Clinton had written in Iraqi regime change in his policy?

[funkybutt]

I'm having a discussion with my brother, who is a democrat (very anti bush) but when i showed him some videos from bushflash.com, he called them propoganda. He says "i dont think CLinton or Clark or Kerry has gone on record vs the war. Just would have gone about in different manner. Some good can still come out of this..it just takes time"

He's telling me that "Even Clinton had written in regime change in his policy"...

Do any of you have any such info? Can you help me be informed in this discussion?

[bossfish]

1. No, I don't think Clinton did...

...but I don't know for sure.

I do know he waved off the PNACers in 1998

[funkybutt]

2. found this recent CNN article

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/09/clinton.amanpour/

[funkybutt]

3. JEEZ this one pretty much shows Clinton saying the same thing * does

but that IS CNN...this is from 1998

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

[Gin]

4. he never would have wanted to invade a soverign country......he may

have wanted SH out...but would have done it another way...IMHO!

[funkybutt]

5. I agree

i think the latest interview (first posted link) supports that poiint of view.

[bossfish]

7. Not really, the closest he comes is...

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.

Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.
====

He's not advocating that the US invade or anything approaching that.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[funkybutt]

21. I was asking for help getting sources to PROVE

that it was bullshit. Thanks for the link but i'm getting sick of being accused of working for the repugs!

I was asking for help with a discussion as MANY DUers do.

[kiahzero]

6. Read and learn

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1531

Clinton did want regime change, but not in the manner Bush was pushing for. My understanding of his policy on it was that the sanctions would weaken Saddam's government to the point where the people would topple it.

It would have been a good idea, except that the sanctions were poorly structured - they ended up making the people more dependant on Saddam, which made his position stronger rather than weaker.

[funkybutt]

18. thanks!

that was just what i was trying to tell him.

[Richardo]

8. Clinton policy was for regime change from within...

...and some thought even that was unworkable since Saddam was too well entrenched and the 'plan' such as it was relied largely on Chalibi's Iraqi National Congress - whom Zinni recognized at the time was unreliable at best.

[Merlin]

9. Working toward "Regime Change" is not the same as launching a war to do it

Especially when you have to call off an on-going, highly successful regime of United Nations weapons inspections to do it.

Clinton would NEVER have done this. He's way too smart.

[Bandit]

10. Yes clinton was for Regime Change but not by invasion

He was for supporting Iraqis in their bid to oust Saddam as was Bush 1. Neither of those real Presidents were for an armed invasion of Iraq at any time. Just like Kerry is for Regime change in the US but not for an armed attack on Bush*.

[underpants]

17. Right that is the WHAT? of the US policy the HOW? WHEN? .....

Where? Well where is pretty much set
Who? US and them oh and maybe a coalition so we don't have to take 95% of the losses and pay for all of it
Why? Liberate the Iraqi people, right?

Okay so we still have When? Not now please

and the Biggee---------HOW?

US policy says we support this but don't support that etc. Apple pie, puppies and so on (not that that is actual policy)

It was passed by Congress and Clinton signed it but he didn't INVADE :eyes:

If I'm not mistaken the Repubs slid the restarting of payments to Chalabi in there too. The CIA had stopped paying him when it was evident that he was useless but the US (us) started payments again in '98 which was when this policy was passed and signed.

[sandnsea]

12. Yes, 1998, but rejected war

They most certainly would have gone about getting inspectors back into Iraq in a different manner, that's the whole point. But I don't understand what you mean by Clinton, Clark or Kerry haven't gone on record vs. the war.

[blm]

13. He had regime change in his policy but not by military force.

Big difference.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

14. There's a big difference between...

"regime change" and "unilaterally invading a sovereign nation".

Hell, even I was for "regime change" in Iraq, but would have never, ever agreed to the manner in which it was done by Bush.

[Kinkistyle]

15. I'm for Regime Change in the U.S.

but I don't support dropping cluster bombs on Texas and Washington D.C.

[funkybutt]

20. well said!

[shoelace414]

16. and amazingly enough

after eight years of "wanting regime change" he didn't invade Iraq.

however.. Bush did. he made the decision to invade and is now blaming other people when he is ultimately responsible.

[funkybutt]

19. OH well! things just got ugly!

he said that i was irritating him by asking for his sources.tThen resorted to personal attacks about how "unkewth" in my manner of participating in this discussion. Screw him...

my point was just that even though Clinto may have wanted Saddam Hussein out, he wouln't have attacked him the way Bush did and that thousands of lives could have been spared.

[funkybutt]

22. okay, he apologized

"unkewth" haha

[nomatrix]

23. From Paul O'Neill "Price of Loyalty"

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/011604Leopold/011604leopold.html

See the PNAC in 1997-1998 push their agenda.


"We urge you to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power," says the letter sent to Clinton. "This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council."

However, in an ironic twist, Clinton rebuffed the advice saying his administration was focusing on the worldwide threat posed by the terrorist group al-Qaeeda and it's leader Osama Bin Laden, who is alleged to be responsible for the 9/11 "terrorist" attacks and who Iraq war critics say the Bush administration should have been focusing on after 9/11 instead of Saddam Hussein.

The 1998 letters to Clinton and Gingrich seems to back up the revelations made by O'Neil in the book "The Price of Loyalty" that the Iraq war was, in fact, planned in the days after Bush was sworn into office-possibly even earlier, if you consider that between 1998 and late 1999, when Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, the chief architects of the Iraq war, spent nearly two years lobbying Congress to use military force to overthrow Saddam Hussein from power.

When Clinton refused, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz and others from PNAC wrote another letter on May 29, 1998, to Gingrich and Senate Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott, saying that the United States should "establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf-and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power."

[funkybutt]

24. Great source!

thanks!

[ParanoidPat]

25. Here's a link to the PNAC January 26, 1998 letter to Clinton in PDF format

http://www.servizilocali.com/documenti/clintonletter.pdf :evilgrin:

It may also be viewed in HTML format on the PNAC web site.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Signed "Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick"

[Make7]

26. 1996 coup d'etat

From Frontline: Gunning for Saddam:

"For the next 10 years, the United States was always worried about Saddam. And he has said he was always at war with America. America created no-fly zones, regularly shooting at his planes or bombing his radar sites and more.

Yet Saddam survived despite a popular uprising, despite economic sanctions controlling all trade into his country, despite assassination attempts on his ministers, despite U.N. arms inspectors bent on destroying his strategic weapons. Nothing has worked.

Then, in June of 1996, Washington took secret action. The White House ordered the CIA to organize a coup d'etat."

<snip>

"But in Baghdad, a special unit of Iraqi intelligence had studied every coup of the 20th century. Saddam Hussein was ready."

<snip>

"The plotters were told that America would recognize them as Iraq's new leaders. They were given special mobile phones with direct lines to the CIA. But Saddam had penetrated the coup. His agents burst into homes across Baghdad. They tortured and executed hundreds of officers. Then they found the CIA's phones. An Iraqi intelligence officer placed a call. An American agent answered. He was told, 'Your men are dead. Pack up and go home.'"

------------

-Make7