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.
Yesterday, the
(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
BTTT
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."
Thank you!
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.
.
NEVER FORGET
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
http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_collection.htm
(Pictures)
NEVER FORGET
.
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.
Oh, Bubba....
Continuing to move HRC's fat ass to the "moderate center"...
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.