Skip to comments.Iraq war not linked to terror plot, says Clinton
Posted on 08/21/2006 6:38:56 AM PDT by presidio9
Bill Clinton today dismissed suggestions of a link between the alleged airline bomb plot and the invasion of Iraq. The former US president said that although the situation in Iraq had not improved national security, the threat to countries such as the UK and the US predated the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.
In an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Clinton also said he did not think military intervention in Afghanistan had put Britons at higher risk.
"On the question of Iraq, I don't think it's improved our national security, but I don't think that Iraq has had any impact one way or the other on Sunni-inspired terrorist operations, as it appears this one was that was recently thwarted," he said. "There was a commitment there to attack the west before 9/11, and the fact that we made it more difficult for them to operate in a centralised fashion I think, on balance, was positive."
Mr Clinton said that if he had any criticism of the operation in Afghanistan, it was that too few troops had been sent to the country.
"I don't think that going into Afghanistan to depose the Taliban and to hunt for Mr [Osama] bin Laden and Mr [Ayman] al-Zawahiri put the British at higher risk," he said.
"I think if anything, the fact that we have had intense co-operation between intelligence and law enforcement officials all over the world ... has made the world less dangerous.
"There's no question that al-Qaida continues to inspire terrorist operations and continues to be involved in them. If anything, we should have put more troops into Afghanistan."
Mr Clinton's comments closely echoed the line taken by Tony Blair's government.
(Excerpt) Read more at politics.guardian.co.uk ...
Continuing to move HRC's fat ass to the "moderate center"...
He didn't pursue the WoT seriously and 3,000 people paid with their lives on 9/11.
" . . . It is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there." Bill Clinton,July 2003
What? No interns to scrrrrrrew? WGF!
How about the 93 WTC Bombing?
If the Defeatocrats pursue this line of reasoning, when the first nuclear device goes off in this country, and it's only a matter of time, whom do we blame?
For my money, Iran needs to be told that whatever blows up here, something will blowup there.
It's the only thing the Islamic world understands.
"He didn't pursue the WoT seriously and 3,000 people paid with their lives on 9/11."
and that needs to be repeated DAILY!
If Klintoon had spent more time capturing UBL WHEN HE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY...THREE FRIGGIN TIMES and fighting the WOT instead of getting BJ's in the Oval Office we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today!!!
You signed it, Bubba.
And why would BlowJobBilly now be interested in our nations security? He didn't give a rat's rear end about it during the 8 years he was soiling the office of president.
And we'd be doing better in Iraq if Clinton's party didn't continually trash our efforts there, thus giving hope to the enemy.
Coming from an impeached rapist, who was offered Osama Bin Laden and turned him down because he was too busy indoctrinating interns.
BILL & HILLARY CLINTON,
who were both on the side of our terrorist enemy Communist North Vietnam during the Vietnam War,
refused 3 free offers from the Sudan during the 1990's to bring us our No. 1 terrorist enemy OSAMA bin LADEN on a silver platter...
...before he could hit us real hard here at home after they had left the White House.
Signed:.."ALOHA RONNIE" Guyer
Veteran-1st Major Battles of the Vietnam War, 1965-66
Iraqi regime led by Saddam Hussein was secularist, westernizing and semi-socialist. This was the reason why Ronald Reagan supported Saddam Hussein. Removal of Iraqi regime opened way for radical Islamists.
Just to give you a hint, check the country origin of the WTC bombers.
Really, it's hard to say that the fruits of the Iraq invasion have been reaped, since the result has not yet been decided. One way or another, the issue will be settled, sooner or later. Things will improve for our security if a stable entity, friendly with the West, emerges. I suppose that has always been Bush's intent, though he is not very good at making that clear.
A worse alternative is what could happen if we cut and run; we could get a radical Shiite state, friendly with Iran.
In any case, Saddam's regime always posed a clear danger to the Middle East and the world, taking him out should have been a no brainer. The only benefit I see to having left him in power was the counterpoint he posed to Iran, which now has more freedom to focus its designs elsewhere.
Continuing to move HRC's fat ass to the "moderate center"...
So much BS...so little desire to rehash it.
Well, if Clinton says so ...
Typical Bill Clinton, trying to be on all sides and manages to be wrong all the way around. Iraq IS the War on Terror, anyone tells you different is either a fool or a liar.
Got to love the way the DO Nothings try to posture as tough guys by pretending they would have committed the force elsewhere. The fact of the matter is the Neo Isolationists who of NEVER done anything but piss and moan. They merely invent some reason other place we should be fighting to avoid admitting they actually would rather we DO nothing. Real simple fact keeps escaping them. We had the political, moral, legal and military consensus to take out Iraq. We HAD no such consensus for an attack against any other of the Neo Isolationists make believe foes. Also, the Neo Isolationists dogma flunks basic Military strategy as well.
You still cling to your mistaken emotion based feelings. Basic strategy lesson for you.. You do NOT leave a foe in the field unfought and commit your force to another major fight against another foe. Saddam had to go. We could not leave him hanging on our flank and commit significant military forces to another battle. Saddam was the most immediate problem. EVERN if Al Gore had won in 2000 and 09-01 happened, we would be doing the EXACT same thing. All the Leftist Democrat Talking Points are so much nonsense. There was no alternative but to take out Iraq
I just heard President Bush say the same thing in his press conference.
Ronald Reagan was not an isolationist when he supported Saddam Hussein.
Not a friend; the enemy of our enemy. Basic political lesson there.
Johnnie, you're right about the isolationists. There's always somebody else they SAY we ought to have fought first - Iran, N Korea, Syria - but as the Red Queen said to Alice, it's "jam every other day, but never jam today."
Fine, so now the main enemy of Iranian regime is removed and Iran is becoming the main regional power. Is it another "basic political lesson"?
About "enemy of our enemy", it was Iran who helped America to win in Afghanistan as it was Iran/Russia allied Northern Alliance which did the key part of the fighting against Taleban. Is the removal of Saddam Hussein a secret reward to Iran?
At some point you cannot continue to second-guess the government during wartime, or we will lose it all.
Would you have questioned the invasion of Italy in WWII? After all, Mussolini was a mere puppet who had never attacked the United States . . . Germany and Japan were our "real" enemies. And, of course, Germany had never attacked the U.S. either . . .
I should have hit the 'sarcasm on' button for that one.
The democrats are saying "we are no safer" in the hopes that if we are attacked before the election they can scream..."we told you so."
..he couldn't put a link between a cigar and a blue dress either...it's called selective memory...hildebeast has it too....but the reminders will be up front over the next two years...and in her own words
...he can't find a legacy here, so he's got to try over there. Wanna bet the questions were pre-screened? ( remembering the eyes rolling when the cigar was mentioned in testimony......LOL)