Posted on 08/21/2006 6:38:56 AM PDT by presidio9
Bill Clinton today dismissed suggestions of a link between the alleged airline bomb plot and the invasion of Iraq. The former US president said that although the situation in Iraq had not improved national security, the threat to countries such as the UK and the US predated the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.
In an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Clinton also said he did not think military intervention in Afghanistan had put Britons at higher risk.
"On the question of Iraq, I don't think it's improved our national security, but I don't think that Iraq has had any impact one way or the other on Sunni-inspired terrorist operations, as it appears this one was that was recently thwarted," he said. "There was a commitment there to attack the west before 9/11, and the fact that we made it more difficult for them to operate in a centralised fashion I think, on balance, was positive."
Mr Clinton said that if he had any criticism of the operation in Afghanistan, it was that too few troops had been sent to the country.
"I don't think that going into Afghanistan to depose the Taliban and to hunt for Mr [Osama] bin Laden and Mr [Ayman] al-Zawahiri put the British at higher risk," he said.
"I think if anything, the fact that we have had intense co-operation between intelligence and law enforcement officials all over the world ... has made the world less dangerous.
"There's no question that al-Qaida continues to inspire terrorist operations and continues to be involved in them. If anything, we should have put more troops into Afghanistan."
Mr Clinton's comments closely echoed the line taken by Tony Blair's government.
Yesterday, the
(Excerpt) Read more at politics.guardian.co.uk ...
So much BS...so little desire to rehash it.
Well, if Clinton says so ...
Typical Bill Clinton, trying to be on all sides and manages to be wrong all the way around. Iraq IS the War on Terror, anyone tells you different is either a fool or a liar.
Got to love the way the DO Nothings try to posture as tough guys by pretending they would have committed the force elsewhere. The fact of the matter is the Neo Isolationists who of NEVER done anything but piss and moan. They merely invent some reason other place we should be fighting to avoid admitting they actually would rather we DO nothing. Real simple fact keeps escaping them. We had the political, moral, legal and military consensus to take out Iraq. We HAD no such consensus for an attack against any other of the Neo Isolationists make believe foes. Also, the Neo Isolationists dogma flunks basic Military strategy as well.
You still cling to your mistaken emotion based feelings. Basic strategy lesson for you.. You do NOT leave a foe in the field unfought and commit your force to another major fight against another foe. Saddam had to go. We could not leave him hanging on our flank and commit significant military forces to another battle. Saddam was the most immediate problem. EVERN if Al Gore had won in 2000 and 09-01 happened, we would be doing the EXACT same thing. All the Leftist Democrat Talking Points are so much nonsense. There was no alternative but to take out Iraq
I just heard President Bush say the same thing in his press conference.
Ronald Reagan was not an isolationist when he supported Saddam Hussein.
Not a friend; the enemy of our enemy. Basic political lesson there.
Johnnie, you're right about the isolationists. There's always somebody else they SAY we ought to have fought first - Iran, N Korea, Syria - but as the Red Queen said to Alice, it's "jam every other day, but never jam today."
Fine, so now the main enemy of Iranian regime is removed and Iran is becoming the main regional power. Is it another "basic political lesson"?
About "enemy of our enemy", it was Iran who helped America to win in Afghanistan as it was Iran/Russia allied Northern Alliance which did the key part of the fighting against Taleban. Is the removal of Saddam Hussein a secret reward to Iran?
Bookmarked. Thanks.
At some point you cannot continue to second-guess the government during wartime, or we will lose it all.
Would you have questioned the invasion of Italy in WWII? After all, Mussolini was a mere puppet who had never attacked the United States . . . Germany and Japan were our "real" enemies. And, of course, Germany had never attacked the U.S. either . . .
I should have hit the 'sarcasm on' button for that one.
The democrats are saying "we are no safer" in the hopes that if we are attacked before the election they can scream..."we told you so."
..he couldn't put a link between a cigar and a blue dress either...it's called selective memory...hildebeast has it too....but the reminders will be up front over the next two years...and in her own words
...he can't find a legacy here, so he's got to try over there. Wanna bet the questions were pre-screened? ( remembering the eyes rolling when the cigar was mentioned in testimony......LOL)
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.