Skip to comments.Bill Clinton: If not for the U.S. invasion, none of what’s in Iraq right now would be happening
Posted on 06/26/2014 5:24:05 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Via Mediaite, an easy lay-up here for a guy who (a) warned the world about Saddam’s WMD threat more than once as president, (b) cautiously declined to take a firm position against the war at the time, and (c) is of course married to someone who cast a vote in the Senate to invade.
But never mind that. This is an interesting counterfactual: What would have happened to Iraq during the Arab Spring and Syrian uprising if Saddam had endured? Clinton implicitly assumes that ISIS advancing on Baghdad is the worst possible outcome of the past 10 years, which is the smart play politically when your wife’s desperate to appease the anti-war left en route to her party’s nomination. Is it true, though? Assume that Egyptians had toppled Mubarak in 2011 with Saddam watching from Baghdad. At a minimum, he would have cracked down hard on Iraq’s Shiites to suppress an insurrection before it caught fire, and if you know anything about the 1991 Shiite uprising, you know how much blood a Saddam “crackdown” could draw. Meanwhile, maybe the Sunnis across the border in Syria, inspired by Mubarak’s ouster, still would have revolted against Assad. What would have been Saddam’s move then? He could have come to Assad’s rescue, one Baathist defending another from a rebellion in the name of protecting autocracy, but his relations with Assad were poor so he may well have stood pat — in which case Iran might have moved to defend Assad, fearing that the Sunnis in Syria would overrun the Shiite regime just as Saddam was crushing the Shiites in Iraq.
That would have put Iranian forces on two of Iraq’s borders, an encirclement Saddam couldn’t tolerate. In which case, maybe he’d throw in with Syria’s Sunnis in the name of bleeding Iran. He wasn’t above cooperating with terrorists when it served his interests; in fact, one of his chief henchmen is rumored to be working with ISIS right now against Maliki. Would a long proxy war in Syria, with Saddam and Sunni jihadis on one side and Iran, Hezbollah, and Assad on the other, have been better or worse for the region? The virtue of it, such as it is, is that it would have kept a gigantic mess of degenerates fighting with each other instead of thinking about America. What the death toll would have looked like, though, heaven only knows. That’s the thing about the Middle East — there’s really no such thing as a good outcome. That’s the point Clinton should have made vis-a-vis the hubris of the U.S. invasion, not raising a counterfactual that relies on Saddam Hussein as some sort of moderating force.
Exit question: How would Saddam have reacted over the past 10 years to his archenemies in Iran bringing thousands of new uranium centrifuges online?
Bill looking in his Crystal Balls again
That’s not true.
The Kurds are separatists. Muslims believe that the big conflict is between Shia and Sunni. It’s just a matter of logistics.
So Bill is coming out and saying he disagrees with the way Hillary voted to invade Iraq.
Sorry Clown if your Blackened Sock Puppet, his Wife along with McCain and Graham had not demanded we are the terrorists in Syria and Libya, this would not have happened.
If Bush had not invaded Iraq, we would might not have Obama either.
With Saddam Houssain still in power, it’s hard to say what would happen but my guess is it wouldn’t be good.
Just more liberal fantasy, trying to re-write history to favor DemoRat politics. Move along...nothing new here.
And if it weren’t for the Treaty of Versailles we would not have Hitler. It is really easy to make predictions after they happen.
Yes, if Bill Clinton had not launched missiles into Baghdad to avoid bad press over impeachment, we would not be in this situation.
You’re right for once in your life, Bent One. It is Clinton’s fault.
If Clinton had taken out Bin Laden when he had the chance, instead of avoiding the decision at the golf course, perhaps 9/11 wouldn’t have occurred.
The following Democrats voted for Iraq War Resolution:
58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution are:
Sens. Lincoln (D-AR), Feinstein (D-CA), Dodd (D-CT), Lieberman (D-CT), Biden (D-DE), Carper (D-DE), Nelson (D-FL), Cleland (D-GA), Miller (D-GA), Bayh (D-IN), Harkin (D-IA), Breaux (D-LA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Kerry (D-MA), Carnahan (D-MO), Baucus (D-MT), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Torricelli (D-NJ), Clinton (D-NY), Schumer (D-NY), Edwards (D-NC), Dorgan (D-ND), Hollings (D-SC), Daschle (D-SD), Johnson (D-SD), Cantwell (D-WA), Rockefeller (D-WV), and Kohl (D-WI).
he’s right. clinton is right.
it would have happened years ago.
Or snorting a line of cocaine with Obama.
If Hillary! had not voted to invade Iraq she and Bubba would be in the Whitehouse now.
During Wag the Dog he was busy bombing cardboard tanks.
A point that gets lost in all this historical revisionism: Saddam was just fine with terrorist organizations, and the entire reason Bush II invaded Iraq was that he was convinced that Saddam would lend state-level support to Islamic terrorist organizations in the way that Afghanistan already had, and that existing camps in Iraq indicated that Saddam already was. People who knew this perfectly well at the time appear to have forgotten it in the midst of the media blitz since then, and others deny it because it conflicts with their "Bush lied" narrative.
Saddam Hussein was not protecting the United States against terrorism. If he were he'd still be there.
1) Clintons own words show his often expressed innate hostility to, and utter contempt for, the core principles of the American founding:
``If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the governments ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees. -- President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993
``The purpose of government is to reign in the rights of the people - Bill Clinton during an interview on MTV in 1993
``We cant be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans that we forget about reality. -- President Bill Clinton, quoted in USA Today, March 11, 1993, Page 2A, ``NRA change: `Omnipotent to powerful by Debbie Howlett
When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly that they would work for the common good, as well as for the individual welfare However, now theres a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say theres too much freedom. When personal freedoms being abused, you have to move to limit it. Bill Clinton, April 19, 1995
2) Clinton inevitably pursued his own political advantage at the expense of American interests and national security. Here is just one of many possible examples:
It is well documented that Clinton and the Democrats took illegal campaign money from groups and individuals tied directly to the Chinese Peoples Republican Army. It is therefore not surprising that In January 1998 Clinton went against the advice of then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Pentagon experts by lifting long-standing restrictions against the export of American satellites to China for launch on Chinese rockets. Not only did he move control over such decisions from the more security-focused State Department to the Commerce Department, but he intervened in a Justice Department investigation of Loral Space & Communications, retroactively enabling Loral to sell critical missile technology to the Chinese. Interestingly enough, Clintons decision was made at the request of Loral CEO Bernard Schwartz, whose earlier $1.3 million campaign donation made him the single biggest contributor to the Democratic election effort.
The result, as stated eloquently by syndicated columnist Linda Bowles, was that the Democrats got money from satellite companies and from Chinese communists; China got supercomputors, advanced production equipment and missile technology; Loral got its satellites launched at bargain basement prices . . . and the transfer of sensitive missile technology gave China [for the first time] the capability of depositing bombs on American cities. Incidentally, Loral ultimately failed to benefit from this permanent injury to Americas security interests: in July 2003, the company filed for bankruptcy protection, and in order to raise cash was forced to sell its most profitable business a fleet of communications satellites orbiting over North America.
3) On two occasions, Clinton used military action for the specific purpose of distracting the American public from the fallout of the Lewinsky affair:
On August 20, three days after Clinton finally admitted publicly to the Lewinsky affair, the news media was poised to focus on that days grand jury testimony by Monica Lewinsky. That same morning, Clinton personally went on national television to gravely announce his bombing of a Sudanese chemical weapons factory, and a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. It was the first time most Americans ever heard the name of Osama bin Laden. The factory bombing in Sudan killed an innocent night watchman, but accomplished little else. It later was proven that the plant was making badly needed pharmaceuticals for people in that poverty-stricken part of the world, but no chemical weapons.
Several months later, the U.S. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, part of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, stated: "...the evidence indicates that the facility had no role whatsoever in chemical weapons development." Kroll Associates, one of the world's most reputable investigative firms, also confirmed that there was no link in any way between the plant and any terrorist organization. As for the Afghanistan bombing, it failed to do any damage at all to bin Laden or his organization. Clintons action was accurately characterized by George W. Bush when he said right after 9-11: "When I take action, Im not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt.
Clintons pointless and murderous military actions did not make Americans safer that day, although they did destroy an innocent life, and for all the good they did certainly could have been delayed in any case. But they did succeed in diverting media attention from Lewinskys grand jury testimony for a 24-hour news cycle, which was the main point. So I guess, they werent a total loss.
On December 16, 1998, on the eve of the scheduled House vote on his impeachment, Bill Clinton launched a surprise bombing attack on Baghdad. As justification for this exploit, he cited the urgent threat that Saddams weapons of mass destruction posed to America, and the need for immediate action. Almost immediately, the House Democrats held a caucus and emerged calling for a delay in the impeachment proceedings. House minority leader Dick Gephardt made a statement: "We obviously should pass a resolution by saying that we stand behind the troops. I would hope that we do not take up impeachment until the hostilities have completely ended."
Conveniently, a delay so near the end of the House term would have caused the vote to be taken up in the next session when the newly elected House membership would be seated with more Democratic representation, thereby improving Clintons chances of dodging impeachment.
The Republicans did, in fact, agree to delay the hearings, but only for a day or two. Amazingly, Clinton ended the bombing raid after only 70 hours -- once it became clear that in spite of the brief delay, the vote would still be held in the current session.
Once the bombing stopped, Clinton touted the effectiveness and importance of the mission. As reported by ABC News : We have inflicted significant damage on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs, on the command structures that direct and protect that capability, and on his military and security infrastructure, he said. Defense secretary William Cohen echoed the point: We estimate that Saddam's missile program has been set back by at least a year.
Whether or not one buys Clintons assessment of that mission, it is difficult to believe that its timing was so critical that it required commencement virtually at the moment the House was scheduled to vote on the impeachment. I think the most reasonable conclusion is that Clinton cynically deployed US military assets and placed military personnel in harms way for purely political reasons.
4) Clintons reckless sexual behavior was a threat to American national security:
Clinton and his supporters have been very effective in persuading large numbers of Americans that the Lewinsky scandal was only about sex. But I see a bigger issue here, because Clinton is on record as saying that he would have done anything to keep knowledge of the Lewinsky affair from becoming public.
To me, that statement raises a very serious question: What if, instead of sending her recorded Lewinsky conversations to Ken Starr, Linda Tripp had instead secretly offered them for sale, say, to the Chinese government? Or to the Russians? Or even to agents of Saddam?
What kind of blackmail leverage would those tapes have provided to a foreign government in dealing with America on sensitive trade, security or military issues? One of the few things Clinton ever said that I believe is that he would have done anything to keep the Lewinsky affair secret. Given his demonstrated track record of selling out American interests for personal or political gain (and there are more examples that I could have cited here), how far would he have gone in compromising Americas real interests in order to protect his own neck when threatened with blackmail?
Pretty far, I believe. Equally distressing is the prospect Clinton might, in fact, have succumbed to foreign black mail on other occasions in order to hide different sexual episodes that ultimately did not become public. There is no way to know, of course, but I prefer presidents for whom such a scenario is not a plausible possibility.
And dont even get me started on the war crime in Kosovo.
WAR IN KOSOVO
During Bill Clintons 1999 NATO-led war in Kosovo which according to some estimates cost as much as $75 billion we bombed Belgrade for 78 days, killed almost 3,000 civilians, and shredded the civilian infrastructure (including every bridge across the Danube.)
We devastated the environment, bombed the Chinese embassy, came very close to engaging in armed combat against Russian forces, and in general, pursued a horrific and inhumane strategy to rain misery on the civilian population of Belgrade in order to pressure Milosevic into surrendering.
Why did we do all that? The US did not even have an arguable interest in the Balkans, and no one ever tried to claim that Serbia represented any kind of threat to our nation or our interests.
But for months the Clinton administration had told us that Milosevic was waging a vicious genocide against Albanian Muslims, and needed to be stopped. The New York Times called it a humanitarian war. In March 1999 the same month that the bombing started Clintons State Department publicly suggested that as many as 500,000 Albanian Kosovars had been murdered by Milosevics regime. In May of that year, as the bombing campaign was drawing to a close, Secretary of Defense William Cohen lowered that estimate 100,000.
Five years after the bombing, after all the forensic investigations had been completed, the prosecutors at Milosevics War Crimes trial in the Hague were barely been able to document a questionable figure of perhaps 5,000 bodies and body parts. During the war, the American people were told that Kosovo was full of mass graves filled with the bodies of murdered Albanian Muslims. But none were ever found.
BILL CLINTON ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE
During the election cycle of 1992, George H.W. Bush lost his job after Bill Clinton hammered him relentlessly for having caused the worst economy of the last 50 years.
In fact, as CNNs Brooke Jackson has reported: Three days before Christmas 1992, the National Bureau of Economic Research finally issued its official proclamation that the recession had ended 21 months earlier. What became the longest boom in U.S. history actually began nearly two years before Clinton took office. See (See http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/31/jackson.recession.primer.otsc/).
By the same token, Clinton is generally perceived as having a stellar economic record during his own presidency, in spite of the fact that the economy was already starting to decline during the last year of his term after the stock market crashed in March 2000.
According to a report by MSNBC: The longest economic expansion in U.S. history faltered so much in the summer of 2000 that business output actually contracted for one quarter, the government said Wednesday in releasing a comprehensive revision of the gross domestic product. Based on new data, the Commerce Department said that the GDP the countrys total output of goods and services shrank by 0.5 percent at an annual rate in the July-September quarter of 2000. See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3676690/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/gdp-figures-revised-downward/.
During the very fast successful thrust into Iraq during the first week Clinton was being interviewed live on CNN and was praising the invasion saying he would have invaded too at that point in the confrontation if he had still been President
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.