Did President Bush invade Iraq because Bill Clinton recommended it?

13 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    yes. because republicans love bill clinton so much they would do anything he says.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Clinton DID make regime change in Iraq the policy of the United States, in October 1998.

    But that was not a significant reason Bush chose to request Congressional authorization to invade Iraq.

    But both were based on the same information and intelligence regarding Saddam.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    No. We really don't know why Bush invaded Iraq. Every reason given has proved to be not true. So it would seem that the reason is a secret that only Bush and a few select actually know about.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    That an all the intel he had at the time.

    I know there are tons of Monday morning quarterback going on.

    Bill thought Iraq was a threat too.

    I am sorry but I do have a memory and there are plenty of sources out there to remind us all that Bill thought saddam was a threat to the US too.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Well the Iraqi regime change act was signed into law when Clinton was president. What Bush didn't know was that everything Clinton did foreign policy wise was intended to accomplish nothing. (remember Rwanda)

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Mark T
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    No, President Bush was poorly advised by several individuals in and surrounding his administration.

    More broadly called "neoconservatives", these political adherents hold to several "ideals" which are both dangerous to the world and to our republic, and had advocated strongly to President Clinton that he invade Iraq during the late 1990's -(1998 & 1999).

    The advocacy for open war against Iraq (and China) was put forth but the "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC) and was drawn up in 1990 in response to finding credible threats to the US to justify larger military expenditures in the absence of the USSR. Iraq , Iran, Pakistan, China , North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Lebanon even Egypt and Jordan (notably every country surrounding Israel), is considered a "potentially dangerous" regime.

    During the Pre 9/11 Bush Administration Neoconservative thinkers were highly influential in advocating for a "strong" military response against China to the accidental collision of a US E3 spyplane and a Chinese fighter jet scrambled from Taipan.

    It was reported that the Joint Chiefs (to a man) uniformly failed to entertain the idea as "viable".

    I unfortunately have a friend (Paul) who has become quite an outspoken racist on account of believing all that the neoconservatives have to say.

    For instance - when you strip away the flowery language and truly intractable rhetoric, he believes "strongly" that the Palestinian people should be exterminated as they pose a potential threat to the Jewish state.

    He believes (again) "strongly", that the US should not entertain detainees but that all prisoners or captives in the ongoing war on terrorism should be summarily killed after information is extracted.

    That Iran should be pre-emptively attacked - (with nuclear weapons) towards major population centers in addition to strikes to remove the potential for developing nuclear weapons.

    In response to this, I purchased and read many books and dozens if not hundreds of articles on the subject and decided that they are not a group which have anyone's best interests at heart.

    The neoconservatives do not only not represent the interests of the United States of America but do not represent the interests of the Israeli people.

    Both Irving Kristol and Douglas Murray explicitly state that Israeli instances of high levels of public militarism and explicit rules of racial and religious discrimination are in fact superior to the values and rules of the US constitution. Murray (see Neoconservatism : Why We Need It), It is unclear to most folks that either militarism or discrimination is desirable.

    Having said that , these gentlemen (mostly) are currently strong advocates of attacking Iran and for the most part are the exclusive supporters of such a policy decision.

    When I started my investigation a friend of mine (Joe) who had heard and was mildly amused at my concern for our mutual friend (Paul) sent me this link to a you tube video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmP8Bgof6KE

    Youtube thumbnail

    At first I thought this Mc Namara guy was unforgivably liberal and hopelessly conspiratorial, 20+ books and dozens of articles later, He's still unforgivably smug, but largely not incorrect.

    Source(s): PNAC : http://www.newamericancentury.org/ What Barry Says : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmP8Bgof6KE Imperial Hubris : Anonymous (CIA analyst) One Percent Doctrine : Suskind Thoughts on Machiavelli : Strauss On Tyranny : Strauss The Prince : Machiavelli The Republic : Plato The Flight of the Creative Class : Richard Florida The Neconservative Revolution : Friedman Neoconservativism : Murray Selected works : Hegel Selected works : Ayn Rand (notably Atlas Shrugged) Sorrows of Empire : Chalmers Johnson Hegemony or Survival : Chomsky Selected works : Shadia Drury Selected works : Robert McNamara Selected books/and works from Irving and William Kristol, Mr's. Podhertz and Prof. and Mr. Kagan and more
    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    So President Bush really is just a puppet. Are there any decisions you believe he might have made on his own, so he might be held accountable for them, or does he always do what he's told?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    No.

    Bush himself says that God told him to invade Afghanistan, and Iraq.

    One of the few times I hope there really is a God, and that Dubya gets to face him someday.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    No he did it because Saddam tried to take out his daddy!The Iraqi oil and no-bid contracts were just bonuses!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    He invaded to do what his father didn't do - topple Hussein

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.