I.T. Skill Areas
Computer Certifications I currently hold
Self-Study Certification Books
News, Web log, Weblog, Blog
Veiled Chameleon Care Sheet
Veiled Chameleon Care Sheet
Frequently Asked Questions
If you like this website or webpage, please link it. I could use the help. Thanks.

June 20, 2004

Bill Clinton Continues Support for Iraq Invasion

Just two nights ago I speculated over some glasses of wine that, assuming President Bush is re-elected, Bill Clinton would show up in the media casting wide support for President Bush and the Iraq war following the election. My reasons were 1) that each time that I've witnessed Clinton saying anything about the Iraq war, he's done so in a way that has been highly defensive of President Bush, 2) Bill Clinton, having served as President for 8 years, knows that invading was the right thing to do (I'm showing my bias here; since in my judgment the war was and is right, I'd expect the recent president to see it this way), 3) Clinton has not exactly appeared to be in John Kerry's corner, and 4) Clinton knows that doing so would be good for the country and he cares enough to do it.

Another person at the table contributed a different rationale. He said that Clinton is very much at the left and part of the anti-war crowd, but that he wasn't supporting Kerry or the left because he knows that a Kerry win this November virtually eliminates a successful presidential bid for Hillary later on.

Coming from this person, however, this rationale really made sense. Notice that it portrays President Clinton as a person with no integrity, and instead portrays him as a person who goes with what most expediently will get him the most personally. This is how this fellow sees Clinton, so it was no surprise to get this reaction from him, an unabashed Clinton hater.

But, on to the issue: It seems that Clinton couldn't wait until after the election. He's started voicing support for the Iraq war already. Here's a few quotes from CNN:

Clinton defends successor's push for war

Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

So you make up your mind.

And on to one more issue: Did Bush lie?

So President Clinton doesn't think so. He says President Bush was right on the money and limits his criticism to having gone into Iraq w/out waiting for the U.N.

And Vladimir Putin says exactly the same thing.

I think it would be embarrassing to be a part of the "Bush lied" camp right about now.

Posted by Jeff at June 20, 2004 12:36 PM


"I think it would be embarrassing to be a part of the "Bush lied" camp right about now".

Wow, now you take Clinton as a valid source? Only when needed aye? Wash, rinse and repeat.

Is Michael Jackson guilty? Maybe think so based on testimony and evidence. There is however big Jackson supporters who will support him no matter what. I don't think it's dangerous to blindly support a pop star no matter what. However I do find it dangerous when people blindly support a politician or a group of politicians when there are some hard facts.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

Powell went onto to say; "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
Condoleezza Rice

Vice President Dick Cheney revived two controversial assertions about the war in Iraq on Thursday, declaring there was "overwhelming evidence" that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Al Qaeda and that two trailers discovered after the war were proof of Iraq's biological weapons programs.

Commission investigating 9/11 attacks nears completion of final, probably unanimous report that will stand by conclusions of panel's staff, which largely dismissed White House theories both about close working relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda and about possible Iraqi involvement in 9/11; report will document management failures at senior levels of Bush administration that kept government from acting aggressively on intelligence warnings in spring and summer of 2001

"Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no 'smoking gun' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda.'I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,' Powell said." [NY Times, 1/9/04]

FACT: "Reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate. Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal." [DoD, 11/15/03]

CHENEY CLAIM: "You ought to go look at an article that Stephen Hayes did in the Weekly Standard here a few weeks ago, that goes through and lays out in some detail, based on an assessment that was done by the Department of Defense and forwarded to the Senate Intelligence Committee some weeks ago. That's your best source of information to justify the Saddam-Al Qaeda claim." Vice President Cheney, 1/9/04

Posted by: Mk at June 5, 2005 03:29 PM

I also agree that blind support for a politician is dangerous - and too dangerous to engage in. And I've thought that for...decades.

Therefore everything that's been written here has been written with that in consideration. And any support that I've given to President Bush and/or his administration has been written with that in consideration.

Therefore you've neither added, enhanced, nor in any way changed, refuted, or impacted in any way anything that was said above by making that point.

And I have no position on Michael Jackson. I have read nothing on the issue, nor watched any video, nor cared. I did watch much of the O.J. Simpson trial (because others whom I was with were watching) and I saw a lot of commentary on his trial. At that time, I made no judgments about O.J.'s guilt or innocence. Neither do I today. *I was not on the jury.*

As I've stated elsewhere on this site, I'm not so much a Bush supporter as I am against the vitriolic wackos who are (or were before the election) screaming their heads off about him. Pointing out their silliness has been my agenda, for the most part.

Since you've left out that context, I've little to say about your post. We have a choice in voting, here, and we vote for the best of the available alternatives.

The liberals claimed - CLAIMED - that George W. Bush was just awful. Horrible, even. They compared him to Hitler on many occasions. And, yet, when the time came to choose a candidate to run against him, the best they could come up with was...a Democrat. A *DEMOCRAT*. That's the best they could do? That pokes some serious holes in the argument that Bush is bad, doesn't it?

I'm being a bit facetious here, but you should get the point: I'd be all for a better candidate than Bush if they'd actually run one. In order to be better, the person would have to have had a similar foreign policy to Bush's - well, maybe a bit more aggressive - and s/he would've had to have had a much more Libertarian and Laissez Faire Capitalist domestic policy than George W. Bush. That'd be better. And then, of course, with that as background values, the person would also have to be able to be *effective* - which includes being electable.

Get it?

Posted by: Jeff at June 5, 2005 07:22 PM

I guess it mus tbe a lousy time to be part of the defend Bill Clinton he only lied about sex crowd now. What do all you good liberals have to say about his backing the Iraq invasion?

Posted by: Joe Doex at August 16, 2005 08:08 PM

The Iraq war was planned back in 1998 and listed many neo-cons including Don. Rumsfeld, D. Cheney ,Paul Wolfowitz,and quite a few more. They are all guilty of war crimes. MOST IMPORTASNT, WE NEED A NEW INVESTIGATION OF 9/11 ATTACKS.

Posted by: Elaine N. Ramey at January 31, 2008 10:37 PM

@Elaine: That's true, that's exactly what we need! Until the government can no longer hide it, until everyone alive knows that the aliens who landed at Roswell were not only behind the September 11th attacks, but were also behind the grassy knoll, no one on Earth is safe!

Posted by: Jeff at February 2, 2008 07:47 AM

Love your comments, linked this page on a comment on Facebook. On this 9/11 I think it's important to keep history clear and truthful.

Posted by: Celeste at September 11, 2009 03:49 PM

Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Comment Spammers: Amazing...there's not any comment nor trackback spam anywhere on this weblog. And yet this weblog receives thousands of spam attempts every week. You'd think that these guys would instead devote their resources to sites where they have a chance.

. Original Copyright, May 2004. All Rights Reserved.