| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Bill Clinton - Iraq Invasion Was A Big Mistake |
| 2005-11-16 |
| And now for more from the original Monday Morning Quarterback / Attention Whore... The United States made a "big mistake" when it invaded Iraq, former President Bill Clinton said Wednesday, citing the lack of planning for what would happen after dictator Saddam Hussein was overthrown. "Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done, " Clinton told students at the American University of Dubai. So getting rid of Saddam is a good thing, but it was bad that we did it? And this guy was president for eight years with that kind of logic circuit? "It was a big mistake. The American government made several errors ... one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country." Um, Bill, for the record, it did turn out to be fairly easy to defeat the Iraqi Army and Saddam would've been found earlier if he wasn't hiding in a freakin' hole in the ground. Also, I don't recall anything by the Bush administration saying that unifying the country was a primary goal. Clinton did however say that the United States had done some good things in Iraq: the removal of Saddam, the ratification of a new constitution, and the holding of parliamentary elections. All ego, no class, and no clue... |
| Posted by:Raj |
| #18 No doubt Ollie Stone's JFK Part Deux plays in somewhere, espec where Costner descibes the Dallas event as "COUP D'ETAT", and "... A MILITARY-STYLE AMBUSH FROM START TO FINISH" ags the Government and the American people. "ITS FASCISM THATS COMING BACK" except that for the DemoLefties a FASCIST > DE-REGULATED COMMUNIST. thus ala 9-11/GWOT Dubya-led alleged FASCISM = COMMUNISM by any other PC/PDeniable DemoLeft + Clintonian description, or at least the "new" JEDI = SITH SITH LORDS in REVENGE OF THE SITH. The Commies collude and assist the Radical Islamists long before 9-11 ergo its only the Islamists that attacked America on 9-11, and killed 000 Clintonian Amerikans or citizens of the future USR!? * IFF DARTH STAINIOUS BILL anti-USA "BIG BOY" remark . infers Dubya's and GOP-led America's alleged "BULLY" IMPERIALISM AND GEOPOL BELLICOSITY, what now for Clinty's new anti-US "BIG DOG" remark - "big dogs", espec the dangerous kind, are either forcibly controlled andor forcibly destroyed. for the safety and public security of all, are they not??? EITHER WAY THE USA > ROTTWEILER, PIT BULL, MASTIFF, OR OTHER IS FORCIBLY PUT DOWN - THE USA LOSES NO MATTER WHAT! |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-11-17 00:14 |
| #17 Gentlemen's agreements apply only between gentlemen. The mistake with the Iraq invasion is that it did not occur in 1998 when Saddam threw out the inspectors and Clinton blinked. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-11-16 17:29 |
| #16 On a related note, Stephen Hayes writes about some interesting finds from the ISG. |
| Posted by: doc 2005-11-16 12:56 |
| #15 What the hell ever happened to the "Gentleman's agreement" that ex-Presidents keep their mouths shut on policy, at least in public? After Juanita Broaderick the term Gentleman and B. J. Clinton should only be used to emphasise contrast. |
| Posted by: Unump Thraque9838 2005-11-16 12:27 |
| #14 The people who keep attacking "the plan", are going to make it more likely, that the next president, who can get the congress to approve a war, won't want to have to fight the "lack of plan" people (most of who voted for the war- but did'nt think they needed a plan for after the war at that time-if Bush is reckless, aren't they), so they will just nuke them. No need for a plan. |
| Posted by: plainslow 2005-11-16 12:23 |
| #13 BJ Clinton, you were a big mistake. You lost credibility while getting a blowjob in the White House while our enemies were at work. I have seen a number of presidents come and go. You have to be the worst one I have ever seen come (and go). Now you are trying to find some phony place in history. Why don't you STFU. |
| Posted by: Gletch Whomong5036 2005-11-16 12:23 |
| #12 What the hell ever happened to the "Gentleman's agreement" that ex-Presidents keep their mouths shut on policy, at least in public? It was thrown out when Bush was elected. Expect it to be reinstated after the next Democrat's elected. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-11-16 12:22 |
| #11 Hey Paula, next time, just bite the bastard's balls off. That should earn you several lifetimes of positive karma, and numerous donations to your defense fund. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2005-11-16 12:12 |
| #10 F#@king Monday morning quarterbacks. Why don't the Peanut Prez and Slick Willy ever tell us what we should do next? Given their own records in the Middle East, that should give us a clear picture of what not to do. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-11-16 11:55 |
| #9 What the hell ever happened to the "Gentleman's agreement" that ex-Presidents keep their mouths shut on policy, at least in public? What, Bill, you couldn't pick up the phone and call the Prez with your complaints/suggestions? Lost the number, did ya, you ass? And Jimmuh can STFU too. |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-11-16 11:51 |
| #8 "...he asserts that Bush acted primarily for ideological reasons..." and "...that defeating Iraq would help transform the greater Middle East toward democracy..." Clinton may very well be correct in this part of his analysis; that says nothing about whether such a Bush strategy was wrong, or why. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2005-11-16 11:46 |
| #7 With all due respect to Bill, it is unclear to me from this very short article whether the "big mistake" identified by Clinton was a.) invading Iraq, or b.) not properly anticipating the results of the invasion, or c.)doing the right thing (getting rid of Saddam?) for all the wrong reasons. Without a copy of the speech itself, it would appear that this news release and headline itself is entirely misleading. |
| Posted by: john 2005-11-16 11:43 |
| #6 Bill Clinton's parents not using birth control was a big mistake. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-11-16 10:34 |
| #5 Bill Clinton was a big mistake. Hillary will be a bigger one. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2005-11-16 10:32 |
| #4 The United States made a "big mistake" when it invaded Iraq, former President Bill Clinton said Wednesday, citing the lack of planning for what would happen after dictator Saddam Hussein was overthrown. And just what were Roosevelt's plans for Germany in 1942? or Truman's for Korea in 1951? Or do they get a pass because they were Dems? And just what was your plan in 1998 when you did this - The Iraq Liberation Act October 31, 1998 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release October 31, 1998 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers. Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region. The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life. My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership. In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government. On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law. WILLIAM J. CLINTON THE WHITE HOUSE, October 31, 1998. Where was the plan for after Saddam departed when you pushed this? |
| Posted by: Theregum Phemp7167 2005-11-16 10:27 |
| #3 I'm SOOO sick of this SORRY LAME EXCUSE for a human being. HEY BILL........ FU*K YOU!!!!!You back steppin' PEICE OF SHIT!!!!! |
| Posted by: ARMYGUY 2005-11-16 10:24 |
| #2 Clinton Backs Bush on Iraq War But Questions Invasion's Timing By John F. Harris Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, June 20, 2004; Page A04 Former president Bill Clinton said he agreed with President Bush's decision to confront Iraq about its potential weapons programs, but thought the administration erred in starting a war in 2003 rather than allowing United Nations weapons inspectors longer to carry out their work. .... Clinton made similar comments in an interview with Time magazine, in which he said he "supported the Iraq thing" but questioned its timing. Portions of both interviews -- part of the publicity campaign in advance of this week's release of Clinton's memoirs -- were distributed in advance by the news organizations. The Time excerpts, in particular, leave Clinton's views on Iraq somewhat jumbled. He both defends Bush for confronting a threat of which Clinton also spoke in dire terms while president, and minimizes the size and urgency of the problem posed by Iraq's suspected weapons programs. Noting that he has "repeatedly defended President Bush against the left" on Iraq, Clinton dismissed the notion that the Iraq war was principally about protecting petroleum or financial interests. Instead, he asserts that Bush acted primarily for ideological reasons and that the president was under the sway of Vice President Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. "We went in there because he bought the Wolfowitz-Cheney analysis" that defeating Iraq would help transform the greater Middle East toward democracy. |
| Posted by: Uloluth Spavilet1699 2005-11-16 10:18 |
| #1 Gotta admit. He's an expert on "big mistakes". |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-11-16 10:11 |