Clinton: Timing of Iraq Attack Was Wrong

NEW YORK - The Bush administration made a mistake by invading Iraq (news - web sites) before United Nations (news - web sites) weapons inspectors finished their work, former President Bill Clinton (news - web sites) said in advance of Tuesday's release of his memoir, "My Life."

In an interview to be published in Time magazine, he said that even though he didn't agree with the timing of the attack, he wants the Iraq invasion "to have been worth it."

"I think if you have a pluralistic, secure, stable Iraq, the people of Iraq will be better off, and it might help the process of internal reform in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere," Clinton said.

Terrorism festering in Iraq could make the lives of Iraqis worse than they had been under Hussein, Clinton said in a "60 Minutes" interview to be broadcast Sunday.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040620/ap_on_re_us/clinton_book&cid=519&ncid=716

and get back to Clinton bashing.

I am sure he doesn't like this message that Iraqi's could be worse off without Saddam!

Looks like Kerry is going to get a break from the republican attack machine.

On the other hand he actually praised him(sort of) at the picture unveiling. Seems like it would be a waste to attack Clinton now, maybe they'll just leave that to Rush.

I think Clinton will help Kerry a great deal. He can say things that Kerry can't and he is so friggin' smart about it too! Agree or disagree with him, people listen when the Big Dog talks.

but I wish Clinton would just go away, ASAP.

However, I don't trust President Clinton very much on this topic, either. It is my understanding that he has worked very hard to keep Blair working with Bush.

The timing of the Vietnam War was wrong too. I believe the time to fight that war was never.

Of unjustifiable war...why isn't that wrong? Why isn't it wrong for Bill Clinton to be rendering what would appear to be aid and comfort to the enemy-Bush, saying only his 'timing' was bad?

Does anyone on DU honestly believe the purpose of statements like that, can be anything other than support for a deeply embattled George Bush?

Spin away, if you can, but I think this is pretty hard to explain away.

Bill Clinton is not on our side.

"Terrorism festering in Iraq could make the lives of Iraqis worse than they had been under Hussein"

It undermines Bush's argument that we went to "save the Iraqi people".

Saying only the 'timing' was wrong endorses the basic concept of war in Iraq, thereby in large measure, TAKING BUSH OFF THE HOOK!

Sheesh.

Clinton is saying that the weapons inspectors should have been allowed to finish their jobs. Had they been able to finish their job...guess what? The entire world would have seen the fucking obvious, that there weren't any WMD's. The entire world would have seen that aside from not having WMD's or nukes, the guy didn't have squat. He not only wasn't a danger to the USA, he wasn't a danger to his neighbors or his people.

No WMD's would have made the rationale for war very tough.

Do you remember that the neocons approached him to invade Iraq? Do you remember that he told them to take a hike?

Why the weasel words that will be interpretted by many as aid and comfort to the enemy-Bush?

Same old Clinton: he has accomplished his real mission, aid and comfort, but his teflon is still intact.

Listen, the GOP is having real trouble rousing their base, and all the recent headlines have been nothing but negative for George Bush and the Republican Party. Clinton's reemergence into the limelight is going to do nothing but help them with all of this, like nothing else could have.

And Bill Clinton knows it.

*love* to pit Clinton against Kerry? If he came out and said the war was wrong, suddenly Kerry has some 'splainin to do courtesy of Clinton. Then it really does hurt Kerry. I don't like the war anymore then you do. I hate it and I didn't think we should've gone in the first place. That doesn't mean I am incapable of seeing Clinton's doing. He is criticizing Bush for how he handled the entire thing. He is keeping with Kerry's message as Kerry is critical of the way Bush has handled the war. It is really simple if you ask me. Clinton has stated that he wants to help Kerry and what a better way to help then to stick to Kerry's message, like Kerry's message or not?

I think he is doing a fine of job of letting people know Bush has screwed this thing up from the very beginning. I bet there are alot of military families out there who have buried their love ones who say, "I wish the inspectors could have been allowed to finish their job."

Something to the effect that 'Yes I voted for George Bush's War, because he lied to me, every day, in every way. Like many who voted for it, that is ONE vote I wish I could take back. Like most people, I have made mistakes; and my biggest was in believing George Bush, and voting for what turns out to be, a war based on a pack of lies.'

At some point, Kerry has to counter the 'flipflopper charge, anyhow, and this is where Bush is weakest-he lied to us, and took us into an unjustifiable war. He lied to Congress to get the authority to do so. He is a goddamn criminal, murdering liar.

But of course, Bill Clinton says that only the 'timing' was wrong, so I guess it'll be OK!

If Clinton thinks the war is wrong, he should just say so, or stay out of it. John Kerry can easily explain his own votes, and hurt the hell out of George Bush in the process.

I think the KISS principle should be applied here; and only time will tell, but I predict no good will come of Bill Clinton's meddling-we were doing just fine, thankyou, watching Bush self-destruct. Anything that distracts from that, is not welcome, by me.

I mean that he voted for the war because he was lied to. Doesn't that look bad if he didn't really know what was going on? I'm not sure, I'm asking. I agree with you, the issue is not how he went about the war or the timing of the war, the whole war was wrong. It was flat out the wrong enemy! It would have made just as much sense to attack Mexico. This has always troubled me about John Kerry. I think he has really dropped the ball on the vote for the first gulf war, the Iraqi war resolution and the $87 billion. Of course I believe that if he was president, Iraq would not even have been mentioned as a possible target but I don't like how he has tip-toed around this from the very beginning.

be badly hurt...because he DID lie, and we ARE in an unjust war, and there is no defending it. Only thing is, the Democrats, OUR Party, seem to want to stay in Iraq as much as the GOP does.

I think it really must be the dollar/euro thing. Petrodollars recycling into this country are addictive...we really don't care who buys Iraqi, or anyone else's oil, but by God, they will be paid for it in dollars. If oil-producers will only accept dollars in payment, and EVERYONE has to buy their oil, it forces them all to keep mass quantities of dollars in their foreign exchange reserves and off the market-which is why we can run such untold deficits, while no one else can...then enter the euro. Now we have competition. Taken alongside the money game, the oil game is chump change.

Saddam went to the euro for Forex, I believe in November 2000. His fate was sealed. Iran has been threatening...and should they actually DO it, there butts are next, IMO. Or if Saudi were to do it, there is our Army, just across the border...an excuse gets trumped up, an voila, another one bites the dust. We will occupy them all, if necessary, because if the rest of the world were allowed to dump all their dollars and use the euro, or gold, then we are immediately bankrupt. All those dollars being dumped on the market would destroy the value of our currency. All our savings and pensions would be worthless. It would be a disaster.

I know it sounds more than a little tinfoil, but nothing else I have encountered explains why Democrats are'nt going ballistic over the Iraq war. They should be, and would be, if they did'nt know something else was up. Dean would have, but then, that is why he is no longer with us.

This is why I think Clinton, and even Kerry himself have been recently providing cover for Bush on the war. Bush has recently been crashing SO bad, that the American People may soon DEMAND we remove our forces from the middleeast...and nobody in power today wants THAT.

But I do. I think it is wrong to kill innocent people for money. Lets take the hit-withdraw. Get alternative sources of energy online. Do the hard things. At the very least, cut a deal with the europeans, which Kerry has said he will do (reading between the lines, on the euro, too). Then, NATO will move in, giving us a fig leaf of legitimacy.

I am beginning to understand at least part of why we are doing what we are doing, but it does'nt mean I agree with it...you know?

I had heard of the euros/dollars thing but never heard it made a big deal of. I'm going to check into it and see if I can find anything. I'd like to think this isn't all so we can run a deficit. I really don't know what the hell they are thinking running that huge deficit, although I had heard once that repubs like to run a deficit so their rich friends can buy up t-bills and make money off the government. Not sure I believe that because they can make more insider trading and things like that, but it's one explanation - I mean besides the obvious that they have to run deficits to pay for tax cuts, but it's so short sighted. If we weren't paying interest on that we would have so much more money for tax cuts or anything else.

Chavez is bartering his oil with other countries, rather than using the dollar as a medium for exchange...which puts him on the hit list, but in his case, we cannot simply invade-might have to fight ALL South America-so we just try to destabilize and replace him.

Some validation of this idea, is the fact that no other nation on earth can run deficits like we do. Why is that? Trying to find out the answer to this key question is where I began my own research on the net. Good luck. I have no links, but there are some good articles out there on this topic.

No one gives a flying f**k what Clinton thinks about anything.
Unlike Jimmy Carter.

Because *I* care about what Clinton thinks on *alot* of issues.

Please accept my sincerest apologies. I will stop saying "no one." :)

"lovedems cares about Clinton"

You are forgiven! :) It's the liberal in me!

Take a closer look at what HE is saying, not the reporter's spin.

And, as someone else on DU pointed out, he's basically supporting Kerry's stance on the war.

You mustn't allow the media to lead you to THEIR positions like this.

said - without quotes - that the US struck terrorist safe houses.

There should have been quotes around the "terrorist safe houses" part, or they should have said "suspected terrorist safe houses."

Lazy, biased, sensationalism that passes for journalism.

Like the headline on MSNBC with a Matt Lauer interview with Michael Moore yesterday - "Moore defends incendiary film" - come again? Defends? Incendiary?

So they are going to spin the Clinton interview the way that best serves them, too. I'll watch 60 minutes and make up my mind. I doubt Clinton is dumb enough to say something to help out Bush at a time like this.

No WMDs = No justification for invasion.

It is pretty simple, isn't it?

Clinton qualified those statements pretty tightly.

We seem to forget that Saddam Hussein really was a murderous tyrant. Clnton said, in effect, that it was good to get rid of Saddam, but that Bush was incompetent to do the job.

No spinning is required -- it's a transparent set of statements.

"He wants the Iraq invasion 'to have been worth it."

Yeah, we all do; but Team Bush has bungled the job so badly that Iraq is now a breeder reactor for terrorists.

Clinton has made these kinds of statements before. The Clinton-bashers find reasons why it's a terrible thing to do, but the Republicans tie themselves up in knots over it.

--bkl

tactic and act was justified. What was the rush after 12 years? The rush was Oil - the Euro/Dollar - and the security of Israel in the big takeover plan for the area. Plus, imo, the fall of Enron left them without their main money laundering device and, most likely, some bills were due, thus they thought they could take the oil money to pay off and profit from.

I have this terrific bridge you can have cheap. Well, not cheap, but since you bought that.....listen, everybody in New York has to go to Brooklyn sometime. You'll make a fortune. When can I have your check? Tell you what, let's use PayPal.

Only after the war was decided he did the support thingy.

As in, in his book and the press in the last week or so.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP: Clinton Warns Bush of Consequences of Attack on Iraq
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33802-2002Oct2.html
Former president Bill Clinton today warned his successor,
President Bush, that he
could face "unwelcome consequences" if he launched preemptive
military action
against Iraq. Addressing the British Labor Party's annual
conference here, he
sharply criticized the administration's foreign policy while
endorsing the goal of
compelling Iraq to disarm.
Clinton said that "a preemptive action today, however
justified, may come back
with unwelcome consequences in the future." And he urged Bush
to continue to
seek U.N. Security Council approval before sending in U.S.
forces.
While his tone was generally milder than the attack issued a
week ago by former
vice president Al Gore, Clinton suggested that the
administration's first priority
should be to eliminate the al Qaeda terrorist network. "Our
most pressing
challenge is to finish the job," he said.

How nice was that.