Bill Clinton says Bush erred by giving Saddam priority over bin Laden

Boston Globe (AP) ^ | 5/11/2004 | RICHARD PYLE

[wjersey]

NEW YORK -- President Bush wasted international sympathy for the United States after the 2001 terrorist attacks by shifting from the search for Osama bin Laden to the ousting of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, former President Clinton said Tuesday.

The move alienated many U.S. allies and created a false impression among Americans that Saddam had a key role in the al-Qaida-engineered terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Clinton said. "I think the world was really pulling for us after 9-11," he said, but the Bush administration "divided the world ... to pursue our vision _ not because of any imminent threat but because that's what they wanted to do."

[graf008]

This really isn't a bad thing what he is saying...I know we don't like him as a messanger - but I agree entirely.

The most savage acts of violence in Iraq are not committed currently by the remnants of the Republican Gurad, but by groups associated with Osama bin Laden.

History might judge this different, but I wish the Administration had gone after bin Laden with all guns blaring and not stopped until they found him and completed destroyed his network - if that meant we had to occupy every country in the Middle East. The Administration shifted targets and diverted away from a bigger goal.

Who cares what Clinton did, as the decision to divert more energy to Saddam was made in this admin. But I do recall Clinton actually agreeing with the war in Iraq.

[cyncooper]

On today of all days he says this.

Evil

[bannie]

That pig, billyblythe clinton, doesn't even realize what scum he is. Amazing that he could be so blind.

[theDentist]

You're welcome to your opinion, Bill, but at least Bush put the destruction of terrorists at a greater priority than getting a hummer from a fat pig.

[Antoninus]

From the man who gave us North Korea and handed our nuke secrets to the ChiComs. Who cares what this "genius" thinks.

[swheats]

I believe bin Laden is dead. Anytime now he could have proven being alive in many ways. Al zawari (sp) is the next major one to be bagged. JMHO

[Smartass]

The Arkansas Monday Morning Quarterback...

[cyncooper]

This really isn't a bad thing what he is saying...I know we don't like him as a messanger - but I agree entirely.

It is an absolutely vile thing for him to say.

Period.

[Vigilantcitizen]

This really isn't a bad thing what he is saying...I know we don't like him as a messanger - but I agree entirely.

Clinton did NOTHING to go after Bin Laden. He was to busy spending resources going after "right wing extremists" and bombing Serb christians, which ironically, helped bin laden's friends out in the balkans.

He has no right whatsover to criticize the President over anything to do with the war on terror.

BTW...Who says we aren't concentrating on bin laden? Come back with me in October.

[graf008]

I hope so. Though it would be nice for a picture of bin Laden's carcass to appear - imagine the demoralizing effect that would have (as compared to Saddam's limp body hung by Iraqis).

Truth is, Saddam was a dictator. He barely had the hearts and minds of his followers - they mostly followed him because it meant power for themselves. Saddam is an easy target, while bin Laden is a bit harder since he does have that emotional support from his followers. Maybe that is why the Admin what after Saddam - he was a threat (although not as big - even Clinton said this), but was easier to destroy.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Clinton's response would have been to accept the "world hug" from the bed-wetting socialist governments while crying together about how awful it was and then doing absolutely nothing.

Clinton was and is an unevolved adolescent.

But he was pretty good at hitting George's sink and Monica's mouth when required.

Couldn't this insufferable gas bag have a heart attack and free us all of his pestilence.

[graf008]

His statement isn't about himself (which is rare). He supported Bush in the Iraqi war in the beginning. He even gave decent reasons for why we should invade Iraq (that were echoed by Tony Blair frequently but less so by President Bush). Last I checked, Bill Clinton was an American - he can use any pulpit that will welcome him to criticize any action we wants (just as you and I can). Of course I'd like him to apologize for not devouting all our resources towards destroying al Quada while he was President - but I don't think I will ever get that.

And of course we are now focusing on bin Laden. However, it would be a lot easier if we didn't have this meddlesome Iraqi situation to deal with that is taking most of our military and economic resources.

[CathyRyan]

If that is BJ's opinion then that is a leading indicator that W. is right on course.

[swheats]

Saddam was a dictator

Yes, and the fact he was pulled out of a hole was such poetic justice considering the millions he had put into lavish palaces.

Saddam is an easy target, while bin Laden is a bit harder since he does have that emotional support from his followers. Maybe that is why the Admin what after Saddam - he was a threat (although not as big - even Clinton said this), but was easier to destroy.

Not fully understanding your point. You write as though we didn't go after bin Laden at any time.

[molitor]

Hey X42, We are sick of you. Go back to Arkansas or uh, New York!

[HP8753]

Me thinks the "Bent One" should go back to "plugging his sink"and let the adults run the country.

[graf008]

In my last post I kinda argued to myself why we went after Saddam more so than we went after bin Laden (based on milkitary and economic resources). This doesn't mean we didn't go after bin Laden - just less so.

Saddam was a much easier target. And it was easy to think that once we toppled him, we could build a stable country in Iraq since there was no (or little) 'cult of Saddam'.

We kill bin Laden - he is becomes a martyr. Attacks will be done in his name. What we need to do is destroy the whole network. This is not a simple task - and certainly much harder than overthrowing a two-bit dictator. And therefore, we went after Saddam first as an easier target and now could devout resources to wiping out al Quada.

[ldish]

actually....bush was the first and only president to go after and continue to go after bin laden......bill whatever never did...too busy being blown and trying to be everything to all people all the time....mr feel good, mr glad hander.......

[molitor]

Sadly, his followers will make him a martyr and that is all we will here of, if that happens.

[graf008]

Is it vile for anyone to say it or just him? If I am not mistaken Chuck Hagel has said similar things...