Posted on 07/15/2004 8:32:28 PM PDT by fourdeuce82d
Bill Clinton says that no government could have failed to act against Iraq after the 11 September 2001 attacks in view of intelligence provided. The former US president told the BBC that UK intelligence on the activity of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was more "aggressive" than Washington's.
He added that the world was right to demand weapons inspections in 2002.
But he said war could have been avoided if the UN had passed a resolution threatening military action.
Such a resolution would have given the inspectors more time to finish their job, he said.
However, the former president added, the resolution's failure left UK Prime Minister Tony Blair with a "terrible dilemma" - whether to back the US military action or join European allies in opposing it.
The former president told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that before the war everyone had thought that Iraq still had chemical and biological weapons stockpiles.
He said that while containment of Iraq was working the situation regarding Saddam Hussein was different after the 11 September attacks.
"The issue was not whether he would use [weapons of mass destruction] but whether he was likely to give them away or have them stolen," he said. "That's why the world supported inspections."
UK intelligence presented more compelling reasons for action than US intelligence, he said.
"The British intelligence, whatever Lord Butler says about it, was clearly even more forward-leading than the American intelligence in believing that Saddam was trying to get nuclear materials, in believing that Saddam had some kind of relationship with al-Qaeda," he said.
END
More stuff here: http://redstate.org/story/2004/7/15/19628/9470
pull quote-
President Clinton: Well he (BUSH) tried, let me say in addition to what you said, It’s important for the people in the UK to remember what else he did.
He supported a resolution in the United Nations which would have given Hans Blix the time that he sought, and would have said that at the end of that, if Blix found that Saddam had not co-operated and therefore the UN resolutions could not be met, then he would be removed, and the French and the British < Germans> opposed that resolution, that as long as inspectors were there even of Saddam wasn’t co-operating there was no reason to attack him.
And we could have gotten a majority in the United Nations Security Council if Mexico and Chile had gone along, but by then public opinion had so hardened in their own countries and they didn’t do it.
Must be the end times.
I think this is all about supporting his buddy Blair...but yummy just the same. searched, didn't find anything- sorry if this has already been posted.
Then again, I eat solvents, and try to inhale libray paste, so go figure.
And making sure Kerry crashes and burns leaving the ticket open for Hillary in '08.
So9
Or propping up Bush so that his wife has a clear shot in 2008. If Kerry wins, she's finished forever. I'm guessing we'll be seeing a lot of faint praise for Bush coming from Clinton's corner over the next few months. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, that's Clinton's modus operandi.
This is the Clinton take down of John Kerry in motion. WJC will be doing his best to undermine John Kerry, and when he speaks at the Dem Convention he will sink the knife deep in Kerry's back......
The Clintons are really pulling the rug out from Liveshot. Just like they did to Wesley Clark to derail Howard Dean's momentum. Then Hillary will be Prez in 2008, and Slick will be UN Secretary-General.
ping.
Wait until Terry McAuliffe has John Kerry's "Vacationing Intern" return to the United States during the Convention :-)
What ever his reasons, I believe Clintoon's got it right..if France and Germany had sided with us during UN discussion's, bet Saddam would have cried uncle and we would not have had to go to war. My opinion (which, of course is worth nada) France is to blame for the war and I conveyed this to the "charming" French embassy.
I think it was the turtles that started the war.
Was this story run in the NYT ?? A1 above the fold?? I can't see how we could have missed it.
**cough** Excuse me Bill, perhaps you missed the Oil for Food Scandal! Containment WAS NOT working. Why don't reporters ever point that out? never mind.
From time to time, I’ll post or ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. Let me know if you want off my list. This is a combined list.
>>>>Bill Clinton says that no government could have failed to act against Iraq after the 11 September 2001 attacks in view of intelligence provided.
Wow, that will teach Kerry not to put Hillary on in prime time.
patent
I think that you are right, considering that Kerry sponsored the Joe Wilson/Bush Lied campaign. Clinton is backing Bush rather than the Kerry/Wilson position that Bush lied.
Click herefor the article where Wilson brags about having been working for the Kerry campaign since May 2003.
Have a front row seat and watching the rats tear into each other...that's entertainment!
http://www0.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/politics/billclinton_20040714.shtml
"But I think it’s important for people here you can second guess Blair if you like, but, and it’s clear in our country according to our own Senate, the Intelligence was not what it should have been. But at the time nearly everybody thought there was probably a stock of chemical and biological weapons there and it was vulnerable to falling into the wrong hands, either by design or by corruption within Saddam’s regime. And essentially the French and the Germans said we still don’t care..."
I am suspicious that the fix is in...Bush and the moderate Republicans are going to hand the White House back to the Clintons in 2008 in exchange for their sabotaging Kerry and giving GW a second term now...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.