Clinton launches withering attack on Bush on Iraq, Katrina, budget

Former US president Bill Clinton sharply criticised George W. Bush for the Iraq War and the handling of Hurricane Katrina, and voiced alarm at the swelling US budget deficit.

Breaking with tradition under which US presidents mute criticisms of their successors, Clinton said the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq "virtually alone and before UN inspections were completed, with no real urgency, no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction."

The Iraq war diverted US attention from the war on terrorism "and undermined the support that we might have had," Bush said in an interview with an ABC's "This Week" programme.

Clinton said there had been a "heroic but so far unsuccessful" effort to put together an constitution that would be universally supported in Iraq.

The US strategy of trying to develop the Iraqi military and police so that they can cope without US support "I think is the best strategy. The problem is we may not have, in the short run, enough troops to do that," said Clinton.

On Hurricane Katrina, Clinton faulted the authorities' failure to evacuate New Orleans ahead of the storm's strike on August 29.

People with cars were able to heed the evacuation order, but many of those who were poor, disabled or elderly were left behind.

"If we really wanted to do it right, we would have had lots of buses lined up to take them out," Clinton.

He agreed that some responsibility for this lay with the local and state authorities, but pointed the finger, without naming him, at the former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

FEMA boss Michael Brown quit in response to criticism of his handling of the Katrina disaster. He was viewed as a political appointee with no experience of disaster management or dealing with government officials.

"When James Lee Witt ran FEMA, because he had been both a local official and a federal official, he was always there early, and we always thought about that," Clinton said, referring to FEMA's head during his 1993-2001 presidency.

"But both of us came out of environments with a disproportionate number of poor people."

On the US budget, Clinton warned that the federal deficit may be coming untenable, driven by foreign wars, the post-hurricane recovery programme and tax cuts that benefitted just the richest one percent of the US population, himself included.

"What Americans need to understand is that ... every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, and our tax cuts," he said.

"We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else."

Clinton added: "We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don't think it makes any sense."

As for the vigilante comment............if you condemn him as unwise and a bad person because you don't agree with him (as you have done on this thread), you are revealing that you are lacking in wisdom and goodness yourself.

I hope you understand this, I didn't say he was both a bad person and lacked wisdom. I said he lacked one of the two or both. You said you disagreed with his comment. Tell me why you disagree with his him? In addition, tell me why he would have made such a comment? It certainly wasn't because he is both good and wise.

Poppycock. He handled Katrina with a strength and foresight that no President has ever had. Where do you get your information..........the NY TIMES?

By observation, I saw that he did not handle the disaster caused by the hurricane well. I expect better leadership. He should have realized that the Louisiana effort was being mismanaged and made it clear to the public that he knew that many people were in a desperate situation. He should have made it public knowledge that he was awaiting the go ahead from the Governor in order to help those that were in desperate situation. He's the president and couldn't have been on television acting presidential and being a leader but he didn't. He could have eliminated most if not all of the false criticism he received. However, he failed to use the power of his office and was therefore initially labeled as the cause of the problem. Please read Charles Krauthammer's article concerning this.

Unfortunately, our presidunt has not figured out that wars must be fought on the same playing field.

Why don't you try reading the last 25 years of election returns and see if you can spot a trend.

The Reagan-Bush Republican party has taken the House and Senate. The Republican party has taken a majority of State Houses, and State Legislatures. Republicans even have the Governorships of the two most Democratic States of California and New York.

The Republicans are about to take total control of the Supreme Court and much of the federal judicary from the Democrats.

My! My! What a terrible record for the last 25 years.

Now if the Republicans followed your advice and tried to play like the Demcrats play.. they would get the same results as the Democrats. They could lose the house senate, presidency, courts, state and local govermments.

Darn Stupid Republicans... They refuse to emulate Democrats and as a result they keep winning elections... Makes no sense does it?

Why isn't Dubya trashing Democrats? After all it would make you feel real real good and it only costs elections.

Some time ago, while speaking from the Oval Office, the president looked into the eyes of the American public and said, "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

The president added that the purpose of this military action was "to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world." The president explained that Saddam Hussein "must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons."

During the course of his Oval Office address, the president said that other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, but with Saddam, there is one big difference. "He has used them," the president said. "Not once, but repeatedly."

"Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq," the president explained.

Setting an ominous tone, the president declared, "The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

So... is the president lying? According to the Democrats, led by Sen. Kerry and Terry McAuliffe, because no weapons of mass destruction have been found, the president must be lying to the American public. It is the centerpiece of their presidential campaign. It doesn't seem to make a difference that information on Iraq's WMD program was supported by the CIA, Great Britain's MI6, and Russian Intelligence operatives. No, people simply compare the president's public statements and the lack of current WMDs as evidence that the president lied.

Continuing with our examination of the president's actual statements, the president noted that by working through the United Nations, "The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance."

"I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments," the president said. "And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning."

The president added, "This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance."

Based on these words, some Democrats may already be feeling that churning in their stomachs -- the feeling of a hawkish president building a misleading case against Iraq in order to rush the country to war. But before judgment is passed, a more complete review of the president's statements is in order.

In taking questions from reporters following his Oval Office address, the president was asked whether military action was the right thing to do. "This was the right thing for the country," the president said. "We have given Saddam Hussein chance after chance to cooperate. We said in November that this was the last chance. We acted swiftly because we were ready, thanks to the very fine work of the Defense Department in leaving our assets properly deployed. We had the strong support of the British."

In looking forward regarding the situation in Iraq, the president added, "I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses. So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people."

In talking about regime change, did the president "show his hand?" Did he want Saddam out of power simply for personal reasons, perhaps to the extent that he would lie to the American people about Iraq's weapons programs?

Regardless of the intelligence gathered and studied by American sources regarding Iraq's WMD programs and the fact that conclusions were supported by both British and Russian intelligence sources, the question still remains as to whether the president lied. Based on the strong and definitive statements cited here by the president, he must be called to account before the American people. The brave servicemen and women who are called into harm's way by the president of the United States must have confidence that their commander-in-chief is acting on credible information and not "lying" to the American public.

Thus, President Clinton, please come clean. Were you lying about Iraq and WMDs? The American people have a right to know.

Note: The quotes used in this column came from President Clinton's Oval Office Address on December 16, 1998 and from a press conference the following day. Bobby Eberle, GOPUSA.com

Tell me why you disagree with his him? In addition, tell me why he would have made such a comment? It certainly wasn't because he is both good and wise.

I only disagree with him IF he meant what most people assume we meant.........that is that the Minutemen were vigilantes. When asked about the minutemen he said that we do not approve of vigilanteism (I asked before, but did you actually hear the question and his response, or are you going on your 'impression' here too?).

And his statement is actually true. We are a nation of laws, and the laws are no longer protected by posses in the wild west, but by law enforcement officers. What the President's statement meant in and of itself, was absolutely correct, and I assume you don't disagree with that.

The implication was that, however, in the context of the question, that the minutement were vigilantes (but they have proven to be no such thing). If he meant that he didn't approve of the whole minuteman project, then I disagree with him. If he meant that he only disagreed with the minutement project IF they become vigilantes, then I do not disagree.

But to say he is neither wise nor good because he made a statement .......and has said nothing further about it since, possibly since he has found out, like the rest of us, that the minutemen are doing just what they were supposed to be doing, and not what many of us feared they would do (i.e. take the law into their own hands, and become vigilantes).......is extreme, at the very least. At any rate, your concluding that he was either unwise, or a bad person because he said it, is preposterous, and merits no more discussion.

As for Krauthammer's column, I completely disagree with it, because it is based on what appeared to be, and not what was. I don't know if Charles has since found out all that the President was doing behind the scenes before the hurricane, but if he has, he knows his premise was wrong.

The only fault of President Bush is that he is the polar opposite of his predecessor, who did nothing for real, and everything for show.......and he wasn't out front crying crocodile tears. He was behind the scenes, making calls to an intransigent Governor and Mayor, and declaring a disaster emergency before it occurred. He continued to do his job as President, all the while monitoring the situation, and even returning to DC (when he could have done the same things from Texas.........you probably believe he was 'on vacation' in August too, don't you?).

The problem is, that you wanted him to act like xlinton. I'm thankful that he's not, and didn't.

You wanted him to avoid the 'controversy' by putting on a show. I'm well enough informed to know that the 'controversy' was entirely leftist created, and media flamed, and perpetuated even by a handful of conservative talking heads, who were ill informed of the facts.

And now we have heard how the people of NO feel (find the ABC interviews and listen to them)........and they agree with me.

Look, John....... you are free to find fault with the President if you wish, but you really should try to research a bit more before you draw conclusions. Check out the timeline of the Hurricane, and see what he did, and how quick the response was relative to other hurricanes. Try to grasp the enormity of this storm and its damage, and understand how very small the loss of life was, relative to that. The reason there were so few deaths was because of the very thing you deny. The President acted in an unprecedented and rapid manner, FEMA was ready to go (and stopped from helping in the case of LA), and the US military went in and saved thousands upon thousands of lives.

It was a remarkable and unprecedented rescue effort, and history will completely exhonerate President Bush............even if Charles Krauthammer, bright as he is, just wanted him to put on more of a show.

"Conservatives need tough leadership in Washington, and the Congress --"
===========================

We've almost RINOed ourselves into Democrats ourselves . .

Is There A Backbone In The House?

Another example is that of border security and illegal immigration.
Republicans are supposed to be tough on terror, but when it comes to the thousands of miles of unprotected borders, Republicans are playing politics while the security of America is at stake.
To fight a real war on terror, government officials must make it as tough as possible for terrorists to enter the country illegally.
Yet, whenever some Republicans come forward and talk about fighting illegal immigration and increasing border security, other Republicans are backing down under fear of being called "racist" or "insensitive."
Perhaps Republican legislators need to increase the calcium in their diets so they can grow a backbone.
Instead of the image of tough legislators fighting for conservative values and issues, the images that come to mind more often than not when thinking of Republicans in Washington are those of a family of jellyfish.

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.