The only one to eat that plate of crow is you, Pabster.Originally posted by: Pabster
No, Moonie, it's both inaccurate and flat-out wrong.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Which is why we know it's accurate that Bill opposed the current war.
Let me direct your attention to a little-known piece Bill wrote in The Guardian (ya know, that liberal rag that tried to get Kerry elected by purchasing votes?) from March 18, 2003.
Bill Clinton: Trust Tony's Judgement
Now let me highlight:
As Blair has said, in war there will be civilian was well as military casualties. There is, too, as both Britain and America agree, some risk of Saddam using or transferring his weapons to terrorists. There is as well the possibility that more angry young Muslims can be recruited to terrorism. But if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam.
And let's lookie here...
Bill Clinton Defends Successor's Push For War
"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.
Enjoy that plate of crow, Moonie.
Clinton did always say that WMD could be a threat that needed to be dealt with - but he only was in favor of inspections to confirm the threat BEFORE any war, and political efforts to address the issue before any war - he was against going to war before those things happened, while going to war before they happened was Bush's policy - Bush kicked the inspectors out of Iraq to get out of the way of the invasion, while Hans Blix had said they'd be done in a few months.
Clinton saying that ignoring the WMD threat created a risk is not Clinton saying he supported this war - the article you link says quite the opposite.
Clinton's statements in the article are aimed primarily at praise for Blair's attempts to AVOID war by further using the UN and inspections - the opposite of what Bush did.
Clinton does lay the blame largely at the feet of Russia and France for threatening a veto of Blair's resolution, but nonetheless he was for the resolution and against the war.
He acknowledges that Blair had to make the tough choice to stand with the US, and encourages people offer support for Blair's tough choice - while having wanted ot avoid war.
You claim Clinton supported the war - here's what your article says, Clinton's comments who those who were in favor of war:
He's clearly not in agreement with them.In the face of the foot dragging, hawks in America have been pushing for an immediate attack on Iraq. Some of them want regime change for reasons other than disarmament, and, therefore, they have discredited the inspection process from the beginning; they did not want it to succeed. Because military action probably will require only a few days, they believe the world community will quickly unite on rebuilding Iraq as soon as Saddam is deposed.
Here's some more from the article you left out:
Once again, Blair stepped into the breach, with a last-ditch proposal to restore unity to the UN and disarm Saddam without military action. He secured US support for a new UN resolution that would require Saddam to meet dead lines, within a reasonable time, in four important areas, including accounting for his biological and chemical weapons and allowing Iraqi scientists to leave the country for interviews. Under the proposed resolution, failure to comply with this deadline would justify the use of force to depose Saddam.
Russia and France opposed this resolution and said they would veto it, because inspections are proceeding, weapons are being destroyed and there is therefore no need for a force ultimatum. Essentially they have decided Iraq presents no threat even if it never disarms, at least as long as inspectors are there.
The veto threat did not help the diplomacy. It's too bad, because if a majority of the security council had adopted the Blair approach, Saddam would have had no room for further evasion and he still might have disarmed without invasion and bloodshed. Now, it appears that force will be used to disarm and depose him.