President Clinton wanted Regime change in Iraq in 1998

[buggs]

The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein

"fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."

Your probably thinking this is George Bush right? Nope. It is Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998. (See here (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/607rkunu.asp))

The televised speech followed a month-long build-up of U.S. troops and equipment in the Persian Gulf. And it won applause from leading Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Yep. The very same party that fought it every step of the way in 2002 applauding it 4 short years before. The very same party that vehemently denounces the war now was up for it then. The very same party who constantly attacks Bush for doing it, when their boy wanted to do it 4 years earlier, but got talked out of it by Kofi Annan, who really wanted to do the "Oil For Food Program".

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9801/07/un.iraq.food.oil/

Of course, we know what a travesty that turned out to be:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/bg1772.cfm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C118013%2C00.html

[reddogftklr]

Too bad old bubba was too busy getting bj's in the oval office and never did anything about homeland security.
That is all I am going to say I am leaving it like that.

[MrMacphisto]

Well folks, if Bush had gotten the U.N.'s support in attacking Iraq, I would have supported him as well. The same would've been true if Clinton had done the same. The simple fact of the matter is that the U.N. hadn't chosen to support this war, so I also was against it, as were many other Americans. My dad once referred to this war by saying, "Right war, wrong time." I basically agree; getting the U.N.'s support for these kinds of things is very important, because we need their funds and troops to help us in the nation-building process. By choosing to fight this war with so few significant allies, we were not only arrogant, but also stupid....

[buggs]

Actually they did have most of the UN support at first, but then France decided to backstabbed us. Powell had a meeting with the French and told them what was going on, and what we wanted to do. France agreed that it was the right thing to do in that meeting, then went behind our backs to get countries against us. Then Germany and Russia jumped on board, pressured by France, and because Germany was being run by an anti-American leader Chancellor Schroeder. It is common knowledge that the reason why he got elected in the first place was because he is anti-American. But the main reason they were against it was because they had made loans to Saddam and if he was out of power they wouldn't get paid back. There was nothing noble about their objection in the UN. Just "We want to get paid back." If they had their way Saddam would still be in power so they could have a chance of getting paid back. Do you know how many countries owe us money but we don't collect on because we know the country cant afford to pay us back. Alot. In fact we still give aid to those very same countries every year because they need our help. And the fact is we didn't even need to go to the UN in the first place. Bush did that as a courtesy. The way the resulution read, if Iraq went against the resultion they signed to abide by after the first Gulf War, then we could go in againg. They did. But Bush decided to go to the UN because the very same people that applauded Clinton in 1998 were now saying something different. In fact, in hindsight, I wish he didn't go the UN now and jsut went in, as the resolution authorized him to do anyway.