‘Mistake or not’, time to move forward on Iraq: Clinton

[bemildred]

It's a shame in a way, this man could be kicking ass, instead we get this servile gruel. If you are hitting yourself in the head with a hammer, you have to keep it up, otherwise the previous holes in your head would be meaningless.

WASHINGTON: Former US president Bill Clinton on Thursday said Americans should move past lingering divisions over the invasion of Iraq and that it was time to focus instead on establishing a successful democracy there. “Whether it’s a mistake or not, we ought to try to make this strategy succeed and support that strategy. It’s the only option having to make the sacrifices mean something,” the ex-president told CNN television. “We did what we did, we are where we are,” Clinton said. “Eighteen-hunDred Americans have given their lives, thousands of Iraqis have died trying to give their country a future. “So where we are now, it’s important to try to continue this effort to train the security forces and the military forces, which the administration and our military have undertaken. We have to try to make this work,” Clinton said. Clinton made his appeal even as he questioned the decision by President George W. Bush’s administration to invade Iraq. “I never thought it had much to do with the war on terror, except we were looking to see if there were biological and chemical agents there,” he said. But Clinton added: “Independent of that, we are there now and there now are terrorists operating there.” He said the United States should strive to help create an Iraq that is “free, independent and at peace.” “They are trying to come up with a constitution, and we are trying to train the security and military forces,” he continued. “If we can do that, our people can come home.”

Daily Times

[WinkyDink]

1. Saving

Hillary's bacon, is all.

[SamBass]

12. No two ways about that.

I don't what's worse. That she operates like she needs to grow some hawk talons to get the nomination, or that he's willin' to suck to help her get it. I'm really disappointed in him. Her ~ uh, I'm just not a fan.

Gee, isn't there some high rankin' Dem who was once actually sayin' this whole war thing has been screwed eight ways to Sunday, was a horrible fuck up on the administration's part and we ought to get our asses out . . .

[ToeBot]

2. What's this "We" bullshit? n/t

[For PaisAn]

3. That's a great analogy

about hitting yourself in the head with a hammer!

This line of Clinton's is pure bullshit and it really surprises me that he said it:

"Eighteen-hunDred Americans have given their lives, thousands of Iraqis have died trying to give their country a future"

No, they died because Bush & Co. murdered them.

[yorkiemommie1]

7. some of the bushslime has come off on him

n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

14. US foreign policy has been lockstep pnac

from bush I through bush II. That would include Clinton.

[paulk]

68. if that were true

then Clinton would have heeded the PNAC request in 1998, and invaded Iraq then.

[Warren Stupidity]

69. They needed cover

They couldn't just go and invade Iraq without some cover story giving them just cause. As the PNAC documents said, they needed something like a new pearl harbor to get the party going. They got their pearl harbor on 9-11-01.

[paulk]

71. Bush needed cover

Accusing Clinton of being PNAC is just absolute horseshit.

I am so fucking sick of the crap I see on DU.

Warren Stupidity.

What an apt name.

[Warren Stupidity]

82. Why thank you.

So of course other than the fact that Clinton has agreed with everything Bush did after 9-11 including the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq, accusing Clinton of 'being PNAC' is way out of line. Not the Great Clinton.

I suggest that if you are so fucking sick of the crap that you see on DU that you go somewhere else where people don't question the MSM account, don't analyze our world themselves, but instead mindlessly accept what they are told.

paulk.

What an apt name. By the way Lippman was sort of a prototype neocon. Nice chatting with you.

[paulk]

84. Clinton agreed that Saddam needed to be confronted over WMD

since there had been no arms inspections in four years. He did not agree with an invasion before the arms inspectors had confirmed if there were any WMD in Iraq. He certainly did not agree with the PNAC idea that overthrowing Saddam and "establishing" a democracy there would lead to the spread of democracy in the rest of that part of the world.

It used to be that if a person wanted to hear distortions and lies about Bill Clinton he/she could could tune in Rush or head over to FreeRepublic. Now a visit to Trash Democrats Underground will apparently suffice.

It's one thing to disagree or criticize Clinton; it's another to make slanderous accusations that he supported or was a part of the PNAC agenda.

[Warren Stupidity]

85. So show me one quote from Clinton where he

disagreed with the Bush invasion. One quote. You can't find it. He was all gungho.

But this is tedious. You've already called me an idiot. I have no idea why you are continuing this discussion.

What I said was that our foreign policy was lockstep PNAC from BushI on. What I mean by that is that after the fall of the SU there developed a faction within the washington establishment that saw the collapse of the SU and the end of the cold war as two things:

1) a threat to the corrupt boondoggle known as the military industrial complex: good grief there was a real danger that peace would break out!

2) an opportunity to essentially conquer the world, to establish the New American Century, that is global hegemony.

That faction eventually organized, or at least its hardcore hawks organized, as PNAC. However, the faction also strongly influenced the foreign policies of Bush-I, Clinton, and of course Bush-II where 'influenced' became 'dominated'.

From Bush-I onward the US chose military interventions carefully to advance its goals of world domination through the establishment of garrisons - huge new permanent military bases - across the planet. These new bases were no longer needed to contain soviet expansion, instead they were part of the design to control the choke points of the global system, to isolate potential adversaries from strategic resources, and mostly to control the middle east and central asia and the oil therein.

[yorkiemommie1]

4. i don't miss him any more

n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

26. I understand

[William Seger]

5. Step One:

IMPEACH THE LYING SOB WHO GOT US THERE.

[KyndCulture]

10. YEP!

[Cha]

6. Ain't gonna happen..nothing good

is going to come from this "mistake"?????..It's not a mistake, Bill, it's an Invasion based on God DAmn LIES.

Why does everyone have to talk euphemistically?

[MisterP]

8. official AFP link:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050811/pl_afp/usclintoniraqpolitics_050811220759
Bad Bill! no cookie!

[zulchzulu]

9. Billl...take a vacation...

You are towing the Repug line....again.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. 1800 died for a mistake

along with 100,000 iraqis, so lets keep the killing going, another 1800 dead of ours, another 100,000 of theirs plus the seriously wounded at about 10x the dead, so that we don't have to admit that it was wrong from the start. And then when it is still not working and still a mistake? Then what?

So Bill, when will Chelsea be enlisting?

[CAG]

13. its a terrible dilemma that the neo cons have forced us and the iraqis

into, with no easy answers. Its important to remember, that everyone except the neocons and their oil buddies want the same goals; getting our troops home AND the leaving in a way that will most benefit the iraqi people. Just because someone such as President Clinton doesn't continuously yell "Bring the troops home NOW" doesn't mean he's a sellout. Its entirely reasonable to be fearful that if we pull the troops out immediately, an additional degree of chaos and carnage will befall the iraqi people. The neo cons created and pulled in all of these insurgents, and I don't particularly buy the argument that they will put their weapons down and go home the second we leave. The iraqi people just seem to be in such a lose-lose situation thanks to the neocons.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. He's not a sellout

he has backed bush's adventure from the start, and there was not much difference in his own policies. He'd have to have been on our side to begin with in order to sell out.

This theory: Its entirely reasonable to be fearful that if we pull the troops out immediately, an additional degree of chaos and carnage will befall the iraqi people. Is now the Official Real Reason Why We Are Killing Lots of Iraqis Every Day.

It is complete bullshit. The final defense of our insane and criminal Iraqi Blunder is that we fucked up Iraq so badly that we have to stay there for the next 10 or 20 years (until the oil runs out) so that 'things don't get worse'. I call bullshit.

[CAG]

29. OK, so sellout may not be the best description.

"and there was not much difference in his own policies"

Oh?? I must have missed HIS invasion of Iraq.

"Official Real Reason Why We Are Killing Lots of Iraqis Every Day."

I would rephrase, "reason why lots of iraqis are being killed in the quagmire between the insurgents and the US troops." Your assessment that Iraq won't be worse off if we left NOW is a subjective argument, just like the argument that says we stay until some level of stability is achieved. I, like you, don't think that a satisfactory level of stability will be achieved as long as we stay, HOWEVER, I can see reasonable people naively believing this. Their naive enthusiasm may be wrong, but it doesn't put them in the same camp as the neocons. The answers involved to solve this mess that the neocons have put everyone in are just not as black and white as we would like them to be.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. See Haiti. Oh and see Iraq.

In fact go read Naomi Klien in The Nation (www.thenation.com) on the glorious Clinton neocon takeover of Haiti. Late July issue.

We bombed the living crap out of Iraq under Clinton. Estimates of the number of dead from malnutrition directly caused by our program range from 100,000 to 1,000,000.

45 military interventions in the 90s - a post wwII record for any decade. Somehow we saw a humanitarian crisis in Serbian Kosovo with its strategic location in the geopolitical great game, but no such crisis existed in Rwanda. Clinton has a lot of 'splainin to do.

You think Clinton is naive? I sure don't.

US foreign policy in the 90's was a precursor to the current mess. Similar objectives, similar wrapping of mission justification in some sort of humanitarian package to make it palatable. Somehow our humanitarian missions always end up with huge military bases in strategic regions or with massive and corrupt ideologically driven plundering as in Haiti.

The PNACers are not just the lunatics in charge of this regime, they also include the Clinton and Bush-I administrations. There has been a faction in the Washington establishment that has, since the collapse of the soviet union, seen an opportunity for American Hegemony, and has pushed all three administrations in that direction. They struck gold with Bush-II, but that does not get Clinton and Bush-I off the hook.

[CAG]

42. UN support had a lot to do with it, too.

Nobody's claiming Clinton is Kucinich here. But there are a lot of differences in not preemptively invading a country and preemptively invading a country. Neither Bush-1 nor Clinton was pushed effectively by PNACy's to do the latter, but the Crawford TX village idiot was.

We could go back in time and de-elect Clinton from either of his victories, but be afraid for what we would have gotten; a Bush-1 sequel, a Gingrich-led Dole administration. I'm not happy that we always end up with the lesser of two evils, but thats what we get in this corporatocracy that we live in.

[LTRS]

96. The only difference is that Clinton....

.... didn't put boots on the ground. He killed as many Iraqis if not more. And if you were paying attention to what he said before this war it was that he supported it, and that they only reason he didn't do was that there was no "appetite" in Congress for it. Hillary has said the same. Warren is right.

And you Clinton bootlickers are living in a dream world.

[Agent Orange]

46. What do you think...

about this PNAC link?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm


It looks like Kosovo was PNAC project number one. Or am I seeing things?

You wrote:"Somehow we saw a humanitarian crisis in Serbian Kosovo with its strategic location in the geopolitical great game, but no such crisis existed in Rwanda. Clinton has a lot of 'splainin to do."

The justification for not waiting for UN approval to bomb car factories, bridges, marketplaces, embassies and TV stations in Belgrade was Clintons (R)epublican defense secretary Cohen, who said there were "...up to 100,000 bodies" in mass graves. When the final tally was done, there were 2000 bodies of undetermined ethnic orgin found.

Splainin to do, 'cept no one is asking the questions. And no prominent Democrat is objecting to the ongoing occupation, instead we get Clinton saying we need to stay the course.

Hmmm...

[Warren Stupidity]

51. They are not stupid.

I got sucked into it as well. At the time I thought it was all justified because we had to save the Albanians from the Evil Serbs. And of course the Serbs probably were being rather evil and nasty to Albanians. So at this point I am simply asking why 2000 dead in the strategic balkans resulted in a huge intervention and the establishment of permanent military bases while 1,000,000 dead Rwandans resulted in at least two devastatingly excellent movies and no military response at all.

And nobody is asking the questions.

[Make7]

47. Gunning For Saddam

1996 - Coup Attempt:

NARRATOR: For the next 10 years (after the Persian Gulf War), 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.

FRANK ANDERSON, CIA Near East Division Chief (1991-1994): [1999] It's frequently the case that the CIA is called upon to develop some kind of a covert action program in response to intractable and maybe even insoluble problems that confront the government.

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

AHMED CHALABI, Iraqi Opposition Leader: [1999] Saddam is a far better plotter, a more apt and accomplished plotter, than the CIA will ever be. He is good.

NARRATOR: Saddam believes he knows who will betray him even before they know it themselves. The CIA thought it had recruited officers within Saddam's tight inner circle.

TARIQ AZIZ, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister: [1999] They don't know the officers in the army. How could they manage a coup d'etat, a military coup d'etat? Whom do they know? Hmm?

NARRATOR: 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."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/script.html

1998 - Operation Desert Fox:

"President Clinton's decision to strike Iraq has clear military goals. We want to degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to make and to use weapons of mass destruction. We want to diminish his ability to wage war against his neighbors. And we want to demonstrate the consequences of flouting international obligations."
- Secretary of Defense William Cohen

http://www.defenselink.mil/issues/dpiraq.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/desert_fox

A coup attempt, sanctions, no-fly zones, Operation Desert Fox --- not quite an invasion, but a case could be made that Clinton was trying to remove Saddam from power - using WMD and failing to abide by UN resolutions as justification.

-Make7

[bemildred]

17. The Iraqi people ARE the insurgents. nt

[CAG]

23. thats quite a generalization. Its certain factions of the sunnis, shiites

and to a lesser extent, kurds. The vast majority of the 30 million iraqi people are not insurgents; I'm assuming our definition of insurgent is similar, ie, taking up arms and attacking.

[bemildred]

24. So, you deny it's the Iraqis that are fighting us?

Or are you just saying that some of them are not fighting us,
and that therefore the ones that are not in arms must want us there?
Or what?

[CAG]

33. I could care less what the percentage is... the point is simply

where do we go from here that will give the iraqis the best chance to live in peace?

Did I deny its iraqis fighting us? No. read.
Am I just saying that some of them are not fighting us? No. I'm saying most of them are not fighting us. Do you have statistics that show that >15 million insurgents are attacking <15 million iraqis and US troops?
Am I saying the ones that are not in arms must want us there? No. You're putting a LOT of words in my mouth with that one. The ones not in arms JUST WANT TO LIVE IN PEACE! Quite frankly, if a bullet gets lodged in one of these people's left ventricle, I doubt they care whether it was an insurgents bullet or a US troop bullet.

[bemildred]

36. You have a lot of nerve talking about putting words in your mouth.

I said the Iraqi people ARE the insurgents.
Hey, guess what, they are. All the rest is stuff YOU added.

Now as far as "where do we go from here that will give the iraqis the best chance to live in peace?", we get the Hell out, like I said.

[CAG]

39. I'm going to repost this to sort this out....

my initial post:
"Its important to remember, that everyone except the neocons and their oil buddies want the same goals; getting our troops home AND the leaving in a way that will most benefit the iraqi people. Just because someone such as President Clinton doesn't continuously yell "Bring the troops home NOW" doesn't mean he's a sellout. Its entirely reasonable to be fearful that if we pull the troops out immediately, an additional degree of chaos and carnage will befall the iraqi people. The neo cons created and pulled in all of these insurgents, and I don't particularly buy the argument that they will put their weapons down and go home the second we leave. The iraqi people just seem to be in such a lose-lose situation thanks to the neocons."

Your succinct response: "The Iraqi people ARE the insurgents."

If you believe I put words in your mouth, I apologize. But when you have a response like that, where you're point could be a number of things, that don't really connect with the point of my post, what is one to do? Next time I'll ask for clarification. I don't feel I have a lot of nerve, I'm just having a civil discussion on a discussion board.

[bemildred]

40. Very well.

"The Iraqi people ARE the insurgents" is a response to the assertion that "The neo cons created and pulled in all of these insurgents".

Now as to the other issue, if I could see the slightest evidence that we have any capacity to improve the situation there, I would consider the idea that we ought to stay and try to do that, but there is no such evidence, things have gone steadily and catastrophically downhill since we invaded, and there is no reason the think we have the ability to make them better. That is the point of the remark about hitting yourself in the head with a hammer. You are not going to be able to fix your head with the hammer.

Regards.

[CAG]

43. Thanks. created and pulled in all of these insurgents did mean

iraqi insurgents.

your paragraph gets to the heart of the issue. Both you and I can't see the slightest evidence that we have the capacity to improve the situation, so why stay? But there are other reasonable people, who aren't just bush sheeples, who can't see the slightest evidence that pulling out now would improve the situation. These people need to be convinced, not automatically dismissed by some here in DU (not accusing you) as neocon trash.

Wooh! I'm kissing my sleeping kids and going to bed.
Thanks for the interesting discussion.

[bemildred]

44. Sleep well.

I think if we leave them alone they might heal, if you see.
I don't see how picking at the wound will help.

My impression is that "a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest". so I just try to say how things look to me, and I don't worry too much about convincing people that are not ready to listen.

Same to you.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. So what do you think -

is it 10% of the adult population that we have to kill? 20%? 5%? For what? So they don't kill each other? They already are killing each other. One side is using us as their proxy in the killing.

[bvar22]

41. The civilian resistance to Military Occupation (insurgents)

have the support of the local populations in Iraq. It may take only 1 person to deliver a car bomb, but it takes an entire neighborhood or village to house and feed that person, to hide the weapons, to provide the car and rig the explosives necessary. If ONLY 1 PERSON in the entire neighborhood or village does NOT support the insurgent, the cover is blown. The Iraqi insurgency would NEVER have survived, much less GROWN without the support of the local populations!

Che postulated THAT as rule #1 for a successful insurgency.
You MUST have the support of the local population, or you will die quickly!

Does ANYONE here really believe that after 10 years of bombing and sanctions, and 3 years of occupation, curfew, & unemployment that Iraqis DO NOT OBSERVE who comes and goes in their nieghborhoods? In their nieghbor's neighborhood?

Even the Military has admitted that less than 5% of the civilian insurgency is foreign based. Where are they all coming from if not the local populations?

[okieinpain]

98. thank you, I agree completely.

[confludemocrat]

15. "thousands of Iraqis have died trying to give their country a future"

That's obscene. Parotting the Bush line of deceit, and providing cover for a gutless Demo positioning on this. Bill, what you did only worked for you and cost the country and your party alot. Please stay out of this, you have nothing constructive to offer.

[radio4progressives]

70. absolutely agree.

With every utterance and media appearance, i have come to dispise Bill Clinton. When I voted for him I voted to keep the 'bushies' out - Hillary will never get my vote.

not ever.

These people are just as much as scum as the Bush Crime family.

out with them all!

[confludemocrat]

97. Me too, fed up w/ Bill who gives his blessing to a massive clusterfuck

as someone on a newer thread put it, but that's what it is.

[kiraboo]

18. I feel sort of alone here. I DESPISE this war and I frankly wish

GWB would spontaneously combust, but doesn't anybody else feel like we have something of a responsibility to finish what we started. And by "we" I don't mean you and me. This isn't a rhetorical question; how will the situation improve, not just for Americans but for Iraqis, if we leave?

Don't mind me... just a citizen of the world who loves Iraqis as much as I love Americans...

[Warren Stupidity]

20. what exactly did we start and when exactly will it be finished?

Our mission, the one they aren't going to be honest about, is to install an american friendly government of any sort in Iraq that will then sign status of forces agreements with us that will allow us to continue to build and occupy our huge military bases there. Iraqi nationalists will continue to resist this mission and our leaders do not give a flying fuck how many Iraqis or Americans have to die as long as they can keep control over the middle east oil fields.

You've bought into the freedom and democracy bullshit. That ain't the mission and it never was.

[kiraboo]

25. Trust me when I say that I haven't bought into any of that crap.

But perhaps I am being naive when I imagine that when a Kerry or Clinton talks about finishing the job we started, they aren't talking about completing military and diplomatic mini-cities in Iraq and thereabouts, but rather they are talking about making the best of a shitty deal... I am not questioning our evil motivations for the invasion but rather asking whether we have the moral right to just pick up and leave after what we have done? Is your point that is simply doesn't matter because the end result will be the same? That I might be able to buy. Hence my despair.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. My point is that bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq

never was 'the mission' and never will be 'the mission' and that this fairy tale of 'civilizing the heathens' is just bullshit for domestic consumption. Kerry was either lying or delusional and Clinton is a liar.

Our moral obligation is to get out and stop continuing to commit war crimes, and then to pay for the damage done to whatever eventually the former nation of Iraq sorts itself out to be.

[kiraboo]

34. Then you and I are in complete agreement. Cheers. n/t

[bemildred]

21. Finish what?

We have a responsibility to get the Hell out of their country.
Then we can talk about reparations.

[ProudDad]

76. This idea is patronizing.

The area formerly known as the nation of Iraq is filled with adults who can take care of their own future. They don't need the fuckin' U.S. military, bush, rumsfeld, et. all telling them how to run their own lives.

Will there be a civil war? You BET! It's already started and is going full blast. Thank you mr. bush for setting that off.

Do we owe them something for devastating their country for over 15 YEARS!?! You BET! We should pay reparations for Iraqi rebuilding out of the hundreds of billions we would save by withdrawing from their country. However, the money should be given to effective groups like NGO's and certain U.N. agencies with NO direct U.S. Government involvement.

This is the ONLY effective solution but then the bushies aren't looking to be effective only richer...

[Massacure]

19. There is a problem with this statement.

Clinton knew what the hell he was doing with the military. Bush doesn't. Several facts prove it:

- Sending troops without body armor.
- Sending 150,000 troops instead of the several hundred thousand requested by General Shinseki.
- Not having enough translators
- Leaving the borders unguarded
- Leaving the ammunitions depots unguarded

Clinton had no difficulty with Yugoslavia.

[Donna Zen]

28. Clinton in Yogoslavia

....had a brilliant General.

[Fire Walk With Me]

22. I hereby reserve the right to make mistakes of this size

and get away without punishment.

Hell, get-out-of-jail-free cards for EVERYBODY! Yayyy! We don't care! We don't care!

[Alkene]

30. I can't say that I'm surprised.

I wonder if the Neocons have, or have ever had, an influence on Clinton:

"DONALD Rumsfeld, the US defense secretary, and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz wrote to President Bill Clinton in 1998 urging war against Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein because he is a 'hazard' to 'a significant portion of the world's supply of oil'"

"Those who signed the letter, dated January 26, 1998, include Bush's current Pentagon adviser, Richard Perle; Richard Armitage, the number two at the State Department; John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, under-secretaries of state; Elliott Abrams, the presidential adviser for the Middle East and a member of the National Security Council; and Peter W Rodman, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs"
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0316-03.htm


Or was Bill just making us all safer:

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
Wednesday, December 16, 1998

"CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

[Wizard777]

31. How far will we have to drag our leader to get across the finish line? n/t

[William Seger]

35. "we are trying to train the security and military forces"

We've been "trying to train the security and military forces" for two fucking years now, while we try to keep the peace with people who were trained in four to six months! Isn't it time to face reality that "training" ain't the problem?

[Donna Zen]

38. A few holes in this story:

The night that the House voted on the IWR, I was at an event where Bill Clinton was the featured speaker. Right before Clinton spoke, it was announced that both of Maine's representatives: Baldacci and Allen, had vote "nay." A huge cheer went up from the crowd then Clinton took the mic. He said (paraphrase) that a president can't do everything he wants, believe I know (chuckles from audience) but what a president can do, is take this country to war.

Clinton went on to give a fine speech, and I was lucky and got to shake his hand.

It didn't surprise me when Hillary voted "yea." In fact, I kept remembering Bill Clinton's admonition to us, and took it to mean that since bush was going to war, it was wise to play along. Of course I disagreed, but at least I could appreciate the reasoning.

Anyway, now the Clintons are in a bind. Charlie Rangel said it on CrossFire one afternoon. He said Hillary has one problem: she voted for war.

No one took that vote to mean anything else.

With that "one problem" the Clintons are tailoring their story; and once again, I understand. But the truth of the matter, that unfilled hole, is where were the Clintons during the run-up to war when people like Scowcroft, a republican, were writing op eds against going? If the Clintons thought that the inspectors should have time to do their jobs, why weren't the Clintons asking for "air time." You know they can both demand it at will. And, as a former president, Clinton's voice carries weight. Jimmy Carter spoke out.

No, I don't accept this version of the latest stance on the war. And I'm slightly put off by this notion that I'm suppose to forget about how this nightmare began. This is too important. The trickle down effects of Iraq in lives and money and our country's respect in and for the world, is too great. We are living this horror and I don't want any fairy stories.

[bvar22]

45. Bill Clinton peddling dangerous SHIT for the bush* Cartel!

Bill Clinton says:
“Whether it’s a mistake or not, we ought to try to make this strategy succeed and support that strategy.

I disagree.
If I hired a contractor to build a garage on my house, and the contractor promised that:
1) It would take a matter of weeks, not months.
2) It would pay for itself!

AND 3 years later, the garage was still NOT built (a smoking hole in the ground) and NOW cost over $300Billion Dollars, I would have NO CONFIDENCE in the contractor. I wouldn't believe a fucking word he said. I certainly WOULDN'T say:
"Well, its taken so long already, and cost so much that we just HAVE TO MAKE THIS STRATEGY WORK!" BULLSHIT.
Long before that point, anyone with sense would have said:

You are TOTALLY INCOMPETENT!!! You are FIRED!
GET OFF MY PROPERTY! We need a NEW PLAN HERE!
Lets get somebody in here who can do the job!"

That is what Bill Clinton SHOULD have said about the bush* strategy in Iraq.
What's the matter, Bill. The Privatization of Iraq not working out like your financial backers thought it would?
You want us to try harder with the bush* plan?
How many more Iraqis do you think we need to kill?

[shance]

79. Couldn't agree more. Bill Clinton is looking more like Pontius Pilate

every day.

He should go to Iraq and say that to the Iraqi people and the troops who have been inrreversibly harmed and/or damaged.

[Mr Rabble]

48. Blech! Great advice buddy. Stay the course...

[LibertyorDeath]

49. What a sell out

:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

[Disturbed]

50. The USA will occupy Iraq full out for

another two years unless Congress refuses to fund the Occupation or the Iraqis finally decided to kick the US Forces out.

I feel neither will occur. The Occupation will last for two more years and then forces will phase down to around 60K will remain on the bases that have been built.

[LibertyorDeath]

64. I think you're correct & when the resources are used up or no longer

needed or the desire to project power from the bases there changes
then & only then will they leave.

So not anytime soon.

I love the pic in your sig line..... says it all.

[markus]

52. A future of Sharia Law enforced by internal terror is not a future

Frankly, the only Iraqi's who will be better off not living under Saddam Hussein are those who would be happy living in quasi-democratic Iran.

That's what we're going to get for all this blood and treasure, another religious state, except this one will have tenuous ties to the U.S. enforced by tens of thousands of U.S. troops hunkered down on permanent bases on their soil.

[Q]

53. Pure, unadulterated DLC claptrap...

...that America or Iraq should have to live with the 'mistake' of the NeoCons and NeoDems. Clinton should stop pretending that this wasn't an effort by Republicans and (d)emocrats alike. Clinton belongs to the organization that helped push the US into invading Iraq...the DLC.

The DLC is the cabal within the Democratic party that provides Bush cover for this illegal war.

What kind of 'leader' would call a mistake a 'strategy'?

[Cascadian]

55. Clinton about the critics of Bush: "Give the guy a break!"

Aw, shucks! :eyes:


John

[Cascadian]

58. self-deleted!

self deleted!

John

[Cascadian]

54. DLC.....Stay the course in Iraq!

This statement just tells me how much the DLC is a huge liability to the Democratic Party. Clinton wants to stay the course? Mr. Clinton, thank you for the 8 years you gave us as President but just sit down, be quiet, and enjoy your retirement.


John

[bowens43]

56. STFU Bill

It's already lost. It's time to leave. Tooo many Americans have died and we have killed far too many Iraqis. They don't want to be us. They don't want to be like us and they will never stop killing us as long as we are there.

It was a HUGE mistake that was justifed with lies, distortions and fear.

It's time to go home.

[brindis_desala]

57. What amazes me about Clinton's responses is that they

fail to address even obliquely how the Iraq occupation is weakening the United States. There are two objectives to the governments plan that are irreconcilable: a) establish a permanent military presence in the region b) bring peace and democracy to Iraq.
Unless the U.S. is prepared to sever its ties with Israel and countenance a theocratic Iraqi government those two propositions are mutually exclusive. Meanwhile the U.S. military is being severely weakened, the treasury is being looted, our economy and future destroyed and China and Iran are the greatest beneficiaries.

The only "solution" is to have a peacekeeping force under the auspices of the U.N. with Non-MidEast Muslim troops in the vanguard. Of course that would mean twisting the Shi'a's arms to share power with the Sunnis
and telling the Banking/oil cartel to give up their pipe dream of controlling the region's oil. But then I forgot... Big Oil "IS" the USA.... now we know what the meaning of "IS" is.

[Donna Zen]

66. Great post

As we move toward elections, we will be hearing plenty about what we need domestically, but there will be no domestic anything because of the drain that this war has put on our country. Ditto, on trade policies now that we are a pariah state.

I agree with your solution.

[brindis_desala]

73. It astounds me that "liberal" pundits can bloviate about the

blessings of globalization without mentioning the baseline requirements of diplomacy and cooperation as against the antithesis, preemptive war. If one searches for any glimmering of logic behind our government's policies it can only be that it is bent on America's destruction with the emerging global bourgeoisie to subvert and eventually replace our middle class as primary consumers. The plan (if there is one) appears to be that once the jobs are all gone joining the military to protect the multi-national corporations will be our only option.

[Donna Zen]

87. Ah...a futurist!

A while ago, I read some little article that stated that if China rose to 1/2 of our standard of living, they would be consuming just about everything on the planet. (BTW, I'm making up the stats but not the essense of the article) IOW, the world cannot support the mass of its people living at America's standards. So, yes, I agree that bringing the standards down, changing the rules of the game, are certainly part of what we are seeing.

In Lewis Latham's book, "Gag Rule" he discusses the neocon's belief that our country has outgrown the Constitution, that it no longer fits the times we live in. Latham assures the reader that this is discussed quite openly at those little AEI luncheons. Krugman in "The Great Unraveling" reaches the same conclusion, and said in one column that only Dean and Clark "got it;" that the ideal of democracy itself was threatened. Let us hope that more people than those two are aware of what is going on, but I have no doubt that there is little effort being put forth to save that mighty document. But then again, how much easier is will be to control us when we have no rights.

The saddest part is that we the people could do something about all of this. The living standards that are being exemplified are not necessarily set in oil. If we could think about our problem, then perhaps we could think about our solution. Instead the country is force feed mush through the continued forking of the polls and the tv trolls.

Anyway, this war is not the solution, and professional politicians are not the solution either. We are broke, and everyday that goes by brings us closer to your vision and cuts off our options. The DLC is plan B. Sorry to be so grim.

[brindis_desala]

90. Thanks for the post. You've nailed it. I'm of the opinion that

just as the corporate powers infected the American 'left' they have hoodwinked half of the neo-cons. Our corporate fascists have been lurking in the weeds ever since their attempted coup against FDR was exposed by Smedley Butler but with the rise of the Dominionists and theocratic, rapturist Christian right have found just enough mindless votes to goose-step to the polls to make our elections "fixable."
Sad to say I agree with your grim analysis and ironically the destruction of America or at least its overfed, myopic middle class addicted sprawl and SUVs may save the planet.
So while we pin our hopes on Dean and sharing our own modest enlightenment we quietly wring our hands and await disaster...

[Donna Zen]

92. Even while wringing our hands, we can still roll up our sleeves..

That is a paraphrase of a quote I read this morning at kos.

There are those who say what they say, and do what they do, because they think that this is a game, some personal contest, thus, Clinton's statements that started this thread. Clark recently said that unless we can take control of at least one house of congress, then 2008 will be an election about personality and not ideas: the who vs the what and the how.

Krugman said the Dean and Clark understood that getting rid of bush, while a good thing, was only a part of the big picture. The democracy is being threatened. I doubt that same overfed, myopic, middle-class will chose a path that leads to a better world. Although I've nearly avoided all science fiction for the past 5 years (you can appreciate how Wm. Gibson and Philip K. Dick would be too much right now,) I did accidentally read Octavia Butler's "Parable Of The Sower." In the book she describes how people were willing to give up their freedom completely, and enter a corporate prison to stave off the danger and poverty of their California world of the future. The book, written in 1993, haunts my thoughts.

As I see it, part of the problem is the "thinking people's" inability to organize against the political ruling class. During the last round of primaries, the majority of the politically aware Democrats were anti-this-war, and yet there was no anti-this-war candidate on the Democratic ticket. That happened because we clung to the "who" rather than the debate the "what and how." We stayed divided. I'm afraid that once again this will come down to the same meaningless decision making process; iow, who has the most money, the most airtime, the propagandists, and the support of the insiders of DC. (sigh) I fully expect that Hillary will be the Democratic nominee, and while she is probably a very nice person, with Hillary the beat goes on.

In the mean while, I'm committed to working with the grass and net roots to elect Democrats in 2006. So, I wring my hands and roll up my sleeves. Why go on while my head is filled with the "grim?" Because I really do love my country and ideals that it was built on. Ideals that once lost will take hundreds of years to restore; if ever.

[IndianaGreen]

78. It is almost as if Osama bin Laden were running our foreign policy

Each day we remain in Iraq is a day closer to the emasculation of the US military, the bankruptcy of the country, and the dawn of a new era of isolationism and xenophobia.

Bush has exceeded Bin Laden's wildest expectations!

[Cascadian]

59. If the DLC have their way, we'll be in Iraq forever!

If the DLC have their candidate of choice become the Democratic presidential nominee and he or she (presumably a she!) and they win, the troops will not come home. We may even have a draft and invade Iran. The PNAC plan will still be alive and well through a DLC-Democratic President!

Is this what you really want, DUers?


John

[rman]

60. How about we first establish a successful democracy over here?

[kentuck]

61. I don't agree that it is the only option we have...

We do not have to stay there until we have another black wall in Washington DC...Let the Arabs resolve the little problem in Iraq..

[rman]

62. 'mistake' is irrelevant; the 'mistake' = the lies; the lies are irrelevant

Let's just see how many people agree with that, Bill.

[IndianaGreen]

63. Clinton sounds like one of the good Germans of 1939

try to make this strategy succeed and support that strategy

Bush's invasion of Iraq is on the same moral plane as Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, Imperial Japan's invasion of Manchuria, Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland, and Fascist Italy's invasion of Ethiopia.

A moral man or woman would make "this strategy" fail and would oppose "that strategy," to use Clinton's words. Anything less than that would be tantamount to collaboration in the crimes of the Bush regime.

[THUNDER HANDS]

65. this from a guy who wouldn't go to Vietnam

He really should just shut the hell up, unless he wants to send Chelsea over there to help out.

[gokar]

67. Bill will say anything to help Hillary in 2008.

That is for sure. They are politically very savvy and Hillary is
well on the way to get the nomination. She is the first choice of
democrats in most polls.

[ProudDad]

74. I think you're right

and Hillary will be just another mealy-mouth DLC clone.

BAD IDEA nominating her...

[eauclaireliberal]

72. While he's at it, the Big Dog

should just beg everyone in the world to forget about treason,lies, and murder...the same shit the right accused him of. Clinton is proof that there is NO difference between the RNC and the DLC. Get in the box with Lieberwhore and the rest of the Rightard-Lite.

[AJH032]

75. does that mean...

that there's no difference between the Clinton and Bush administrations?

[Al-CIAda]

77. Hey Clinton, thanks for NAFTA & media deregulation! nt

[jillan]

80. Clinton - this is no longer YOUR democrat party

While I thought you were an awesome President. And I was a huge supporter....things have changed since you were in office.

So, go do your thing. Thanks anyway.

[xchrom]

81. i'ld like to borrow a brilliant, recent freeptard chant:

''we don't care!''

buh bye, bill.

[tibbir]

83. What a crock of bullshit.

He needs to stop being so chummy with Poppy and think about the future of his country instead of positioning himself to help his wife's political career.

What respect I had for him as a leader is gone.

[IndianaGreen]

86. I think Big Dog likes Barbara Bush's pot brownies!

He is more interesting in protecting Junior than in protecting us from Junior.

[Tinoire]

88. To hell with Clinton and the DLC horse he rode in on

Charismatic. Intelligent. Fucking slick as hell but a warmongering thief the same as Bush. 8 years of crippling, criminal sanctions on Iraq and an illegal war against Yugoslavia for oil and pipelines.

To hell with him.
To hell with him twice. To hell with him til he rots for the half million Iraqi kids he killed.

I have no use for his slick neoliberal shit.

[Larkspur]

89. So Bill, when are you going to sacrifice Chelsea to the military and to

your war god in Iraq?

I know that the real reason Bill says this is because Israel is pooping in their drawers as they see Iran becoming the main ally to the Shiites of Iraq. Iran will emerge as the big winner of this debacle. The Sunni Iraqis and the US will be the big losers. Israel will now experience their version of a Cold War with Iran.

Iraq is lost to us. It was lost to us before we invaded because Bush had no post-invasion plan.

[Q]

91. Clinton calls treason a 'mistake'...

...and says that we must continue with a failed and illegal policy. While it's true that Clinton, the DLC and the RWingers insist that the war WASN'T illegal...the US Constitution, Geneva Conventions and International Law says otherwise.

What Clinton has to say about Iraq and the 'war' on terrorism could come right out of the Neocon playbook. But the fact remains: the Bush/DLC war on terrorism has killed far more innocent civilians than 'terrorists'. It's a 'kill em all and let God sort em out' policy that hopes to get a few terrorists along the way.

It's a sad thing to watch certain Democrats defend Bush's 'war on terrorism' in Iraq so they can look as 'tough on terrorism' as the Neocons. Clinton's moral relativism is a bad influence on the Democratic party.

[gulfcoastliberal]

93. Gee, wasn't Clinton the best republican president we ever had?

Why would he suddenly start acting like a democrat?

[AJH032]

99. yeah...

which is why the freepers just LOVE Bill, right?

[FreeStateDemocrat]

94. Hillary voted for war so now Bill pimps the big lie to get to WH again.

He will tell any fucking lie that he has to get their collective asses back into the White House. What a media whore, wind him up and listen to the BS all spewed for one reason, to elect Hillary president. Greed for power is not a pretty thing to watch.

[LTRS]

95. Bill -- you are why the dems lose

Bill Clinton was the start of the era of the wussified democrat, more eager to assimilate with the opposition than to stand up for democratic party principles. And I see he is still following on in that shameful tradition. Expect us to continue to wander in the wilderness of politics until our leaders wake up and realize that a guy who won with 40-something percent of the vote in two elections is not the be all end all hero of a party.