Clinton supporters, do you believe that if Hillary was mislead into supporting the Iraq war by the same faulty intel that got us there in the 1st place that she would somehow be a far superior leader than Bush?(I don't support ALL he's done either. FYI)
by 
Capt. Jack Sparrow GALCIY
ANSWERS: 5
-
It is amazing that everyone had the same intelligence reports, and while the Democrats claim they were "misled," they also claim that "Bush should've known better." My opinion: The United Nations, under heavy pressure from Germany and Russia, gave Hussein enough time to EVACUATE THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, let alone get rid of some WMD's. I don't think we'll ever know for sure if they were there or not, but for a country that wasn't supposed to have ANY, they sure gassed a lot of Kurds and put up one hell of a fight against invading forces, and they weren't using slingshots and crossbows.
-
Archeologists might dig up the WMD's 500 years from now in some secret bunker under Baghdad for all we know. Congress didn't vote to authorize military force and basically start a war without knowing the real reasons for the invasion. They just aren't saying what it is.
-
People are allowed to change their stances based on new information. Clinton voted for the war based on the same information President Bush had. It turned out to be misinformation. The difference is, Hillary Clinton now aknowledges this. Bush will go to his grave defending his position. So in that sense, yes, she may make a more objective leader. As to the WMD issue, Hussein in one of his last interviews stated that he postured his position of possessing WMD's to keep Iran at bay. The UN was doing its job while the US was monitoring Iraq with vigilance and technology that can make a letter readable from space. Had they been moving WMD's around the country, we wouldn't have waited for anyone to give us the okay to go in.
-
I'm gonna ripped over this opinion. But I feel compelled to give it anyway. Hillary didn't make the assessment that invading Iraq was the right thing to do alone. There were many on both sides of the political aisle that agreed. And there have been many from both sides that have second guessed that decision. Focusing on whether or not she would have been, or would be a better leader is kind of irrelevant. It's like assuming things would be different if the WMD's had been found. We will never know for sure. I'm still wondering why George Bush and the allies didn't take care of Iraq and Saddam during the 1st Gulf War the first time around? If the connection to Iraq and terrorist was so easily proven. 9/11 and the other attacks such as the attack on the USS Cole, Embassy bombings, etc. May have been avoided. But once again well never know.
-
Hillary will take any side that seems popular on any given day. She will then proceed to change her views hourly.
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC