Reply #92: hardball? The man who admitted that he hates Clinton and wants [View All]

credit for bringing her down is now the place to find truth?

what the hell is wrong with you people?
Read this:


On the eve of war with Iraq, former President Clinton said we should avoid war and seek a new U.N. resolution. Here's what he said in New York on March 14, 2003, less than a week before the war began:

Do you believe this matters? If you believe it matters—as I do—then you have to decide if it matters whether we bend over backwards to try to disarm him in a way that strengthens rather than divides the world community. If you don’t think it matters, then you’re with a lot of the people in the current administration who think that we’ll just go over there and this will take a few days, after we win—victors always get to write history—everybody will get over this and we’ll get everybody back together and they’ll be glad he’s gone because he’s a thug and a murderer. That’s what they think. If you believe it matters to keep them together, then you’ve got to support some version of what Prime Minister Blair’s doing now, which is to say, okay, he’s finally destroying his missiles. And the administration, to be fair, is nominally in favor of what Blair’s trying to do.

He’s finally destroying his missiles, so let’s give him a certain date in which, in this time, he has to destroy the missiles, reconcile the discrepancies in what we believe is the truth on chemical weapons, reconcile the discrepancies on biological weapons, reconcile the issue of the Drones, and offer up 150 scientists who can travel outside of Iraq with their families for interviews. If you do that, then we’ll say this is really good-faith disarmament, and we’ll go on without a conflict. Now if that passes, however, then you have to be willing to take yes for an answer. You see what I mean? I’m for regime change too, but there’s more than one way to do it. We don’t invade everybody whose regime we want to change. There’s more than one way to do this, but if that passes and he actually disarms, then we have to be willing to take it, and then work for regime change by supporting the opposition to Saddam Hussein within and outside Iraq, and doing other things.

After the war commenced, President Clinton repeatedly said he would not have invaded Iraq; he would have waited for inspectors to finish their job.

President Clinton: 'I would not have done it until after Hans Blix finished the job.' According to an article in TIME magazine, President Clinton said, "I would not have done it until after Hans Blix finished his job. Having said that, over 600 of our people have died since the conflict was over. We've got a big stake now in making it work. I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn't agree with the timing of the attack."
President Clinton: 'I thought that we should not have gone in there until we let the UN Inspectors finish their job.' On CNN’s The Situation Room, Clinton said, “Well, at the time, Wolf, I thought that we should not have gone in there until we let the U.N. inspectors finish their job. That was, after all, the understanding the Senate had when it was asked to vote to Congress to give the president authority to go in.”
President Clinton: 'I don’t agree with what was done when it was done.' On CNN, Clinton said, “The question is, what's now best for the American people, for the war on terror, and for the people of Iraq, and the stability of the Middle East? We don't want to set a fixed timetable, if that led to chaos, the establishment of permanent terrorist operations in the Sunni section of Iraq, and long-term greater instability in the Middle East. So, whether you are for it or against it, it seems to me you should all be praying that it succeeds. I am. And so -- and I didn't agree with what was done when it was done. But we are where we are.”
11/27/2007 7:17:05 PM #