Clinton leads the revolt against war (PROJECTILE VOMITING ALERT)

The Evening Standard ^ | September 6, 2002 | Joe Murphy

[MadIvan]

Tony Blair and George Bush today face mounting opposition to the war on Iraq from both sides of the Atlantic.

In Britain, a survey of Labour MPs showed almost zero backing for military attacks on Saddam Hussein's regime.

And in the States, former president Bill Clinton led a growing chorus of demands to postpone action until Osama bin Laden, the terrorist godfather thought to be behind the 11 September atrocities, is caught.

In another blow, the head of the intelligence committee in Congress, Bob Graham, also called for war to be postponed until Afghanistan was dealt with.

Mr Blair, who flies to Camp David tomorrow for a war summit with President Bush, came under pressure from Robin Cook, the leading "dove" in the Cabinet who pressed for MPs to be given a Commons vote on the issue.

Number 10 has so far refused to promise a vote and has rejected an early recall of Parliament to debate the crisis.

But Mr Cook said that before the original Gulf War in 1990, Labour and the Conservatives agreed to hold a vote.

"I am sure that this Labour government will be aware of that precedent," he said in an interview with the Financial Times.

Mr Cook, the Leader of the Commons, also demanded that military action be conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. "If we are to succeed in curbing Saddam's military ambitions, we have a better chance of success if we have the world with us and Saddam isolated," he said.

The scale of opposition among backbenchers was revealed in a survey of 100 Labour MPs carried out by the BBC. Only four said they thought there were currently sufficient grounds to declare war on Iraq, compared with 88 who did not.

Almost nine in 10 - 86 per cent - said there should be a Commons vote before the Cabinet takes a decision on military action. That was a direct challenge to ministers who have only offered a debate, without a vote, after the Cabinet has made up its mind.

Tensions were also growing in America, where Mr Clinton used a fundraising gala in California to attack President Bush for targeting Saddam Hussein before "finishing the job" in Afghanistan.

"Saddam Hussein didn't kill 3,100 people on 11 September," declared Mr Clinton. "Osama bin Laden did, and as far as we know he is still alive. Before we give up the effort in Afghanistan we need to finish the job. Bin Laden is still our biggest security threat."

Mr Clinton also warned that a strike against Saddam would strip the Iraqi leader of any incentive to hold off using chemical and biological weapons. He said: "Saddam Hussein is not a good man by our definition. There is no question that he has significant stocks of chemical and biological agents.

"I think we have to assume that if he knows we're coming, he'll do everything he can to use them. He has maximum incentive not to use the stuff. If we go in, he has maximum incentive to use it because he knows he's going to lose. That's a risk and it's an issue the President-has to address." The former president-said America should be trying to "lead the world" not "run the world". And he warned that Saddam was "admired" by many ordinary Arabs.

Labour MPs were furious today that Mr Blair decalred in a television documentary that he was prepared to pay the "blood price" needed to preserve the special relationship with the US.

He insisted that the UK must be there "when the shooting starts" to maintain its most important alliance.

Mr Blair will fly to Russia on Monday for talks with Vladimir Putin, his first piece of shuttle diplomacy on behalf of the fledgling coalition.

Russian backing is vital because Mr Putin has the power to veto any UN resolution as a permanent member of the UN security council.

Jack Straw will today insist it would be "wildly irresponsible" to rule out military action against Saddam. In a speech at Birmingham University, the Foreign Secretary will say: "Until Saddam co-operates fully with UN weapons inspectors, we have no guarantees that a dictator who has previously shown no restraint in using weapons of mass destruction will not use them again."

[Faraday]

The proof of how debilitated our society has become can be found in the various rats (of both parties) that are quavering in front of the task at hand. I am pleased to note that our executive leadership is made of sterner stuff, as is (who'da thunk it) Tony Blair. The people are ready to see this war through to victory!

[justshe]

MeeknMing.....we need one of your famous pings!

[lonestar]

I guess we should be thankful the a$$hole isn't in Iraq burning our flag.

[weegee]

The clerk at the 24 hour adult video store...

[pankot]

Why didn't Klintoon (the SOB) worry about bombing the $h-- out of innocent people in Yugoslavia?

[FreedomFriend]

Do you ever get the feeling that this is a public relations sound byte to get conservatives behind a military attack of Iraq? After all, if Clinton is against it, we have to be for it. Right? Sometimes I get the hunch that we're being played for suckers.

[WyCoKsRepublican]

Who gives a rats' ass what Bill Clinton thinks. He's not the President any more. Besides, we're continuing to mop up the stains he left in the oval office. What a despicable, low life human being. GO AWAY, Please.....you've done enough damage. By the way, seen your wife lately?

[desertcry]

clinton has been a traitor to America the day he was born. And there are more clintons in the democrat party, heck there even some in the Republican party as well. But I agree, clinton is the leader of them all in treasonous acts comitted.

[WyCoKsRepublican]

#3 Good stuff!.......and dittos.....

[mombonn]

Clinton is a true traitor to America; this article makes it crystal clear.

We can always hope that someday this FACT becomes widely known.

I hope I live long enough to see him become another man without a country.

[FreedomFriend]

That is a good question. Of course, one has to wonder whether it was to further stifle sovereign nations and usher in a Islamic presence in the "Christian" nation of Yugoslavia (Serbia).

[Torie]

What on God's green earth does the temperature of Osama's body have to do with Iraq at this juncture? I don't get it. Perhaps someone can help me with this.

[MadIvan]

Do you ever get the feeling that this is a public relations sound byte to get conservatives behind a military attack of Iraq?

No, because Clinton would never do that kind of favour for the people he hates the most.

Regards, Ivan

[WyCoKsRepublican]

#20 Yep, Treason is the Reason.......I agree

[GiovannaNicoletta]

Bill Clinton has a long history of giving aid and comfort to America's enemies. He is a clear and present danger not only to our nation, but to the entire free world.

I wish somebody out there who is familiar with the law would do some research- there has to be a way of putting him under house arrest or something until this war is over.

He will not be satisfied until he has managed to provoke the slaughter of still more innocent Americans, not to mention any military personnel whom he can put in harm's way given the opportunity. His handiwork on September 11, 2001 obviously wasn't enough for him. One day somebody will have the guts to do something about this criminal and traitor who has no compunction about repeating his treasonous behavior over and over. The fact that history will hold him responsible for the 9/11 act of war fazes him not in the least.

The man is a dangerous psychopath and needs to be locked up where he can do no more damage to our country. There are no expressions of hatred and contempt in the English language that would adequately express what I feel about him.

[MeekOneGOP]

Clinton leads the revolt against war
(PROJECTILE VOMITING ALERT)

Excerpt:

Tensions were also growing in America, where Mr Clinton used a fundraising gala in California to attack President Bush for targeting Saddam Hussein before "finishing the job" in Afghanistan.

"Saddam Hussein didn't kill 3,100 people on 11 September," declared Mr Clinton. "Osama bin Laden did, and as far as we know he is still alive. Before we give up the effort in Afghanistan we need to finish the job. Bin Laden is still our biggest security threat."

Mr Clinton also warned that a strike against Saddam would strip the Iraqi leader of any incentive to hold off using chemical and biological weapons. He said: "Saddam Hussein is not a good man by our definition. There is no question that he has significant stocks of chemical and biological agents.

---

Clintoon needs to keep his mouth shut before someone takes him to the woodshed, literally. Former Presidents have used to adhere to the unwritten policy of silence and not criticizing the current President. Not so for Carter and Clintoon......

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[Cobra64]

Based upon new news (Iraq have nukes within 6 months), this is a good thing. Clinton just put his foot in his big fat mouth.

[FreedomFriend]

Who knows. This could be propaganda designed to get a larger percentage of conservative support behind a war with Iraq. Seeing as that not all conservatives support this action, and fewer numbers of liberals do, they figure that it will only increase the overall percentage for war.

However, this is only speculation.

[Cobra64]

Carter is just as bad.

[weegee]

So Bubba BJ admits that Saddam has these weapons that he shouldn't have, denies any Iraqi connection to 9/11, and we aren't supposed to attack Saddam because then he'll uses the weapons that he denies having and isn't allowed to possess.

He also says that Saddam is not a "good guy". Mr. impeached former president, YOU are not a "good guy".