Interesting: Clinton on Iraq War

[CraigSca]

I'm not posting the whole quote here - but this is from cnn.com...

Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

Hmm...

[CraigSca]

dola...more from the article...

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.

[clintl]

Another article on the same subject, where Clinton criticizes Bush not for the decision to go to war, but for the timing:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040620/ap_on_re_us/clinton_book_17

The Bush administration made a mistake by invading Iraq (news - web sites) before United Nations (news - web sites) weapons inspectors finished their work, former President Bill Clinton (news - web sites) said in advance of Tuesday's release of his memoir, "My Life."


In an interview to be published in Time magazine, he said that even though he didn't agree with the timing of the attack, he wants the Iraq invasion "to have been worth it."

"I think if you have a pluralistic, secure, stable Iraq, the people of Iraq will be better off, and it might help the process of internal reform in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere," Clinton said.

As far as I know, when Clinton has said anything at all about Bush's decision to go to war, he has always been more supportive than critical. It should not be that big a surprise.

[Tekneek]

True.

No matter what people may think of Clinton personally, he did not just grope and fondle his way through 8 years in office. I did not like him, and I still think there were a lot of problems created by changes his Administration made. Looking back though, at this point, I don't think of him the same way I did a few years ago.

[CraigSca]

I agree, Tek. For me, it's refreshing to hear about someone sticking to their guns despite the revisionist reflections of partisan politics that seem to be the norm (on both sides).

I wonder, however, if a majority of the people that currently say they dissaprove of the Iraqi war would feel the same way had Clinton been in office, waited a while (as he said, he would have waited for the inspections to be completed) and then chose to go to war. The bottom line is, I don't think Bush can be blamed for not having found WMDs. Both sides of the coin (Republican and Democrat) thought they were there and that having them out there ultimately could threaten the US.

[EagleFan]

Clinton supports the idea. Where's the anti-Bush drones? If he came out against it, they would have filled up 2 pages of crap by now. NoMyths? Flasch186? Easy Mac? Waiting for the spin....

[Tom E]

The truth of the matter is this, Clinton should have gone to war against Iraq in 1998 when Saddam kicked out all the Inspectors. Instead he shot off a few Tomahawk missiles, then let Saddam do whatever he wanted. Until Bush cleaned up his mess...

AND WHERE WAS BILL CLINTON AFTER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER WAS BOMBED IN 1993............

[BishopMVP]

AND WHERE WAS BILL CLINTON AFTER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER WAS BOMBED IN 1993............Behind the FBI's release of one of the masterminds, who conveniently ran to Iraq and was given support by Saddam until he died.

[clintl]

The truth of the matter is this, Clinton should have gone to war against Iraq in 1998 when Saddam kicked out all the Inspectors. Instead he shot off a few Tomahawk missiles, then let Saddam do whatever he wanted. Until Bush cleaned up his mess...



Bullshit. Why not blame Bush I for stopping before the job was complete? Or Reagan, for giving Saddam the WMD technology in the first place? If someone is to be blamed for leaving a mess, those two are far more deserving candidates for blame.

[NoMyths]

Clinton supports the idea. Where's the anti-Bush drones? If he came out against it, they would have filled up 2 pages of crap by now. NoMyths? Flasch186? Easy Mac? Waiting for the spin....Since you asked: I suggest you read the statements Clinton made a little more carefully. I wouldn't take issue with any of the things he said that were quoted above.

[Tom E]

Bullshit. Why not blame Bush I for stopping before the job was complete? Or Reagan, for giving Saddam the WMD technology in the first place? If someone is to be blamed for leaving a mess, those two are far more deserving candidates for blame.

The UN resolution, that was the rules of war in the 1st Gulf War. Was to remove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. Not to invade Iraq or to kill/capture Saddam Hussien.

At one time Saddam was an asset we needed, we sold him weapons to fight Iran. Iran was being supported by a Communist Russia. Remember that little Cold War thing that was going on...

AT THE TIME, Saddam was the lesser of the bad. Political bussines is messy

[Tekneek]

The truth of the matter is this, Clinton should have gone to war against Iraq in 1998 when Saddam kicked out all the Inspectors. Instead he shot off a few Tomahawk missiles, then let Saddam do whatever he wanted. Until Bush cleaned up his mess...

AND WHERE WAS BILL CLINTON AFTER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER WAS BOMBED IN 1993............

Everytime he did something in 1998, he was attacked by the right for it. It was always "wag the dog." You can talk about what he should have done, but there should not be many in the GOP standing up and talking about that today. The fact is, a whole lot of Republicans were criticizing him everytime he tried to go after Saddam or bin Laden back then. They weren't saying, "You aren't doing enough," they were saying "You're just trying to distract the nation from this Monica Lewinsky thing."

Bill Clinton let the FBI/CIA handle the investigation, which was what should have happened. What did you want him to do? It's wonderful to have this crystal ball and see the future, but did you really see it back in 1993 the way it unfolded? I doubt it.

[Tekneek]

AT THE TIME, Saddam was the lesser of the bad. Political bussines is messy

That still does not allow someone to wash their hands of the ultimate results. If foreign policy during the Reagan years helped Saddam to become the bastard he was during the 90s, then that Administration must share the blame for those results. That's just the same as everyone lobbing stones at Clinton for not being able to see the future.

[BishopMVP]

That's just the same as everyone lobbing stones at Clinton for not being able to see the future.It wasn't that he wasn't able to see the future, it was that he didn't respond forcefully when we were attacked numerous times. He treated all the terrorist attacks as police matters instead of the acts of war many were. And yes, there were many Republicans complaining about what he was doing then, just as many Democrats urging stronger action are now against what Bush is doing. That it wasn't as obvious at the time doesn't excuse him from blame (or Bush I, Reagan, Carter, FDR, Andrew Jackson whoever you want to name.)

[Desnudo]

It wasn't that he wasn't able to see the future, it was that he didn't respond forcefully when we were attacked numerous times. He treated all the terrorist attacks as police matters instead of the acts of war many were. And yes, there were many Republicans complaining about what he was doing then, just as many Democrats urging stronger action are now against what Bush is doing. That it wasn't as obvious at the time doesn't excuse him from blame (or Bush I, Reagan, Carter, FDR, Andrew Jackson whoever you want to name.)

I don't think foreign policy was President Clinton's strong point. UN goes in Iraq, UN goes out of Iraq, etc., etc.. Continue to negotiate even when it's obvious negotiating is failing. Genocide not prevented in Rwanda or the Balkans. That fiasco in Somalia. But I think his main failing was to consistently outline an achievable goal and exit point whenever the US became involved in an action.

Although what the Republicans were complaining about then was that we are not the world's policeman. I have memories of a very isolationist stance. Times are good, don't rock the boat. I also remember thinking of terrorist attacks in terms of being a police matter for the FBI and CIA, not the army. President Clinton merely represented most Americans thinking on that at the time.

[Tekneek]

That it wasn't as obvious at the time doesn't excuse him from blame (or Bush I, Reagan, Carter, FDR, Andrew Jackson whoever you want to name.)

Of course not, but to blame him completely is overzealous, IMO. There is plenty of blame to go around.

If he had not let himself get entangled in that Lewinsky deal, everything might have been better. That is a big black mark. It allowed him to be bullied into non-action at times when stronger and more decisive action could have made a difference. If he had just come out and admitted it from the beginning, the story would have gone away and perhaps stronger responses could have been launched without half of the country saying it was a "wag the dog" incident.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Yeah, basically everytime Clinton did shoot off a couple of Tomahawks, it was all 'WAG THE DOG!', and 'HE GOT A BLOWJOB!' At the time, he could've told the Republicans in private that he wanted to take out Bin Laden or Hussien and they would've cared more about their impeachment. Sure, foreign policy wasn't Clinton's strong suit. That's why he had Gore, a former Senator as his VP.

Remember, Clinton was a smart guy and left with the highest approval ratings of any President in the last few decades, yes even higher than Reagan. He knew he wouldn't be able to get the idea of another Gulf War past a Republican Congress that wanted to impeach him for the same exact thing many of them did (and still do). He only got caught.

[clintl]

I consider his efforts in Balkans a major success, not a failure of any sort. The peace agreement he negotiated has successfully stood for 10 years, he stopped the Kosovo genocide, ran Milosevic out of power, and spearheaded the implementation of the UN War Crimes Tribunal that is bringing the Balkans war criminals to justice. What did he not do that you think he should have done?

[Dutch]

The reason I support Bush's decision to press forward with the Middle East Reconstruction effort is because the timing was ripe for the change.

While I think Clinton could have done things differently, I think the diplomatic process hadn't played itself out until 1998. At that point, it was a weird time (with him as a lame duck President) to start something there was no way he could finish.

It would have been as irresponsable as Bush Sr. beginning a Somali campaign he could not finish.

Timing is everything, and lets face it, at the beginning of a term, where Bush has over 3 years of accountability for his decision, is perfect.

And there is no question that it had to be done, especially after 9/11.

[Tekneek]

And there is no question that it had to be done, especially after 9/11.

There do seem to be a lot of questions about that, actually. If there weren't, the debate would not be continuing...would it?

[Dutch]

Sorry, I was speaking logically, not politically.

[GrantDawg]

Why not blame Bush I for stopping before the job was complete? Or Reagan, for giving Saddam the WMD technology in the first place? If someone is to be blamed for leaving a mess, those two are far more deserving candidates for blame.
I do, but I blame Clinton equally. Reagan miscalculated the ability to control a madman, Bush was too big a wuss (and made the current war harder by lying to the people of Iraq) to finish the job, and Clinton was afraid to do what needed to be done in 1998. They all share the blame. (I'm sure others might have said the same thing after this post and maybe other things, but I sure do get tired of the broad paint-brushes people use on both sides of the political spectrum).

[WussGawd]

The truth of the matter is this, Clinton should have gone to war against Iraq in 1998 when Saddam kicked out all the Inspectors. Instead he shot off a few Tomahawk missiles, then let Saddam do whatever he wanted. Until Bush cleaned up his mess...

Prior to 9/11, there would have been little support to go to war in Iraq. Facts are the Bush administration wanted to go after Iraq, and had their first cabinet meeting on the subject on 1/23/01 (3 days after inauguration). They also concluded that there wouldn't be public support for it. (Source: Ron Suskind, The Price of Loyalty). 9/11 gave them the opportunity to drum up support for such a job (by lying, as it turned out, but still).

AND WHERE WAS BILL CLINTON AFTER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER WAS BOMBED IN 1993............[/QUOTE]

Arresting the men responsible. Most of the men behind that bombing are in jail. Of course, why let the facts get in the way of your ridiculous Rush Limbaugh inspired rhetoric.

[WussGawd]

Everytime he did something in 1998, he was attacked by the right for it. It was always "wag the dog." You can talk about what he should have done, but there should not be many in the GOP standing up and talking about that today. The fact is, a whole lot of Republicans were criticizing him everytime he tried to go after Saddam or bin Laden back then. They weren't saying, "You aren't doing enough," they were saying "You're just trying to distract the nation from this Monica Lewinsky thing."

Right. It's important to understand this. The Republican hate machine spent $100+ million dollars trying to get rid of Clinton from before he even took office. It's awful hard to drum up bipartisan support for a war (and since the Republicans controlled Congress from 1994 on, he had no choice but to look for Republican help) when the opposition is not only unwilling to do so, but in fact is trying to remove you from office.

If you want to blame Clinton for part of 9/11, go ahead...there is blame to be had. But blame a Republican Congress that had a special prosecutor ready to go from Inauguration Day 1993 for distracting the President from executing many of his duties, including a resolute foreign policy. Blame them for having a total slimeball like Ken Starr spend $54 million in taxpayer money to blow the lid off of oral sex.

Personally, I blame Richard Mellon Scaife for 9/11. I blame him more than Bush, and I blame him more than Clinton.

And if you don't know who Richard Mellon Scaife is, I suggest some research. He's basically the seamy underbelly of right-wing politics who is setting the agenda for a hijacked Republican Party.

[GrantDawg]

I'm sorry, but even in the "Clinton lynching" years, it would not have been the Republicans that would have been against a war with Iraq. They would have slammed how he ran it, sure, but not prevented it from happening.

[Dutch]

That's basically what's happening now. Hardly a single Democrat was against the removal of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Well, maybe Ted Kennedy.

Everybody wanted to get from point A to point B. Especially after 9/11.

[Glengoyne]

...

Personally, I blame Richard Mellon Scaife for 9/11. I blame him more than Bush, and I blame him more than Clinton.

And if you don't know who Richard Mellon Scaife is, I suggest some research. He's basically the seamy underbelly of right-wing politics who is setting the agenda for a hijacked Republican Party.

[thinly veiled cough] bullshit[/thinly veiled cough]

This is the stuff of ufo conspiracy theories, well at least George Soros conspiracy theories.

[TroyF]

I wonder, however, if a majority of the people that currently say they dissaprove of the Iraqi war would feel the same way had Clinton been in office, waited a while (as he said, he would have waited for the inspections to be completed) and then chose to go to war.

For my money, one of the best questions of the thread. The answer?

Clinton would have won the PR battle. He'd have went into salesman mode. Republicans WOULD have attacked him, and the public would have supported him.

If we could have combined the Bush way of taking a pro active approach at removing threats combined with the Clinton ability to sell the concept to the American public, the president would have an approval rating of about 85%. :)

Clinton saying he'd have let the inspector do his job is the only thing I have a problem with. The inspector had a decade to do his job and Iraq continued to try and stifle him. At some point, you have to just deal with the fact the job is never going to be completed and make a judgement off of the intel you have AND the actions/history of the country you are considering a threat. I think we waited long enough on that end.

[clintl]

Clinton saying he'd have let the inspector do his job is the only thing I have a problem with. The inspector had a decade to do his job and Iraq continued to try and stifle him. At some point, you have to just deal with the fact the job is never going to be completed and make a judgement off of the intel you have AND the actions/history of the country you are considering a threat. I think we waited long enough on that end.

Hans Blix was not the chief inspector during the pre-1998 inspections. He had only a few months in Iraq to do his job before Bush pulled the trigger, and his people wasted a significant amount of that on wild goose chases checking out bad US intelligence leads. After the war, when David Kay was in charge, he used almost the same words as Blix in saying that he needed more time, and Kay was given a lot more time than Blix.

[TroyF]

Hans Blix was not the chief inspector during the pre-1998 inspections. He had only a few months in Iraq to do his job before Bush pulled the trigger, and his people wasted a significant amount of that on wild goose chases checking out bad US intelligence leads. After the war, when David Kay was in charge, he used almost the same words as Blix in saying that he needed more time, and Kay was given a lot more time than Blix.


Should have used better wording. By inspector, I meant inspectors. Doesn't matter who it was, they weren't getting the job done. If it was poor intel, that was likely not to change. Even Blix was being stifled at every step of the way. The "more time" part was to find away around the obstacles Iraq continually put in their way. That was never going to change. We'd still be debating this ten years from now had we given them more time.

[Sharpieman]

Sorry, I was speaking logically, not politically.
LOL. I still don't understand the reason why we went into Iraq? Was it WMD's? Was it sponsorship of terrorism? Was it that Saddam was an "evil guy." The reasons keep on changing, and thats why its not credible. The worst thing about it is that Iraq is a complete mess now. And our troops will be there for probably a couple of years and troops won't stop dying. What you really have to ask yourself is, is it really worth it? It's not politics to me either. I'll blast those who voted to give Bush the power to use military force, Kerry, my reps. and my senators.

[SFL Cat]

LOL. I still don't understand the reason why we went into Iraq? Was it WMD's? Was it sponsorship of terrorism? Was it that Saddam was an "evil guy." The reasons keep on changing, and thats why its not credible. The worst thing about it is that Iraq is a complete mess now. And our troops will be there for probably a couple of years and troops won't stop dying. What you really have to ask yourself is, is it really worth it? It's not politics to me either. I'll blast those who voted to give Bush the power to use military force, Kerry, my reps. and my senators.

Hopefully we won't be in Iraq as long as we've been in Kosovo.

[BishopMVP]

Bullshit. Why not blame Bush I for stopping before the job was complete? Or Reagan, for giving Saddam the WMD technology in the first place? If someone is to be blamed for leaving a mess, those two are far more deserving candidates for blame.A) Stop trying to blame 1 person and accept that there are lots of people deserving blame. B) Look at the amount and actual material given/sold to Iraq by the US, Russia, France and Britain and come tell me with a straight face that Reagan gave Saddam WMD capability. Next, remember that we were secretly supporting whichever side was losing in the Iran-Iraq War because we just wanted those two enemies to keep fighting and focusing on each other.Of course not, but to blame him completely is overzealous, IMO. There is plenty of blame to go around.Clearly, and I didn't mean to imply that you were absolving him of blame.If he had not let himself get entangled in that Lewinsky deal, everything might have been better. That is a big black mark. It allowed him to be bullied into non-action at times when stronger and more decisive action could have made a difference. If he had just come out and admitted it from the beginning, the story would have gone away and perhaps stronger responses could have been launched without half of the country saying it was a "wag the dog" incident.I call bullshit on this one. He had a good 4/5 years before this incident really came out, and his foreign policy wasn't exactly an aggressive one. Casualty-averse and weak is how I would describe it. Pulling out of Somalia, waiting so long to deal with the Balkans the first time, ignoring Rwanda, etc.I consider his efforts in Balkans a major success, not a failure of any sort. The peace agreement he negotiated has successfully stood for 10 years, he stopped the Kosovo genocide, ran Milosevic out of power, and spearheaded the implementation of the UN War Crimes Tribunal that is bringing the Balkans war criminals to justice. What did he not do that you think he should have done?Intervened sooner. And, don't forget, we still have troops in Kosovo, where there is still constant ethnic killings and the only economic sectors that are thriving are smuggling and prostitution. Where are the claims of quagmire there?Arresting the men responsible. Most of the men behind that bombing are in jail. Of course, why let the facts get in the way of your ridiculous Rush Limbaugh inspired rhetoric.Who were the two masterminds? Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Yasin. Abdul Yasin was immediately picked up by the FBI, then released and he fled to Iraq where he lived comfortably for a decade. Ramzi Yousef wasn't captured until he blew up some chemicals in his Manila apartment in 1998 IIRC. So if we captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 2006 and let Osama bin Laden live in, say Iran, until he died in 2012 or so would that be acceptable to you and vindicate Bush? Hell no, so don't pretend like Clinton did enough.

[Dutch]

LOL. I still don't understand the reason why we went into Iraq? Was it WMD's? Was it sponsorship of terrorism? Was it that Saddam was an "evil guy." The reasons keep on changing, and thats why its not credible. The worst thing about it is that Iraq is a complete mess now. And our troops will be there for probably a couple of years and troops won't stop dying. What you really have to ask yourself is, is it really worth it? It's not politics to me either. I'll blast those who voted to give Bush the power to use military force, Kerry, my reps. and my senators.

1. Do you believe Saddam Hussein had any WMD in 2003? If not, what do you think happened to the tens of thousands of gallons of Nerve Agents and VX Gases and Sarin Gases that the UN inventoried from Iraqi documents back in 1993-5?

2. Do you believe Saddam Hussein was sponsoring terrorism in 2003? If not, what about the payments to Hamas? What about the uncontrolled regions where Answar el Islam had terror camps? What about the Al Qaeda operatives that received treatments during and after the Afghanistan operations in Baghdad?

3. Do you think Saddam Hussein was an "evil" guy (or acting illegally or criminally if you prefer)?

4. Do you think the Administration has had only one reason for the invasion? Which one? If the only thing you can think of is "Oil", why aren't we taking it now?

5. How long would you have expected it to take for us to topple Saddam Hussein's Baath Party regime? If your answer is less than one month, what should our military have done differently?

6. How long would you expect Iraq to eliminate it's oppositions to the current Democratic processes and have complete peace and harmony within Iraq?

7. Do you consider Iraq to not have been a "complete mess" under Saddam Hussein?

8. What are you feelings on Saddam Hussein's refusal to obey or even recognize the U.N. 17 resolutions that dealt directly and clearly with his responsabilities as the leader of Iraq?

9. What are you feelings on Saddam Hussein's refusal to abide by the 1991 US Cease Fire agreement that Saddam himself signed?

10. What do you think about the threat Saddam Hussein had towards Israel? Would he have considered giving future nuclear weapons to Hamas, for instance? In your honest opinion?

11. What is your feeling of President Clinton's policy of "Regime Change" regarding Saddam Hussein and Iraq?

12. Did the fact that Saddam Hussein authorized his anti-aircraft batteries to shoot at US and allied planes patrolling the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones bother you, or did the fact that his AA units did fire at Allied planes almost daily bother you? Or did the Northern No-Fly Zone (that protected the Kurds) and the Southern No-Fly Zone (that protected the Shiites) bother you?

13. What are your feeling about Amnesty International suggesting that the UN Sanctions against Iraq were the direct cause of nearly 200,000 deaths each year in Iraq?

14. What are you feelings about Saddam Hussein spending his Oil for Food Money on golden palaces instead of food?


The point is that it wasn't one reason why we should go into Iraq. It was many reasons. The biggest one in my eyes is we had no clue how far along Saddam Hussein was with making or acquiring a nuclear device. But one thing was clear, the means to deliver such a payload to the United States or Israel or Europe or anywhere was established in September of 2001. The realization that Terror could and can be used as a negotiating tool with the US and the West came to be on that day.

The timing was not only right, it's window was closing quickly. If we hadn't gone into Iraq, when we did, we would never have gone in. And the end result would be catastrophy, and instead of the Baath Party being the victims, it would be innocent Americans, or Israelis, or Germans, or French, or Turks, or Saudi's that would pay the ultimate price. Iraq was only getting worse, not better. It had to be done.