Refuting GOP Talking Point that Clinton Avoided Conflict with Iraq

You'll often here the GOP talking point that Clinton "avoided" standing up to Saddam Hussein/Terrorists with the implication that if he would have, 9/11 could have been avoided and it was up to the "Bold leadership" (sic) of Bush/Cheney to take care of Saddam and the tired BS line that they won't pass on problems to the next Administration (Deficits excluded, of course).

But I have a completely different take on this - I think Clinton would have LOVED to have been a wartime President - if the cause was just. (The Somalia/Haiti/Balkans operations were just too small to count in this regard). If Clinton had had a really good case for going to War with Iraq (or any other country), he would have done so - with a gusto.

Your thoughts?

Back in 2001, you might want to remind folks, both Colin Powell and Condileeza Rice were literally bragging that sanctions had so neutered Saddam that he was not even a conventional threat to his neighbors in the Middle East, let alone a threat with WMD or any sort of threat to anybody outside of the Middle East. So, we have spent upwards of $200 billion (so far) and more than 500 American lives (so far)to bring down a paper tiger.

Sorry, I cannot find the original quotes, but I am sure somebody with better internet searching skills than me can find the exact quotes.

Nobody else can give this guy any info? I'm sure there are dozens of better sources on DU than me... so, I'm kicking this up.

IF Clinton had proposed what W did the Republicans would have been screaming and hollering. He had a hard enough time finishing Poppa's work in Somalia and Haiti.

The Republicans in Congress would NEVER have allowed Clinton to go to war. Clinton had trouble acting in Bosnia because of the Republicans. It's funny how indignant they get now about anti-war people, but look back at some quotes by Congressional Republicans from that time. If Democrats were saying those things now, they'd be labeled traitors.

Clinton also couldn't act, because the first thing the media would say is that he's trying to distract people from whatever scandal the Republicans had invented for him that week.

If anyone is to blame for dropping the ball on that, it's the Republicans in Congress.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

I still think my idea that Clinton would have "loved" to have been a wartime President is true in the mold of a FDR or Truman.

Since it turns out that Iraq had no WMDS at all and nno tries tro terrorists....what the hell was there to have "Conflict with Iraq" ABOUT?

Clinton won two elections...he didn't have to dress up in a pilot costume and pretend to be brave.

And Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9-11.

You'll often here the GOP talking point that Clinton "avoided" standing up to Saddam Hussein/Terrorists with the implication that if he would have, 9/11 could have been avoided and it was up to the "Bold leadership" (sic) of Bush/Cheney to take care of Saddam and the tired BS line that they won't pass on problems to the next Administration (Deficits excluded, of course).


I'm surprised that so many folks seem to forget that President Clinton ordered attacks against Iraq in 1998. I've read that some of the UN inspectors were actually spies who told the locations of Saddam's weapons and that information was used to select the spots that were targeted in the attacks.

I'm confident that had President Clinton been in a position to deal with Osama bin Laden legally and effectively, he would have done that also. Certainly going the legal route with international agreement and cooperation takes longer, but I think it's a far wiser course of action.

The current Resident has chosen the quicker and less legal option. While we paid with nearly 3,000 lives on 9/11, we have paid at least an additional 500 lives since for that decision. How many Americans must die just to prove to the world that the U.S. is the biggest, the meanest, and you'd best not mess with us?