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.
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.
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!?
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."
.............A little weenie in hot water.
Now, he's an expert. Never mind that his legacy took almost a year to clean up.