Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Clinton's Iraq Liberation Act was specifically cited as justification for the 2002 Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Didn't want to get involved in Iraq? Should have lobbied Clinton to veto the bill.
That bill supported insurgency as we have in many countries, invading a country with permanent armed forces is quite an escalation. Bush seemed to have an interest in invading Iraq early on in his administration. Invading Iraq stood on it's on merits whatever they might have been.
Clinton's 8-years of intel of Iraq's WMD buildup came after HW Bush.
Iraq's use of chemical weapons preceded even HW Bush and was fact rather than intel, actually goes back to Reagan but no one chose to invade until 2003, why do you think no one else would invade. Even HW chose to pass on invading other than getting them out of Kuwait, even wrote a book on his reasoning.
Iraq's use of chemical weapons preceded even HW Bush and was fact rather than intel, actually goes back to Reagan but no one chose to invade until 2003, why do you think no one else would invade. Even HW chose to pass on invading other than getting them out of Kuwait, even wrote a book on his reasoning.
And Al Gore berated HW Bush for it, lol. Thanks to whoever bumped this. I had totally forgotten about it.
If Saddam has chemical weapons and we know he did and used them on his people then, HE HAD WMD.
Saddam Hussein wasn't actually using them. The point of bombing Syria is to stop something that's happening. Hussein had used chemical weapons in the past, but at the time of the invasion there was no ongoing humanitarian crisis to put a stop to.
Also, the Bush Torture administration was lying about the threat Iraq posed to the US, not lying about Iraq using chemical weapons on its own people. To compare the situation Bush falsely claimed existed with the current situation would be incorrect.
Saddam Hussein wasn't actually using them. The point of bombing Syria is to stop something that's happening. Hussein had used chemical weapons in the past, but at the time of the invasion there was no ongoing humanitarian crisis to put a stop to.
Also, the Bush Torture administration was lying about the threat Iraq posed to the US, not lying about Iraq using chemical weapons on its own people. To compare the situation Bush falsely claimed existed with the current situation would be incorrect.
Nobody has of yet determined who used them. You know this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
