Some of the liberals should take some of Clinton's comments to heart. They are over the top and hysterical in their vitriol, while he takes a common sense approach here. Clinton opposed to Iraq withdrawal deadline ASPEN, Colo. (AP) - Former President Bill Clinton says setting deadline for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would aid terrorists trying to destroy a growing democracy. "They are dying beside us in the service of what they hope will be an independent country," said Clinton, speaking at the 2005 Aspen Ideas Festival on Friday night. "I wouldn't give it up yet. I'd stick in there and try to make it work. And I wouldn't set a deadline either. I think that's a mistake. If we set a deadline, (the terrorists) will believe all they have to do is wait. So unless you know you can take out all these insurgents coming in from other countries ... you shouldn't set a deadline, otherwise they will wait us out and it would be demoralizing for the Iraqis," Clinton said in a speech at the Aspen Ideas Festival. He noted 58 percent of Iraqis voted in their national election, more than in some recent U.S. elections. "It's clearly a legitimate process and the people want it to work, so I think we can try to make it work," he said. "The key thing is to put them in a position to defend themselves to protect their gains as quickly as possible. The more they are capable of defending themselves, the less it'll look like an American takeover, the less there'll be sympathy for terrorists coming in from the outside, and the more incentive there'll be for the various factions to join the government and be full participants," he said. Clinton scoffed at comparisons with Vietnam. "This not Vietnam. It might be a quagmire, but it won't be for the reason it was in Vietnam. Our problem (in Vietnam) was we didn't have a legitimate government to back. ... The government itself never had enough confidence to stand up." Clinton predicted this week's bombings in London will strengthen the resolve of the British to fight terrorism. "I actually think they made a tactically bad decision to do this thing in London, from their point of view (the terrorists)," Clinton said. "The British underwent the (Irish Republican Army) terrorism and the blitz bombing (from the Germans in World War II), and they are tough as nails. And they can take it and dish it out."
So true. I didn't agree with every Clinton policy (I thought he wussied out sometimes), but I'd take him back in a second.
I have respect for Clinton as a president. If I would have been an American Citizen at the time of his last election, I would have voted for him over Dole. (Even though I also have respect for Senator Dole). Clinton was a moderate who knew how to stand up to the left as well as to the right. In some ways he was like Arnold in California. It is true he was a liar, but as a human being with human failings I can understand his reasons for lying. He lied about his personal failings, not about things that matter to the policies of the country. Here's a toast to our former Prez.
Me too. Bush #1 failure is that he doesn't explain himself or worse, does it in a campain style. He simply doesn't have what Clinton has, i.e. the ability to just talk freely while staying on point. We never knew what Bill would be thinking tomorrow but we certainly understood what he was thinking today and in today's contex, it made sense. Now for those who call Busha liar, take note. Clinton is not lying about this yet he seemingly agrees with the current policy 100%. He did before the war, he did during the war, he did in the days after Falluja and he does today. I think what Bill Clinton learned from the Repuiblicans (that most on the left her have not) is that is does no good to hate the opposition. Only stupidity results. Clinton is free to think in a positive manner, thinks clearly and for himself. He's not locked into being against anything just because Bush is for it.
Clinton represented American ideals very well. Indeed, he was one of the few American presidents who was popular in many countries outside the US. As president, he was a centrist who tried to guide the center towards its more liberal impulses. He rejected the failed answers of the left, but not the voices those answered aimed to look after. He took the best of what were once regarded Republican ideas, left the worst out, and adapted them to an ideology that best represented what America should be about. That said, as a former president with no power to guide the center, Clinton's instinct to nonetheless look for the center of a polity that has moved way to the right under Bush, makes some of his positions less attactive to me. Nonetheless, and without any hesitation, i would not only take Clinton over Bush any day of the week, but equally over Kerry as well. So sad that those who ran the smear campaigns and were part of the "vast right wing conspriracy" Hilary was ridiculed for mentioning, are now the prime movers behind the scenes of the current administration.
"Date" type deadlines would probably be a mistake. "Landmark" type deadlines would not. For example, for every battalion of Iraqi troops deemed up to fighting the insurgents without US guys nearby, we bring a battalion home. Every sector pacified, we take home X soldiers. Etc. etc. But there's a reason the Bushies would never accept my (I believe) moderate and modest proposal. There's a circle we can't square...on the one hand, Bush says we'll leave as soon as we're not needed. On the other hand, we're building several (4?) permanent military bases. That's the policy elephant in the room that nobody will talk about.
You are right. The time frame for the troops to come home should be based on specific landmark results, rather than artificial dates. But, I think, you neglect to add that such deadlines should not be announced publicly, because doing so would give an advantage to the terrorists and insurgents. Such deadlines are probably in place already, but because the enemy is not supposed to know about them, people like you and I are not going to know about them either. Going back to President Clinton, I think that President's Bush and Clinton worked together in a way, when it came to Iraq, and that is why you don't see much opposition from Clinton, or even from Senator Hillary Clinton, in regards to the Iraq effort, even at a time when it would be the politically expedient thing to be critical. I believe that the policies of President Bush towards Iraq were the logical conclusions of the policies which President Clinton set forth. Given Saddam Hussein's behavior, I think both Clinton and Bush realized that regime change was the only reasonable option. President Clinton said so himself, back in 98.
Form the website of the Project for New American Century, the text of the letter written to Clinton advocating use of force to oust Saddam from power. The recommendation was rejected by Clinton at the time: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
I agree with what he said here. A smart speech made by Bubba. I especially liked his comments concerning the comparison with Vietnam. The 2 are not the same at all. I wonder if Clinton feels a need to support the war in Iraq due to the problems that he had to deal with concerning Iraq during his 8 years in office. I was not a fan of Clinton because as a member of the military at the time I did not like him since I felt he held the military with disdain and disrespect. But I would have supported a war with Iraq during his time in office as I did feel that we needed to remove him from office sooner or later. So who is the next moderate that we can look forward to for running for office?
This was written on July 8, 1996 for then incoming Israeli prime minister by folks who would later play prominent roles in the Bush administration. Their ideas were taken and incorporated into the whole agenda of the Project for a New American Century, and was espoused by people who spent a lot of their time undermining the Oslo peace process (which Clinton strongly was supporting) and the Clinton administration as a whole. While Bill Clinton inclination to search for the center made him mildly supportive of the Iraqi adventure, if he had been president instead of Bush, I am sure these folks would not be the ones counseling him. Nor would his first inclination after 9/11 be looking for ways to link the whole thing to Iraq! Indeed, the whole "mechanism" which enlisted right wing media organs, certain pro Israeli institutions, and the US government, to create a "center" that suddenly became obssessed with Saddam would not have existed either. Hence, Bill Clinton, I am convinced, would not have been taking some of the positions he has been taking. Bill Clinton wants to be "liked" and he wants to be a moderate, a centrist. Those are good instincts, but not when someone else is pulling the center all the way close to the right fringe.
Yes. You are right, of course. I didn't say that Clinton was ready to invade Iraq in 98. My point is that is you read in detail the actions which Clinton demanded of Hussein at the time, (when America made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States), Clinton put America in a position in which either they would have to back down, or conflict would eventually be inevitable, because Hussein was never going to change his behavior in the way president Clinton demanded. Perhaps it is possible that a Gore administration would have backed down, but President Bush took to its logical conclusion the position of president Clinton.
This whole thing is not about Saddam or backing down. I have said this before, and I will do so again. Taking out Saddam is something that, in principle, a lot of folks could agree on. But when you are doing so to further one set of goals (as set forth in the PNAC), as opposed to another (new world order internationalism), your tactical decisions, your timetable, your propensity to not be looking for the truth, and a lot of other things are affected by it. The ideological framework that underpins US foreign policy is one that was espoused by Clinton's most vociferous critics, and is one that Clinton did not share. The ideologues that are pursuing that ideology are not the ones Clinton would have put in positions of influence and power. Otherwise, I doubt too many people are shedding tears over Saddam no longer being in power! Certainly, I am not! Incidentally, you want to know the difference between Clinton (whose memoirs is the #1 best seller in Iran) and someone like Bush. The difference is that Clinton has said that his two favorite political figures in the world are Khatami and Rabin. The folks who found their way into the Bush White House not only spend all their time undermining Rabin and Oslo, but hated Khatami as well. They hated him more than they hated the hardliners in Iran, because in their mind he had softened Iran's image and made it more difficult for them to pursue the larger agenda they have in mind. Hence, even if tommorrow Clinton comes and mutters some supportive comments about taking Iran's case to the Security Council, he is responding to realities created by another group and a political environment shaped by them. With Clinton, a lot of things would have been different. Better. For everyone except these ideologues!
Of course you seemed to be very personal and emotional when it came to Saddam, knowing that Iraq and Iran were enemies. But I think Bush might have wronged Saddam.
I just read this and now I know why you cursed me. But.... But when it comes to Iraq, Clinton's hand is not clean either. Still remember millions of Iraqi children died out of mulnutrition and lack of medicine because of Clinton administration's embargo against Iraq? Think about that.
The very fact that Bush was able to transform Saddam's image from a butcher to something like a victim must count among his long list of major "accomplishments"! People in the US don't realize, but Saddam became more popular because of Bush than he could ever be on his own. No one likes a bully, which is Saddam was never much liked, until he met an even bigger bully!
1) I didn't curse you. 2) What you quoted has nothing to do with what I actually said about you. 3) Don't you have some beheading videos to watch?
Well, I miss the calm prosperous Clinton era too, as comparing to what we have right now. But since Clinton commented on the Iraq situation, I think he'd better remain quiet. Funny the rightwingers now are singing his praise - "voice of reason" - because he (the supposed leader of the Left) said what they wanted to say and hear. LOL, didn't hear that one came up when they cursed Clinton's sex act.
Well, I'm not a right winger but I think his comments were incredibly sensible, given the current situation. And, because he's about 1000 times smarter than our current POTUS, I'm inclined to give his ideas a lot of weight.
Well, I'll be. Begrudging and minor it is (he gives him credit for common sense), but I never thought I'd see the day that Ian said something nice about Bill Clinton. Just waiting for this thread to go to hell in a handbasket when ITN comes in and starts with the Bs about rape. . .