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.
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.