T Nation

Clinton Supports War on Iraq!

Why aren’t the Republicans (or at least Rush) all over this? Clinton is still the hero of the Democratic party. If they knew he suppoorted the war, then many more Democrats would, too.

[b]Bill Clinton On Bush’s Decision To Liberate Iraq

Time Magazine[/b]

In an interview with Time Magazine, former President Bill Clinton had this to say on whether President Bush was right to invade Iraq:

[i]You know, I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over. I don’t believe he went in there for oil. We didn’t go in there for imperialist or financial reasons. We went in there because he bought the Wolfowitz-Cheney analysis that the Iraqis would be better off, we could shake up the authoritarian Arab regimes in the Middle East, and our leverage to make peace between the Palestinians and Israelis would be increased.

At the moment the U.N. inspectors were kicked out in '98, this is the proper language: there were substantial quantities of botulinum and aflatoxin, as I recall, some bioagents, I believe there were those, and VX and ricin, chemical agents, unaccounted for. Keep in mind, that’s all we ever had to work on. We also thought there were a few missiles, some warheads, and maybe a very limited amount of nuclear laboratory capacity.

After 9/11, let’s be fair here, if you had been President, you’d think, Well, this fellow bin Laden just turned these three airplanes full of fuel into weapons of mass destruction, right? Arguably they were super-powerful chemical weapons. Think about it that way. So, you’re sitting there as President, you’re reeling in the aftermath of this, so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, Well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I’ve got to do that.

That’s why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for. 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. I never really thought he’d [use them]. What I was far more worried about was that he’d sell this stuff or give it away. Same thing I’ve always been worried about North Korea’s nuclear and missile capacity. I don’t expect North Korea to bomb South Korea, because they know it would be the end of their country. But if you can’t feed yourself, the temptation to sell this stuff is overwhelming. So that’s why I thought Bush did the right thing to go back. When you’re the President, and your country has just been through what we had, you want everything to be accounted for.[/i]

http://wbal.com/stories/templates/show_douglas.asp?articleid=20651

There is nothing about this in Michael Moore’s movie Fahrenheit 9/11 so it just cannot be true! Ha Ha. I think if all of these politicians really cared about the people in this country instead of getting a vote, you would find they all agree. Hell, they voted to go over there to start with! All along the Dem’s have been planning it to be a political issue. Look at John Kerry, he says personally abortion and gay marraige is wrong, but he votes to support them both just for the votes. There are no morals in Washington and if someone tries to state how they feel they get labeled as a bible thumper. Correct me if I am wrong, but amost all of the politicians are sitting in church on Sunday saying Amen! They think the death penalty is wrong but support abortion. Morals?

I often wonder why, as well. whenever i see mentions of such things, the dems/lefties/liberals/whatever you wish to call them or wish to be called write it off as posturing for the media. Its not unlike ppl to ignore that which does not fit their version of reality…

Jeff 3 cheers to you!!! For posting what you did!! NOT only CLinton…But here is something Al Gore Said:

The [Bush] Administration did not hesitate to heighten and distort public fear of terrorism after September 11th, to create a political case for attacking Iraq."
– Former Vice President Al Gore, February 5, 2004

And like to add this Jeff what you posted…
The Clinton Administration’s Public Case Against Saddam Hussein …

…"On February 17, President Clinton spoke on the steps of the Pentagon. The president declared that the great danger confronting the U.S. and its allies was the “threat Iraq poses now-a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.” Before the Gulf War of 1991, he noted, “Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it. Not once, but many times in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary and even against his own people.”

Clinton furthered explained that:

Iraq "admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. . . .

"Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq’s remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits . . . .

"It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. . . .

"Now, let’s imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this 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. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he’ll use the arsenal. . . .

On May 22, 1998, President Clinton delivered a speech reminiscent of the comments he made on February 17 at the Pentagon.

The president warned Annapolis graduates that our enemies “may deploy compact and relatively cheap weapons of mass destruction - not just nuclear, but also chemical or biological, to use disease as a weapon of war. Sometimes the terrorists and criminals act alone. But increasingly, they are interconnected, and sometimes supported by hostile countries.” The U.S. will work to “prevent the spread and use of biological weapons and to protect our people in the event these terrible weapons are ever unleashed by a rogue state or terrorist group or an international criminal organization.” This protection will include “creating stockpiles of medicines and vaccines to protect our civilian population against the kind of biological agents our adversaries are most likely to obtain or develop…”
On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed public law 105-235, “Iraqi Breach of International Obligations,” which had passed the Senate unanimously and by a vote of 407-6 in the House.34 Among the law’s findings: “Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security.” It concluded:

"Resolved … [t]hat the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.

Six days later, August 20, the U.S. launched missiles strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan. According to the September 1, 1998 Washington Post, a U.S. intelligence operation “to investigate Sudan’s nascent chemical weapons program ultimately linked Al Shifa [a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory] to Iraq’s chemical weapons programs…”

(this is just a short section from this website . WHich is a extremely good article that reinforces what Jeff shared with the group… http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm )

Also this is a very interesting website too…This is from the state department
And it is the timeline of US and Iraq realtions…And what Sadaam Hussien was doing all along…

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/timeline.htm

Again, all things that people forget about…Shows how important History truly is. ANd needs to be retudied and looked at. To get at the answers, how and why…

Joe

I honestly believe that if Rush mentioned every day that Clinton supported the war that this would make a huge impact on the election this November.

Grwdad, I’m not sure how your post relates to the topic. You really don’t understand the concept of someone being against something, but not wanting to tell other people what to think? Or to pass legislation to force people to follow certain beliefs?

[quote]Jeff Rage wrote:
I honestly believe that if Rush mentioned every day that Clinton supported the war that this would make a huge impact on the election this November.

Grwdad, I’m not sure how your post relates to the topic. You really don’t understand the concept of someone being against something, but not wanting to tell other people what to think? Or to pass legislation to force people to follow certain beliefs? [/quote]

Actually, I just went on a rant. The hypocracy in politics gets under my skin. I will try to stick to the subject from now on. Sometimes I get going and forget what I’m talking about.

[quote]Jeff Rage wrote:
I honestly believe that if Rush mentioned every day that Clinton supported the war that this would make a huge impact on the election this November.

Grwdad, I’m not sure how your post relates to the topic. You really don’t understand the concept of someone being against something, but not wanting to tell other people what to think? Or to pass legislation to force people to follow certain beliefs? [/quote]

On second thought, enlighten me because I don’t understand what you are saying. Because if you belive in something, you believe in it and tell how you personally feel about it when asked and not giving in to a “party” or group. Of people. I don’t understand, Dem, Rep, guy, girl , or whatever, how you can see you are against something and then support a group or person that is for what you said you were against.

Anyway, I am way off the subject. I do think that the major supported the war and now that things haven’t turned out quite as planned, it has become political. Some people blame Bush for 9/11, and I bet that if Kerry wins and we have another attack, and I pray everyday that we do not, people will still be blaming Bush.

Read it again guys.

Clinton says that he also believed that Saddam was dangerous, but he didn’t support the way that Bush took us to war, by pulling the weapons inspectors and going in ASAP without a real coalition. Bush Senior thinks the same thing!

What is the point here? That Bill Clinton is never wrong about anything, so he can’t be wrong about this? Are you kidding me? I don’t even know any hard line Democrats who would say that Clinton is always right about everything.

But I do know of a few guys at T-Mag who think that George W. Bush shits gold bricks, and can’t do a damn thing wrong, though.