bill clinton interview
The Waiting Trophy Man
Posts: 12,158
KING: Vice President Cheney said, knowing all he knows, he'd still go back. Would you?
CLINTON: Of course he would. No, I never was in favor of doing it before the U.N. inspectors finished. I had a totally different take on this. I ...
KING: Why would you say of course he would?
CLINTON: Because they didn't -- because the evidence has made clear now that he and the other proponents of the Iraq war did not care whether he had weapons of mass destruction, did not care whether he was involved with 9/11, did not care whether the evidence showed any of this or not, that they had made their mind up in advance that this was the thing to do, that it would help to make a new Middle East, it would strengthen America's leverage against Iran; it would, you know, shake up the authoritarian regimes and increase our leverage to create peace between the Israelis and the Pakistanis -- Palestinians.
And I think they thought it might clean their own skirts a little, since most of what Saddam did that was really terrible he did when he had the full support of the Republican administration of the '80s, of which Dick Cheney was a part.
Now to be fair to them, it was an example of the old adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. After the Ayatollah took over in Iran and events began to go the way they did in Iran, the fact that Iraq was a willing counterweight was seen as a positive thing until he invaded Kuwait.
But much of what he did in using chemical weapons and killing innocent civilians and all the terrible things he did in the 1980s he did it without a peep of criticism from some of the same people that have prosecuted this war. So for whatever reason, they wanted to do this. And I think they would do it again because that's what they thought, what they should do with their mandate.
But I -- my personal belief is -- I had a different take. I didn't like Saddam. It's fine with me to get rid of him. It's fine to try to start a new future. But I thought that we should not invade unless he flocked (ph) the U.N. inspections because I wanted to keep more troops in Afghanistan to make sure it worked and to intensify the hunt for bin Laden, and Dr. al-Zawahiri.
But we are where we are. We got to try and make it work now. And I think -- I still, I believe that the Middle East would be better off if it did work; that is, if they could find some way to have self- governance, keep the country together in some form or fashion, even if they have more regional autonomy, and stop killing one another and stop killing us.
I mean, I just think it would be -- there needs to be before we make up our mind exactly what we're going to do in Iraq, there needs to be, as Tom Friedman of "The New York Times" said, a real big push, one last push to try to get them make a decision about their political future, which would then mobilize the Iraqis in their own defense. It finally happened in Anbar, yesterday, you know, 25 of the tribal leaders said "We don't want the foreign jihadists and we're going to try to kick them out ourselves." That's the kind of thing we need more of.
you can read the whole interview here:
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0609/20/lkl.01.html
CLINTON: Of course he would. No, I never was in favor of doing it before the U.N. inspectors finished. I had a totally different take on this. I ...
KING: Why would you say of course he would?
CLINTON: Because they didn't -- because the evidence has made clear now that he and the other proponents of the Iraq war did not care whether he had weapons of mass destruction, did not care whether he was involved with 9/11, did not care whether the evidence showed any of this or not, that they had made their mind up in advance that this was the thing to do, that it would help to make a new Middle East, it would strengthen America's leverage against Iran; it would, you know, shake up the authoritarian regimes and increase our leverage to create peace between the Israelis and the Pakistanis -- Palestinians.
And I think they thought it might clean their own skirts a little, since most of what Saddam did that was really terrible he did when he had the full support of the Republican administration of the '80s, of which Dick Cheney was a part.
Now to be fair to them, it was an example of the old adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. After the Ayatollah took over in Iran and events began to go the way they did in Iran, the fact that Iraq was a willing counterweight was seen as a positive thing until he invaded Kuwait.
But much of what he did in using chemical weapons and killing innocent civilians and all the terrible things he did in the 1980s he did it without a peep of criticism from some of the same people that have prosecuted this war. So for whatever reason, they wanted to do this. And I think they would do it again because that's what they thought, what they should do with their mandate.
But I -- my personal belief is -- I had a different take. I didn't like Saddam. It's fine with me to get rid of him. It's fine to try to start a new future. But I thought that we should not invade unless he flocked (ph) the U.N. inspections because I wanted to keep more troops in Afghanistan to make sure it worked and to intensify the hunt for bin Laden, and Dr. al-Zawahiri.
But we are where we are. We got to try and make it work now. And I think -- I still, I believe that the Middle East would be better off if it did work; that is, if they could find some way to have self- governance, keep the country together in some form or fashion, even if they have more regional autonomy, and stop killing one another and stop killing us.
I mean, I just think it would be -- there needs to be before we make up our mind exactly what we're going to do in Iraq, there needs to be, as Tom Friedman of "The New York Times" said, a real big push, one last push to try to get them make a decision about their political future, which would then mobilize the Iraqis in their own defense. It finally happened in Anbar, yesterday, you know, 25 of the tribal leaders said "We don't want the foreign jihadists and we're going to try to kick them out ourselves." That's the kind of thing we need more of.
you can read the whole interview here:
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0609/20/lkl.01.html
Another habit says it's in love with you
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Even as someone who is not the biggest fan of Clinton, I find myself absolutely incapable of turning off an interview of him. Such an intelligent guy. I've never seen someone be able to play both sides of a question so cleverly before. He can actually calculate in his head, both the response to a question that the interviewer wants to hear, and also the response that will cover his ass in case it's brought up again
Untill their will grows tired
so true.
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self
That is exactly how he became President. You were sure he was lying, yet telling the truth in the same sentence. If you can't convince, confuse, I guess.
I am somewhat biased since I did like him. (an aside - I got to shake his hand at the NY state fair one year) He did make mistakes, but I miss his level of intelligence in our government.... I watched part of the interview, including the part mentioned above. I think Clinton still has a role to play in the world. I like that he teamed up with Bush Sr. for good works types of activities.
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!
He was being drilled by a senator; "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?"
Ollie replied, "Yes, I did, Sir."
The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, "Isn't that just a little excessive?"
"No, sir," continued Ollie.
"No? And why not?" the senator asked.
"Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir."
"Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned.
"By a terrorist, sir" Ollie answered.
"Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"
"His name is Osama bin Laden, sir" Ollie replied.
At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued Why are you so afraid of this man?" the senator asked.
"Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of", Ollie answered.
"And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator.
"Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth."
The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip. By the way, that senator was Al Gore!
Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners."
However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands. The American President at the time, Bill Clinton , and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released.
Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports."
Bill Clinton, and his pal Al, have never known what to do, or how to do it. Only to talk about it, or critisize those who actually decided to shit or get off the pot. Bill Clinton needs to speak less, and be listened to lesser still.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.asp
edit:
The Atta part is under a different listing:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/atta.htm
He was never held in Israel.
A little bit of advise. If someone forwards you an email claiming to make some grand revelation that no one else seems to know, ignore it - or did you end up sending your bank account information to that royal refugee from Nigeria?
Jesus dude. You need to stop overreacting to posts intended to see who will overreact.
A little bit of ADVICE. Relax dude.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
And I don't buy it. People send me those emails all the time as if they were gospel. I smell a little oops, need to cover here.
No problem. Im not prone to 100% belief in spam emails either. But, 100% proof or fact isnt the goal I sometimes gather, just "opening your mind to the possiblilities."
www.myspace.com/jensvad
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.asp
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/atta.asp