Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 11/16/2005 View Tue 11/15/2005 View Mon 11/14/2005 View Sun 11/13/2005 View Sat 11/12/2005 View Fri 11/11/2005 View Thu 11/10/2005
1
2005-11-16 Home Front: Politix
Bill Clinton - Iraq Invasion Was A Big Mistake
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Raj 2005-11-16 09:59|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [405 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Gotta admit. He's an expert on "big mistakes".
Posted by tu3031 2005-11-16 10:11||   2005-11-16 10:11|| Front Page Top

#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|| http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54905-2004Jun19.html]">[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54905-2004Jun19.html]  2005-11-16 10:18|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-16 10:24|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-16 10:27|| Front Page Top

#5 Bill Clinton was a big mistake. Hillary will be a bigger one.
Posted by SR-71 2005-11-16 10:32||   2005-11-16 10:32|| Front Page Top

#6 Bill Clinton's parents not using birth control was a big mistake.
Posted by mmurray821 2005-11-16 10:34||   2005-11-16 10:34|| Front Page Top

#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">john  2005-11-16 11:43||   2005-11-16 11:43|| Front Page Top

#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">Glenmore  2005-11-16 11:46||   2005-11-16 11:46|| Front Page Top

#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">mojo  2005-11-16 11:51||   2005-11-16 11:51|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-16 11:55|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-16 12:12|| Front Page Top

#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">Robert Crawford  2005-11-16 12:22|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2005-11-16 12:22|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-16 12:23|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-16 12:23|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-16 12:27|| Front Page Top

#16 On a related note, Stephen Hayes writes about some interesting finds from the ISG.
Posted by doc 2005-11-16 12:56||   2005-11-16 12:56|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-16 17:29|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-17 00:14|| Front Page Top

00:14 JosephMendiola
23:52 JosephMendiola
23:52 Frank G
23:49 JosephMendiola
23:46 JosephMendiola
23:36 Scott R.
23:34 rjschwarz
23:16 Zenster
23:07 C-Low
22:57 Zenster
22:53 Zenster
22:50 Frank G
22:45 trailing wife
22:38 Zenster
22:37 Spurt Shereter8116
22:32 Frank G
22:30 trailing wife
22:27 Zenster
22:27 2b
22:26 Alaska Paul
22:11 Zenster
22:07 Zenster
22:00 Witt
21:59 Whutch Threth6418

Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
3.230.154.129

Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com