|
|
Clinton's father not wearing a condom was a big mistake. |
Posted on 11/16/2005 5:59:27 AM PST by blogblogginaway
The United States made a "big mistake" when it invaded Iraq, former President Bill Clinton said Wednesday, citing the lack of planning for what would happen after dictator Saddam Hussein was overthrown.
"Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done, " Clinton told students at the American University of Dubai.
"It was a big mistake. The American government made several errors ... one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country."
Clinton did however say that the United States had done some good things in Iraq: the removal of Saddam, the ratification of a new constitution, and the holding of parliamentary elections.
Words cannot express my happiness that Clinton the Condom Kid is our EX-President!
Ladies and Gentlemen! Let me introduce you to JIMMAH CAARRTAH II.
Just what we needed. Another blow-hard, big-mouthed traitor.
Proof we won't have a Democrat President for a long time. Clinton and the MSM are to much in love.
Amen..
Clinton, as usual, is manipulting the news.
Ah yes, Clinton, the most outrageous President to date, makes another outrageous statement, nothing to see here, move along class!
Clinton AWOL in the War on Terror
No Hablo Arabic: Clinton's Failure on CIA Translators
Clinton's Phony War on Terrorism
I'll leave aside the impropriety of the Impeached One speaking like this is in a foreign setting. What's the big deal if the end result of this is a divided Iraq? It would still be a better situation than before. All the war critics seem so concerned that the status quo has been upset, but that was the whole point! It was the status quo that gave us 9/11!
What would Cliton and the MSM do if we did get a Dem Pres? Watch for a lover"s spat.
Iraq War Was Necessary
Investor's Business Daily Editorial
Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2004
It now turns out the U.S. may never find weapons of mass destruction. But that doesn't change the raw calculus for going there in the first place.
Former chief weapons inspector David Kay says WMDs likely won't be found in Iraq, prompting all kinds of I-told-you-so reactions from opponents of the war, ranging from former United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix to leading Democratic presidential contender John Kerry.
Kay's comments, critics say, prove the Iraq war was phony from the start, and that President Bush intentionally used bad intelligence as a thin pretense to wage war on Iraq.
But those assertions are false. And those who call Kay's comments "damning" blithely ignore his clarifying statements.
Kerry, for instance, told Fox News Sunday that "we were misled — misled not only in the intelligence, but misled in the way that the president took us to war." His remarks were echoed by others on the stump in New Hampshire.
But that's not what Kay said. In fact, Kay made it clear he thought the error was the CIA's, not Bush's.
And if the WMD intelligence was an error, it's one that has lasted a long time. In 1998, then-President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, largely based on the same intelligence used by Bush. So much for the "Bush lied" charge. It was a bipartisan policy.
Indeed, as recently as October, the prime minister of Portugal said Clinton told him that "given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."
As for the Democratic candidates, Sens. Kerry, Joe Lieberman and John Edwards voted for war in 2002. Wesley Clark endorsed war too. Their positions were based on the same intelligence Bush used.
What's left unsaid by those twisting Kay's comments beyond recognition is that his other statements truly are damning of Iraq.
For instance, Kay says Iraq tried to restart its nuclear weapons program in 2000 and 2001. He told Britain's Telegraph that he thinks "a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program." And, prompted by an NPR interviewer, Kay said that knowing what he knows now, he thinks Iraq was an even bigger threat than the U.S. first estimated.
Is he right? It's a matter of common agreement that Iraq had WMDs as recently as 1998. And we know that, early in the 1980s, Saddam used WMDs against Iranian troops. In 1988, he used them again — this time against his own people.
Remember, in his 2003 State of the Union address in which he laid out his case for going to war with Iraq, Bush didn't say the threat from Iraq's WMDs was "imminent." He said we couldn't wait until the threat was imminent — a big difference.
Indeed, the case for war has always been broader than WMDs.
Saddam waged bloody and destabilizing wars against his neighbors, savagely murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, repeatedly flouted international law, including more than 15 U.N. resolutions, and provided aid to terrorists, including the first bombers of the World Trade Center in 1993, and possibly al-Qaida.
It's clear Saddam was bent on developing WMDs. It wasn't a question of if, but when. And he would have used them again.
|
|
Clinton's father not wearing a condom was a big mistake. |
I long for the days when our traitors are held in contempt and are actually made to pay for their actions.
This is guaranteed to put a bunch of arab terrorist money in his wife's campaign fund - just like the Communist Chinese funded his.
If you liked the first Clinton, you will love the Marxist
So far, it has "teeth".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.