Posted on 08/30/2002 8:59:56 PM PDT by Dallas
SYRACUSE, N.Y. (AP) - A U.S. attack on Iraq could give Saddam Hussein an excuse to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and its allies, former President Bill Clinton said Friday.
Clinton said the current administration should move cautiously on Iraq and urged President Bush ( news - web sites) to listen to Congress and the American public.
"Looking at it from the outside, it seems to me we have maximum incentive now for him not to use these weapons and not to give them to anybody. Because he knows all of America is ready to go after him, and would if he did that," Clinton said at the New York State Fair after speaking at a luncheon hosted by his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton ( news - web sites), D-N.Y.
"If he knew for sure we were coming, he might have maximum incentive to use them and to give them to other people," Clinton said.
The Bush administration, saying Saddam is developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, has discussed an invasion or bombing campaign to remove him from power.
President Bush has said Saddam must go, but that he has not yet decided how best to achieve that. But U.S. threats of war toward Iraq have grown louder in the last month, with Vice President Dick Cheney ( news - web sites) and other officials laying out the administration's case in recent speeches.
As he waited to tour the fairgrounds Friday, Clinton said there is no question Saddam is violating United Nations ( news - web sites) arms inspection resolutions, and that he likely is stockpiling chemical and biological weapons.
"The real question is whether an attack now, especially if we would have to go it alone, would be a net increase in the security of the United States and our friends and allies," Clinton said.
"That's a hard question to answer. And one that I think there needs to be a lot of public debate on," he said.
Clinton also said he is confident the United States would quickly win any war with Iraq because of the overwhelming mismatch of military power.
Even Clinton knows Iraq has WMD and would use them.
Thanks Bill for making Bush's case.
Bill Clinton, think of the phrase, "yet another Babylonian king". I know it won't mean anything to you.
"If he knew for sure we were coming, he might have maximum incentive to use them and to give them to other people," Clinton said.
......and if he knew that we weren't coming, he would alter his behavior because of what?
The Bush administration, saying Saddam is developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, has discussed an invasion or bombing campaign to remove him from power.
Try bombing campaign followed by invasion. Paved previosly of course with a massive information campaign to the Iraqi people that essentially states, "Hi, we want Saddam, Uday, and the rest of his murderous friends. We wish no ill will towards the Iraqi people as a whole, and when we get them, we go like we've never been here, assuming of course that all you really want is peace. Tired of war?"
"The real question is whether an attack now, especially if we would have to go it alone, would be a net increase in the security of the United States and our friends and allies," Clinton said.
Especially if we have to go it alone. Like most European deserve consultation anyway. Sometimes when you are right you have to do what you have to do.
No, a massive preemptive strike is needed before Iraq can build more WMD or use the ones they have.
Unless you really believe that Bush wishes to appease Iraq, then it doesn't matter what either I or Clinton has to say.
The Ayatollah vowed that he would never seek peace until Saddam was gone.
He changed that. He had to. Both countries were being bled to death.
What we had in that situation was a leader as resolute as Khomeini, finally having to decide after almost ten years that he had to abandon that line of thinking, that fighting the Iraqi army was causing him to lose his grip on his people. It was too much to deal with. It becomes unexplainable after a certain point.
I assure you that the Iraqi army is no match for the United States Armed Forces; this is not a rah-rah thing..........there are too many of them living who remember the relentless bombing, and I assure you they don't want to go through it again.
.....that's probably the most intelligent statement I've ever heard from this guy.
If that's the case, it's probably because he isn't running the armed forces anymore.
Of course there is a risk of Iraq using WMD if we attack. But if we don't attack, Iraq will continue to build up its arms, and the risk will become progressively greater. And, it won't just be Iraq; we will have conceded this vulnerability, and every potential adversary will want to get in on the act before they miss out on the barbarians' spoils that will clearly be going to somebody.
Politically, this is terrible for the U.S. (and for the rest of the developed world). If we attack and Iraq does use WMD in response, are the Democrats going to say, "I told you so," conveniently ignoring that the situation would have gotten much worse if we hadn't attacked?
Wait a few years and the question won't be if but how many nuclear weapons Saddam has. He is a dangerous madman. He will only get more dangerous until he is removed from power.
Tomorrow is another day.
More like dog crap in your sneaker treads. You can't get it out and it stinks for days.
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.