into it by 9/11.  Then the bad intellegence he got, didn't help matters any.  Everything that Saddam said he wouldn't do, he continued throughout the Clinton era, because he knew there would be a blind eye turned his way.
973738
But the staement isn't true.  It also ignores reality.\n\nPolitics was very different in the 80's when everything did (and had to) boil down to West vs. Communism.  The fall of the Soviet Union changed everything.  Supporting Hussein was not a good thing, but it was justifiable.\n\nThe US never supported bin Laden., so you have a major problem there.\n\nMusharaff...what's the choice.  Show me that there is an alternative to supporting him.  Unless you support US forcing regeime change in Pakistan too?
893352
They did, but only in the short-term.  It was evident they worked in the 2004 elections, but evident that they didn't work during the recent ones.  Americans were too naive and were willing to accept the White House's explanations.  This in part was Congress' fault, too, because many legislators and senators, including Democrats, authorized the use of war without looking at all of the evidence that was available to them in 2002.
311744
For the liberals it has more to do with who is in charge.  They didn't seem to have any problems when our military was placed in harms way under Clinton.  They didn't seem to mind that Clinton sent troops under UN direction and were left to die in Mogadishu and Kosovo.
1142324
Nope!! Clinton is Democrat so no matter what he did the Republicans would never back him up that is just the way of politics.
520333
I can find very little evidence that Republicans officially opposed Operation Desert Fox. Republicans normally support appropriate military action against American enemies. For example, Paul Wolfowitz supported military action against Iraq in 1998. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about Democrats.\n\nI suspect that the Republicans who opposed saw it as a typically half-cocked attempt by Bill Clinton to give the appearance of toughness as a distraction from his impeachment. It had little impact on Iraq or Al-Queda other  than to convince them of our lack of will. It is just one example of how his weakness and foreign policy ineptitude sowed the seeds for September 11.\n\nIt is also evidence that the Clinton Adminstration believed that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons and was working with Al-Queda. These views were shared by the Bush administration when it came to office.