well, the Clintons didn't invade Iraq, so it's the words of those who did that hold more impact on why the invasion happened, and frankly, I don't recall Bush or any of them going to the U.N and asserting that the Iraqui people needed to be liberated. I don't really recall him telling the American people that either. he may have made one or two statements in passing to the troops, but overall, if he touted the liberation aspect leading up to the invasion, it must have been a pretty minimal effort.

>Not true. The words 'liberate Iraq' or 'liberate the people of Iraq' have been used since the beginning. They were also used by the clintons back during the Clinton years. The threat of Saddam and his treatment of the people of Iraq was put out to the public even back then.
>
>Just in case you ask for proof:
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2625981.stm
>http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
>
>And just in case anyone has forgotten H Clinton's position back in 2002:
>
>http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
>
>and her many many maneuvers:
>
>http://washingtonindependent.com/view/clinton-maneuvers
>
>and her husband's position:
>
>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/clinton_12-16.html
>
>and let's not forget where some of the information came from:
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/
>http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040619.asp#1
>
>
>
>>>>>>It's painful to think of U.S. troops remaining there until these bozos get their act together. That could be forever.
>>>>>
>>>>>Fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
>>>>>
>>>>>How much thought have you given to the consequences of succeeding in forming a democratic Iraq?
>>>>
>>>>That is not and never was the goal of the intervention.
>>>
>>>Oh?
>>>
>>>Who's idea was it to intervene?
>>
>>The U.S. never even mentioned 'liberating' or 'democratising' Iraq until they had to finally admit there were no WMDs. And they'll never admit that they want an unhindered supply of oil.