Can someone also post a link to Bill Clinton's 2002 anti-war speech.

[TeamJordan23]

For some reason, I cannot find a link.

What gives?

[Captain Hilts]

1. Check out the NYT Feb. 11th 2003. nt

[marylanddem]

2. You mean the one he gave

arm-in-arm with Bush Sr.? That anti-war speech?

[BootinUp]

3. March 14, 2003

http://mediamatters.org/items/200711280006

Clinton's March 14, 2003, comments were posted on The Fact Hub -- a fact-check website produced by Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign -- on November 27. From Clinton's March 14, 2003, remarks:

Do you believe this matters? If you believe it matters -- as I do -- then you have to decide if it matters whether we bend over backwards to try to disarm him in a way that strengthens rather than divides the world community. If you don't think it matters, then you're with a lot of the people in the current administration who think that we'll just go over there and this will take a few days, after we win -- victors always get to write history -- everybody will get over this and we'll get everybody back together and they'll be glad he's gone because he's a thug and a murderer. That's what they think. If you believe it matters to keep them together, then you've got to support some version of what Prime Minister Blair's doing now, which is to say, okay, he's finally destroying his missiles. And the administration, to be fair, is nominally in favor of what Blair's trying to do.

He's finally destroying his missiles, so let's give him a certain date in which, in this time, he has to destroy the missiles, reconcile the discrepancies in what we believe is the truth on chemical weapons, reconcile the discrepancies on biological weapons, reconcile the issue of the Drones, and offer up 150 scientists who can travel outside of Iraq with their families for interviews. If you do that, then we'll say this is really good-faith disarmament, and we'll go on without a conflict. Now if that passes, however, then you have to be willing to take yes for an answer. You see what I mean? I'm for regime change too, but there's more than one way to do it. We don't invade everybody whose regime we want to change. There's more than one way to do this, but if that passes and he actually disarms, then we have to be willing to take it, and then work for regime change by supporting the opposition to Saddam Hussein within and outside Iraq, and doing other things.

[Sparkly]

8. Seems they were all saying basically the same thing.

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and yes, Barack Obama -- that the "case was not made," and there needed to be inspections, not an invasion.

The difference is the senators' necks were on the line because they had to vote. I've heard a million times that they were wrong to take BushCo at their word, and perhaps it was a political calculation that backfired -- horribly. But the distinctions about 2002/2003 are fine ones and I wish we could get back to discussing 2008 and 2009.

[jasmine621]

4. So Bill is running again?

I must have missed this.

[DUyellow]

9. i was going to say the same thing.

[Kahuna]

5. Touche!! nt

[jasmine621]

6. Let's try even before 2003.

Bill was for the inspectors doing their job. Bill was for bombing Iraqi weapons sites...which he did and destroyed the biggest part of them. Something the Republicans and obviously some Dems conveniently want to forget. It was one of the reasons he and his advisors were doubtful about invading Iraq based on WMDs because they knew that most of his weapons were destroyed during first Gulf war and during his subsequent bombings of weapons site. He was agains INVADING Iraq. Attacking yes, invading, no.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

[BootinUp]

7. Can we get some recs for this fact containing thread?

[marylanddem]

10. k&r - 5 votes