I have to admit Bill Clinton (Slick Willie) was a better president than Bush, but he was a supporter of the war in Iraq and he blazed the path to the war in his own presidency. His own sanctions were responsible for the deaths of 500,000 INNOCENT CHILDREN. Now he tells us he is against the war in Iraq? Can we trust someone who lied to us before? The images below are a testament to his lies.
Former president Bill Clinton said yesterday that he "opposed Iraq from the beginning," glossing over the more nuanced views of the war he has expressed over time. Clinton made the remarks while campaigning for his wife in Iowa -- a state where many Democrats are against the war -- and as he expressed bitterness over getting a tax cut with money that could have been spent on the military.
But past remarks made by the former president do leave open a question about how fervently Clinton opposed the war at the outset and before it grew widely unpopular. In immediate hindsight, Clinton did not sound like a fierce critic.
"I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," Clinton said on May 18, 2003, during a commencement speech at Tougaloo College in Mississippi.
8 comments:
I know the pictures are supposed to make a point about Bill's honesty...but isn't this a bit Fox News-ish?
So let me get this straight...Bill Clinton singlehandedly killed 500,000 children with a blowjob?
I must say, if that's what he's packing in his trousers, I may just want to be included.
Kyle, I bet you would love to get into Bill Clinton's pants, but your personal behavior isn't the topic of discussion.
Clinton santions however did cause 500,000 deaths. And he did enable the war in Iraq and support it ,before he "opposed it". Sorry Kyle, foreign policy isn't your topic. Stick to vouchers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/763824.stm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10866440&dopt=AbstractPlus
The sanctions were not just imposed by Bill Clinton, but by the UN and rightly so. The sanctions were meant to coerce Iraq into working with the infallible, magnificent, and super duper effective/not waste of space or money, United Nations. Bill Clinton was also right when he bombed Iraq and Sudan and when we interviened in Bosnia. Frankly, military action is sometimes necessary and we shouldn't forget that just because of what has happened in Iraq.
Thank you Navid. I would've said that myself - but my experience is solely in areas of education and blowjobs...so I didn't want to intrude.
lollergaggles.
The sanctions were a failure and only managed to terrorize and demoralize the civilian population that was not responsible for Saddam Hussein. Also, they were passed by the U.N. only after Bill Clinton pressured the security council. Clinton's failure and lies that he used to create the sanctions set the path for the 2002 War Authorization Act.
Btw, who said I was against wars and military actions. I can name a war I liked it. It was called the Civil War. The South needed to be taught a lesson and I love General Sherman and Abraham Lincoln for what they did to the "Soncs of the Confederacy". And I don't mean love in the way Kyle seems to love Bill right now.(That was a joke, Kyle). A sanction isn't a military action anyway.
No sanctions aren't a military action, but in this case they were a direct precursor to military action. So, unless you thought the Gulf War was right (which apparently you don't as your own evidence shows that many of those 500,000 dead children, which you demonize Clinton with, were a result of the war as well not only sanctions), your retort is honestly just dumb. Also, obviously the sanctions weren't much of a failure as part of their purpose was to halt re-armament, and we of course now know that Iraq sure didn't have many weapons of mass destruction or weaponry in general in 2003. So maybe it was a bad choice of words for Clinton to say he opposed it from the beginning as, like most people, Clinton too got the misinformation that Iraq had re-armed themselves giving reason to his initial support of the Iraq war. So besides a few lies which harmed nothing but Clinton's image and this whole made up idea that the sanctions were part of Clinton's devilish scheme to damn and invade Iraq, could you maybe give an example of where Clinton caused harmed to the US or the world as a result of self-interest? I doubt it, and thus I see no reason to trust Clinton less than any other politician especially since he was a much better president than others of recent memory. You even agree to that. As reason and the whole idea of politics (which inclues lying, and all politicians lie to some degree if you weren't aware) seems beyond you, I think sticking to your brief, uninformed, and hateful blogs is the way to go.
Also good job with the civil war reference, perhaps you'd like a pat on the back for your patriotism? And did you trust Abraham Lincoln from the start, cause I mean he did initially have nothing wrong with slavery but then all the sudden abolished it and said it was a terrible thing. And that Sherman, last time I remembered he burnt confederate cities down to the ground even when no confederate soldiers were present. THOSE POOR INNOCENT CHILDREN AND WOMEN. He definetley shouldn't be trusted.
Get your shit straight.
Post a Comment