Thank God this idiot is NOT in the driver's seat anymore!
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.
Clinton continues to amaze me, but dipping lower and lower into that white trash character of his.
Semper Fi
The UN Inspectors couldn't get access to Hussein's Arsenal, and all Clinton did was YAWN....letting Hussein AND Bin Ladin AND Arafat get STRONGER AND STRONGER!
Clinton is a TRAITOR!! No wonder he doesn't want us to take action! Why, Bush might undo "all the PROGRESS" Clinton made in destroying America!
If Clinton took us down the first time around, what will HILLARY DO in ROUND TWO!?
Hitler had Concentration Camps...if we hadn't fought in WW II, does Clinton think Hitler wouldn't have used them?
No wonder Red China thinks Hillary is the MASTER of Propaganda...and we now see that Bill is her best student!
"Peace in our time." -- Neville Chamberlain, 1938
I have seen the actual letter at the Imperial War Museum in London. I suggest Mr. Bill go and view the signatures at the bottom and learn from history that megalomaniacs like Saddam and Hitler can not be appeased or "contained" and that sticking one's head in the sand in order to avoid the problem, solves nothing and ultimatly resulted in the death of 80 MILLION PEOPLE!
Leaving aside any general Clinton-specific abuse, this statement-- or this kind of statement-- shows exactly the danger we have permitted in Iraq. A former president now says in public that Iraq's WMD programs are good reasons not to invade. They are reasons to defer a judgment about action, a reason to reach some weak "resolution".
This is alarming. The whole point of sanctions and the inspectorate regime was to prevent precisely this situation. Yet Clinton now casually admits that the past plan of action has failed so obviously that he, a man who has never been unwilling to prevaricate, sees no point in even trying to deny it in public.
If there was ever a clearer demonstration of the dangers of a lack of resolve I don't know what it would be. Clinton simply admits that our unwillingness to act sooner-- either during Clinton's presidency or during the Gulf War-- has now resulted in a more dangerous and more determined Iraq, and Iraq we now fear attacking.
And yet Clinton still wonders whether we should act!
One wonders, if we do nothing how does Clinton think we will now deter Hussein from further aggression? By the same lectures by which we meant to keep him from stockpiling chemical weapons to begin with? By passing more "resolutions" we now openly concede we have no intention of enforcing?
Can anyone think of a clearer way to invite danger and aggression? We would concede that we will not act when hostile countries openly defy U.N. resolutions. We would concede that the WMD programs we supposedly oppose will in fact not be opposed, and will in fact further deter us from acting. If that isn't a recipe for disaster I don't know what is.
"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.
You know, it's funny. Dick Cheney already predicted that weasels like Clinton would make this argument, and he's already refuted it:
"Another argument holds that opposing Saddam Hussein would cause even greater troubles in that part of the world, and interfere with the larger war against terror. I believe the opposite is true. Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region. When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace. As for the reaction of the Arab "street," the Middle East expert Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation, the streets in Basra and Baghdad are "sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans." Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of Jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart. And our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced, just as it was following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991.
"America in the year 2002 must ask careful questions, not merely about our past, but also about our future. The elected leaders of this country have a responsibility to consider all of the available options. And we are doing so. What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is give in to wishful thinking or willful blindness. We will not simply look away, hope for the best, and leave the matter for some future administration to resolve. As President Bush has said, time is not on our side. Deliverable weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terror network, or a murderous dictator, or the two working together, constitutes as grave a threat as can be imagined. The risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action."
OK, I will concede that not a likely scenario, but it is not out of the realm of possibility.
If it happened I would probably move to Australia or even South America.
.............A little weenie in hot water.
Now, he's an expert. Never mind that his legacy took almost a year to clean up.
Clinton went on to say "Whenever I had a real hard question to answer, I called in my thinking partner, let's call her "Monique", and we'd sometimes spend all afternoon in private oral debate over some really, really hard issues, until lo and behold, an answer would spew forth like Old Faithful".
And all this, of course, is vastly more important to him than the national security of the United States.
But that goes without saying, doesn't it?
Thank God this idiot is NOT in the driver's seat anymore!
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.