Sam Stein

BIO

Sam Stein

The Huffington Post

Bill Clinton: I Was "For Giving Bush Authority To Take Out Saddam"

November 28, 2007 12:55 PM


stumbleupon :Bill Clinton: I Was "For Giving Bush Authority To Take Out Saddam"   digg: Bill Clinton: I Was "For Giving Bush Authority To Take Out Saddam"   reddit: Bill Clinton: I Was "For Giving Bush Authority To Take Out Saddam"   del.icio.us: Bill Clinton: I Was "For Giving Bush Authority To Take Out Saddam"

While stumping for his wife in Iowa on Tuesday former President Bill Clinton claimed unequivocally that he had opposed the war in Iraq from the very onset. It was a much firmer declaration than any he had made prior to the March 2003 invasion. And Clinton's aides later clarified that he had restrained his pre-war criticism out of respect for a sitting president's military decisions.

The statement, nevertheless, caused a stir among reporters and opposing campaigns, both of whom saw a bit of revisionist history.

One notable example that has yet to make the rounds is a March 18, 2003, op-ed by Bill Clinton in the UK Guardian, titled "Trust Tony's Judgment." Clinton chastised the European states that had vetoed a resolution by ex-Prime Minister Blair justifying the use of force against Saddam if the Iraqi dictator did not meet several time-specific deadlines for weapons inspections.

More importantly, Clinton rationalized the impending war on grounds that it would be far less dangerous than doing nothing at all.

As Clinton opined:

"As Blair has said, in war there will be civilian as 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."

To read the entire op-ed click here.

Update:
Another statement has emerged busting a big-old hole in Bill Clinton's claim that he opposed the Iraq War from its onset; this one recorded from the speech he gave during the topping out ceremony of his presidential library.

"I was actually for giving President Bush the authority to take out Saddam Hussein," the ex-President says. "But I've learned one thing... we don't need to criticize those who dissent from us too harshly cause after 200 years when you look back at it, the critics turned out to be right about half the time. And then their position became the majority position and then we just kept on going."

Well... he was prescient in one regard.


Comments for this post are now closed

 
Comments
203
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)

I personally heard Bill Clinton say at a fund raiser in Santa Barbara that " we could be in Bagdad in 6 days but then what do we do?" That was before the invasion.He is not lying.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:10 PM on 11/30/2007
    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:04 PM on 11/30/2007

This just underscores the reality of who the Clintons really are. Despite the spin, they are corpratists, just like the Bush crime family. Their act about "caring" for the plight of the average American is laughable. The Clintons are worse than Rethugs. Rethugs will tell you to your face that they dont have a problem with tax cuts for the rich, drug company profits, or lobbyists buying our democracy....oh wait...never mind.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:42 PM on 11/29/2007

Great blog!!!!!!!!!!!! You got him!!!!!!!!!!

I really think bill doesn't think that what he has said across the pond and when he has said it will ever be learned about at home . . .

You probably also know it was bill who told bliar to stick "real" close to the US . . . I sometimes muse that even though bliar is a greedy creep and a liar . . . whether he would have stuck that close to the chimp if not for bill's advice . . . I don't expect you to answer this fit of musing on my part . .. bill and hillary both have a lot to answer for regarding Iraq . . . let's hope they slit their own throats

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:14 AM on 11/29/2007

Ol'Bill surly is a great bullsh!t artist, " claimed unequivocally that he had opposed the war in Iraq from the very onset." NOT!
"And Clinton's aides later clarified that he had restrained his pre-war criticism out of respect for a sitting president's military decisions." So, Bill recognized the madness of it all at the beginning and did nothing ~ this is what we can expect from his wife!
Welcome to America the land of make-believe reality and if you believe this garbage, you will swallow the green pill.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:19 AM on 11/29/2007

Clinton as a PRIVATE CITIZEN has every RIGHT to voice out his opinion about the War in Iraq. He was no longer in office when he made the said statement.


What part of PRIVATE CITIZEN any of you do not understand?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:42 PM on 11/28/2007

It is astonishing how politically calculating the Clintons can be, they lie with the ease of a rug. Here lies the Clinton strategy, Bill Clinton spoke out and wrote OP-ED for and against the war, the strategy was that they could later claim the more advantageous position per the prevailing polls.

To think that Bill and Hillary made the choice of sending our countries soldiers to their death so that they could advance their political cause is very troubling. This goes to the heart of all the criticize the Clinton are receiving. Here in a nutshell is the Clintons problem, they have no core values, thus there is nothing they will not relinquish to preserve their political advantage. There is nothing they will fight for, Health care is just a blip on the Clinton"s map, Congress doesn"t want it, well se la vie.

Clintons sacrificed troops for political gain.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:47 PM on 11/28/2007

The best source for perspective on this that I can think of is Scott Ritter:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html

-----Scott Ritter was the UN's top weapons inspector in Iraq until 1998, when he resigned claiming President Clinton was too easy on Saddam. Now he says the dictator doesn't seem to have weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that trying to oust Saddam is "extremely dangerous."

Time does change things --- we should try to remember that when considering this issue.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:06 PM on 11/28/2007

You mean like Carl Rove or Richard Mellon Scaithe?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:41 PM on 11/28/2007

Bill Clinton should just admit that he was
duped on the WMD claims at that time.
I was duped. Hell, when I heard "mushroom cloud"
I thought it might be a good thing to remove Saddam. I admit it.
We all got duped.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:38 PM on 11/28/2007

This is Bill's Macca moment. His what is is is now what oppose as to opposed is. The Clintons are liars just like Rove trying to re write history. They may represent opposite sides of the political spectrum but they are both liars and determients to our democracy. Enough is enough!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:16 PM on 11/28/2007

Mr. Clinton: So...respect for Bush is more important than US human lives falsely sent into combat?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:08 PM on 11/28/2007
photo

Clinton supporters Bill, or Hillary need to fess up and admit their leader Hillary is for U.S. imperialism in Iraq and a continued expansion of the military industrial complex at home. That is her policy when the veil is pulled back.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:48 PM on 11/28/2007
photo

Even though many may like the policies that Senator Clinton proposes, they should also consider her record , just as Senator Clinton insists.
.
The last Clinton Administration, when faced with the fact that protection rackets where torturing people with poison and radiation, chose to avoid its responsibilities to incarcerate the criminals and protect the citizenry.
.
Instead, they made a deal with the criminal gang stalker protection rackets to leave them alone and to consequently abandon the citizenry.
.
Do we want a President who sells out the citizenry for votes?
.
Do we want a President who sends a "crime does pay" message to society?
.
Would you vote for a President who has signed nonagression deals with the KKK or the Nazi party? Gangs that torture with poison and radiation are much like the KKK and Nazi Party.
.
We do not need a sellout President. We need a principled leader President.
.
If you are one of the few who do not know what the above refers to, do a web search for "gang stalking" to see the tip of the dirtberg. Please do it before you decide to reply to my post.
.



    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:45 PM on 11/28/2007
- AZM I'm a Fan of AZM permalink

We worry about candidates for the presidency who have foreign relations experience.
What we ought to worry about is candidates who are capable of performing due diligence.
Engineers in Silicon Valley seeking to get funding for novel products learn to perform due diligence very quickly, it's a shame our candidates for the presidency aren't required to go through that experience!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:16 PM on 11/28/2007
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in  or  Connect