Bill Clinton on Larry King's show September 3, 2002.

There has been a lot of debate here today about what he thought on Iraq. I am not sure exactly. I do think he could have pointed out more that there was no immediate danger from Iraq. I think he could have possibly stopped the invasion.

Pilger: Iraq, Squeezed to Death

But on Larry KIng Live on September 3, 2002, just over a month before the IWR vote, he sounded very casual.

I don't think some people here are understanding that our country changed when Iraq happened, our party changed. Pretty words are not going to hold water anymore....not after what we have done there.

Bob Dole and Bill Clinton were being interviewed.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/03/lkl.00.html



The situation we are in now is about far more than any one politician. I believe our Democrats need to get us out of Iraq and stop Bush from attacking Iran.

I don't hear their voices yet on Iran. Not yet.

He clearly signaled he would support war if that's what Bush decided. I think the Clintons thought it would be a cakewalk too.


CFR Speech

http://www.cfr.org/publication/4620/our_shared_future.html

"And this is really where the question of Iraq comes in. There's a lot of debate about what should we do with Iraq, and when. And you may want to ask further questions, but I will just make one observation. Saddam Hussein presents no conventional military threat to us, and a much smaller one to his allies than he did before the Gulf War. His military strength, it is commonly conceded, is about 40 percent of what it was before the Gulf War. He did try to assassinate former President Bush in 1993 with the most clumsy terrorist operation I ever saw. The car bombs that we uncovered practically said, "made by the operatives of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad." But after we bombed his intelligence building, as far as we know, he never took another serious terrorist act himself. And the Bush administration has said that Iraq was not involved in September the 11th.

The problem he presents to the world is that he has laboratories working to produce chemical and biological weapons. And they would be working to produce nuclear weapons if they had any weapons grade plutonium. We know that from the people who have defected, we know that from what he's done in the past. We launched a military operation in 1998, after he threw the inspectors out in an attempt to destroy as many of those facilitates as possible. So would it be a good idea if he weren't there? And were replaced by someone committed to a responsible course with regard to weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Would it be a good idea if the people of Iraq weren't siding with him, since he's a murderer and a thug? Yes. Should we unilaterally attack him? Well, that depends. And you may want to ask me more about that, and I'll try to weave that into my remarks later on."

"And I've already told you; I think he's got the labs up and going. And he kicked the inspectors out. So he's in violation of U.N. rules. And they are actually doing bad things there; I'm convinced of it. But I think what you have to ask yourself is, in what order do we have to deal with this? He has no missiles to put warheads on that would reach us. The only missile he's ever used on his neighbors . . . and he used mustard gas on his own people . . . but he fired some scuds into Israel after he was attacked in the Gulf War. So what I think is, A, let's put all of our . . . make the most intense possible efforts to build a legitimate peace process and have diminishing of the violence in the Middle East between the Arabs, the Palestinians and the Israelis. B, is look at what our options are, and try to find a way to do whatever we do with as much of a coalition as possible, and not unilaterally. Without giving up the right to take unilateral action if the intelligence indicates it's the right thing to do."

1. Clinton believed Hussien had WMD programs:

The problem he presents to the world is that he has laboratories working to produce chemical and biological weapons. And they would be working to produce nuclear weapons if they had any weapons grade plutonium. We know that from the people who have defected, we know that from what he's done in the past. We launched a military operation in 1998, after he threw the inspectors out in an attempt to destroy as many of those facilitates as possible.


2. Did he believe Hussien needed to go? Yes

So would it be a good idea if he weren't there? And were replaced by someone committed to a responsible course with regard to weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Would it be a good idea if the people of Iraq weren't siding with him, since he's a murderer and a thug? Yes. Should we unilaterally attack him? Well, that depends.

3. Did Clinton believe Iraq was a threat and did he condone unilaterally attacking Iraq?

I will just make one observation. Saddam Hussein presents no conventional military threat to us, and a much smaller one to his allies than he did before the Gulf War... But I think what you have to ask yourself is, in what order do we have to deal with this? He has no missiles to put warheads on that would reach us. The only missile he's ever used on his neighbors . . . and he used mustard gas on his own people . . . but he fired some scuds into Israel after he was attacked in the Gulf War. So what I think is, A, let's put all of our . . . make the most intense possible efforts to build a legitimate peace process and have diminishing of the violence in the Middle East between the Arabs, the Palestinians and the Israelis. B, is look at what our options are, and try to find a way to do whatever we do with as much of a coalition as possible, and not unilaterally. Without giving up the right to take unilateral action if the intelligence indicates it's the right thing to do."

NOTHING there indicates he would have supported war if that's what Bush decided.

Yes, its a serious charge. But he of all people knew Iraq was not a threat.

so much? He didn't start the war. If he had, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. Period. Saddam was a bad guy, but he was not an immediate threat to the United States. Which is exactly what Clinton says here.

Let me say it again, THE IRAQ WAR BELONGS TO BUSH! Is everyone just so tired of beating that horse, we've had to start kicking another one? Come on people. I dream of the days Clinton was in office compared to the nightmare we've been living for the last six years and I'd much more trust his judgement on how to handle Iraq than the F*wad's we've got runnning the country now. But, that's just me, I guess.

It's about the fact that our Democrats heard a former president saying these things just before the vote. Did you read the description by Pilger that I posted in the OP?

This is about our country going to war when it might have been stopped had powerful voices spoken up then.

I posted it mainly because Edwards was attacked for what he said on MTP.

There is so much stuff that shows that some groups of our party were actually ok with the WMD stuff. Being in denial is not helping us now.

If we want to get out of Iraq we have to hold them all accountable, and make them stop the effing talking points about Iran. Nearly all of them are doing it.

being able to stop it. He was not in power and neither were the Democrats. The intelligence that was being put out by the intelligence community was probably nearly all from Chalabi, et. al.. Even though, yes, somehow we all knew the intelligence was wrong. I can't get past that fact. Hundreds of people stood up and said it was wrong. Intelligent, well-respected, well-known people. So, I will have to concede on that one, but Clinton says he believed Hussein had chemical weapons, and he would have handled things differently. I believe he would have.

As for Iran... The politicians - no matter who they are - would be wrong to think we, US citizens and the citizens of the rest of the world, are going to stand for another Bush war. The cabal is already having a hard time getting their "evidence" on Iran together. They know it will be gone over with a fine tooth comb this time. The Republicans aren't running things, anymore. Yes, the rhetoric has got to stop - from everyone - on Iran. We can truly agree on that.

In relative terms, the regime change itself was easy. It's the aftermath that the administration so thoroughly misunderstood. They misunderstood the ramifications of removing Saddam. They misunderstood the politics of the country and the region. They understood *nothing* beyond taking out Saddam.

A part of your transcript that probably deserves further attention:

And I agree with Bob, we ought to give that inspection thing one more shot.

KING: And congressional approval?

DOLE: I think the President -- I think he'd go to Congress too, right, and get...

CLINTON: Yes, I agree with that.

Even Bob Dole thought Bush would go to Congress first. We spend a lot of time criticizing our members of Congress for expecting the same thing at the time. Obviously, even Dole didn't think Bush would attack Iraq without involving Congress.

"I don't think it will be a great military problem if we do it. You know, our guys did great there the last time, in the Gulf War. We're stronger, and he's weaker than he was then. "

That undermines the argument made by Bush and our Democrats that Saddama was an immediate threat. Clinton stated he was weaker then.

We did not have to send our soldiers there to die, and we did not have to be the cause of so many Iraqi deaths.

No planning, very casual.

Am I being critical of anyone person more than others? Not really. I just think we were sold a bill of goods, and we are all paying for it dearly.

That's the part I'll never understand. How could *anyone* think Saddam's military was a threat? We'd been bombing the country since the first Gulf War and shooting down any plane Saddam managed to piece together long enough to launch.

Saddam was never a threat. But I don't think Saddam was ever really the target, either. I think we just wanted control of Iraq and/or its oil. The PNAC idiots knew that the only way they could sell taking over Iraq was by claiming Saddam was an imminent threat.

We haven't had to occupy a nation for quite a while. About six decades or so. Korea War ended in a cease-fire, no enemy territory occupied. Vietnam we left, so no enemy territory to occupy. Panama, Gulf War, Somalia, Grenada, and the like were all temporary military invasions. And we went into Iraq while Afghanistan was fairly calm.

So the hardship of actually occupying a country I think was inconceivable to most Americans, including the politicians. And we're paying for our lack of foresight. And, sadly, so are the Iraqis. And our great-grandchildren.

If it was not a serious threat, then why?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/krispos42

They have titles such as:

"Before a troop surge, a competence surge", "6 Reasons why we invaded Iraq (and 4 more why the GOP wasn't against it)" and "March 19, 2003: Mission Accomplished!"

:hi:

He knew Iraq was not a threat. I think if Clinton was this casual just over a month before....then I really don't feel like blaming others as much.

He put them on a terrible spot.

well, at least the rationalization at DU is entertaining ....

for the DECISION to go to war. Clinton supported the decision and did so PUBLICALLY more than a few times. You just stick your fingers in your ears when it comes to Clinton's support of Bush and Iraq war, while you hold it against everyone else who had LESS information than the last president who still could access classified information by requesting a briefing at any point, as all ex-presidents can and do.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Thanks for showing us the way and the light to blaming.

If you've got a problem with that, maybe your tin foil hat is on too tight.

ONLY because you have double stanbdards for yourself, too.

Clinton cheerleaded this war BECAUSE he was the leader of the Dem party and KNEW he could influence many to support Bush once he made the decision to go to war. Especially the American PUBLIC who trusted his judgement.

Kerry stuck to his "yes" IWR vote as keynote of his YEAH WAR !!! 2004 presidential campaign platform. He chose to run to the right of Bush in 2004 as a pandering warmonger and didn't have his cosmic anti-war revelation WHEN IT MATTERED ... BEFORE the election. He is every bit to blame for why we are still in Iraq as anybody else you are blaming.

Be prepared to mix it up because the REAL double-standard here is over.

question.

point.

Kerry's YEAH WAR !!!! running to the right of Bush 2004 presidential campaign platform was and is every bit to blame as his "yes" vote on the IWR for the fact that we are still in Iraq. Rather than having his late albeit insincere anti-war cosmic revelation BEFORE the election WHEN IT MATTERED, he elected instead to pander as a warmonger. That's a fact.

To me that is much more alarming, disgusting, and relevant, than anything Bill Clinton said before the war even started.

to prove war was not needed.

it's the kind of discussion they have there every day.

:eyes:

I am honest about what I post. People here seem unaware that Clinton was not ever really against the war.

It spoke of regime changes in Iraq.

Did you know Dennis Kucinich supported it?

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt in saying they probably don't know. They are using it as a weapon not realizing it was passed effin UNANIMOUSLY by the Senate. Either that or the truth doesn't mean a damn thing to them.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/10/981009-in.htm

The GOP owned the House and Senate...and we had a democratic President everyone trusted.



Believe me I loved Bill Clinton until I started researching him more, and I only started my research because of Hillary being the front runner with what seems to be the MSM's blessings. ...What's up with that? :shrug:



We can't have a hawk for a candidate, or someone who sits around and let's the other side get away with murder.

It didn't call for US invasion.

Yes, you're right The Iraq Liberation Act never mentioned the word "invasion", it spoke of regime change in Iraq.

We all know Saddam fixed ALL of his elections, so how did you expect regime changes in Iraq to take place?

And what was it that was so mild in nature, so smart in it's planning, that a peacenik like Kucinich would support it?

Trying to equate THIS with anything Bush has done shows a lack of understanding of the nature of the act.

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act)

SEC 4 a 2:

(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.

Clinton started a massive bombing campaign (Operation Desert Fox) six weeks later. The House Intelligence Committee was not even notified!
Kucinich believed that a ban on US military action, as stated in the ILA, would be honored. It wasn't.

“I wish they would attack us with a nuclear bomb and kill us all,” he said, “so we will rest and anybody who wants the oil — which is the core of the problem — can come and get it. We can not live this way anymore.” - Haydar Abdul Jabbar, 28, a Baghdad car mechanic (NYT, 2/5/07)

"effin UNAMINMOUSLY" also means, now listen up here, ALL THE DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR IT including folks like Kucinich and Kerry. Although I would never call Kucinich a hawk, John Kerry certainly has a history, but fortunately we dodged a redux bullet on that one, eh?

My guess is, if all democrats voted for the Iraq Liberation Act...they did it because they either didn't read what they were signing because they trusted Clinton, or they're all deep down hawks.

I hold people accountable for that which they are responsible and I try to do that with an honest assessment of the situation. I can't say why all the Dems voted for it, but they did. There are many hands involved in the direction this country takes.

Fuck him.

I used to think America was better than that. Of course some would do regime change more peaceably than others would, but we gave the power of regime change to someone we already knew was incapable of using it wisely.

Bottom Line....Bill Clinton could have spoken up and stopped this invasion IMHO.

other than from external pressure, precisely as the legislation states. He, in fact, kept the PNAC boys at bay. Rather than giving him credit for that, you ALWAYS allege the very worst.

I notice the fact that 28 Senators abdicated their constitutionally-mandated war-declaring powers to Junior seems to have slipped your mind.

To state that Clinton could have stopped the invasion under Junior's watch that Congress gave him the green light to do reeks of ill-informed bias and gratuitous blaming, but fits in quite nicely with your general Clinton-trashing theme.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52839-2004Aug9.html

:puke:

I saw Pres. Clinton live the night before the IWR Senate vote. Right before Clinton took the stage, an announcement was made that both of our congressmen had just voted against the resolution. A huge cheer went up. Now it is important to understand that Baldacci was running for governor is Maine, a state that has trouble electing Dems. for state wide positions because of some red pockets.

Okay, so Clinton then took the stage. Before he launched into his planned speech, he took a moment to caution us about the IWR. He said that we must remember that while it is difficult for presidents to do many things, that a president is basically free to start a war. And he said "war" not inspections. Anyway, it was a deflating message which conveyed that fighting this coming war was futile.

I'm rather surprised by his belief that Saddam would be like any other mini-conflict, or that Saddam posed an imminent or real threat to the US. Albright was certainly not keen on bush's plans. And yes, they all knew what was coming: a war. Everyone with a brain in Washington knew of the neocons, the rapidly evolving plans of the Iraq reconstruction group and PNAC.

There was nothing casual about it. I admired him for it, but people did not listen.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/390

""We are locking down on the principle that we have one evil, Saddam Hussein. He is an enormous, gargantuan force, and that's who we're going to go after," Graham said on the floor. "That, frankly, is an erroneous reading of the world. There are many evils out there, a number of which are substantially more competent, particularly in their ability to attack Americans here at home, than Iraq is likely to be in the foreseeable future."

He told his fellow senators that if they didn't recognize that going to war with Iraq without first taking out the actual terrorists would endanger Americans, "then, frankly, my friends — to use a blunt term — the blood's going to be on your hands."

They voted anyway. And Bill and Hillary Clinton had been in the White House for 8 years. They knew Iraq was not an immediate threat to us. Whether they approved or not is of less importance to me than the fact they did nothing to stop the bloody invasion.

You are right, they all knew. We knew. We called, we marched. They voted for it anyway.