http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ZvpDE8XPU

 

 

Transcripts from a Clinton interview on Larry King, Feb 6, 2003:

CLINTON: I think it's fair to say that after what happened on September the 11th the will of the international community has stiffened, as represented by this last U.N. resolution which said, clearly, that the penalty for noncompliance is no longer sanctions. It can be your removal from office.

So, my position all along has been one Senator Dole and I took here together on your show that we ought to let the U.N. do its work and I still believe that. But I think the fact that Colin Powell demonstrated persuasively that they're moving the weapons, or the weapon stocks in this case, and it would be easier to move the much smaller quantities of anthrax or aphrotoxin (ph) or they may have a little smallpox. But we're pretty sure they've got a botulism (ph) and the chemical agents, VX and ricin.

KING: Does it look inevitable to you?

CLINTON: It's not inevitable. It still would be much better if this could be done without violence. But the man needs to get rid of his chemical and biological weapon stocks and...

KING: Did you see information when you were president that led you to think he was doing this?

CLINTON: Sure.
You know, in 1995, keep in mind we had information from two members of his family, two men who had married into his family that defected to Jordan. They gave us thee information and basically the Iraqis, said, OK, we were lying all of the time, here's what we really have. We went in and got that and destroyed it. Everything these guys knew about. Then they foolishly went back to Iraq and they were killed within a month of going back.

In 1998, when we and the British bombed for four days when we kicked the inspectors out, we degraded their capacity further, but there's no question they've had some time to rebuild.

Now based on the declarations they made in '99 and the estimates that were there in '91 at the end of the Gulf War, it's clear that the inspections destroyed more stuff than was destroyed in the Gulf War. but it's pretty clear there are still some things, substantial amounts of chemical and biological stocks unaccounted for.

From Jul 22, 2003

CLINTON:

First of all, the White House said -- Mr. Fleischer said -- that on balance they probably shouldn't have put that comment in the speech. What happened, often happens. There was a disagreement between British intelligence and American intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence that said it.

Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.
I mean, we're all more sensitive to any possible stocks of chemical and biological weapons. So there's a difference between British -- British intelligence still maintains that they think the nuclear story was true. I don't know what was true, what was false. I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying, Well, we probably shouldn't have said that. And I think we ought to focus on where we are and what the right thing to do for Iraq is now. That's what I think.

KING: So do you share that view, Senator Dole?

(edited for post length)

KING: What do you do, Mr. President, with what's put in front of you?

CLINTON: Well, here's what happens: every day the president gets a daily brief from the CIA. And then, if it's some important issue -- and believe me, you know, anything having to do with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons became much more important to everybody in the White House after September the 11 -- then they probably told the president, certainly Condoleezza Rice, that this is what the British intelligence thought. They maybe have a difference of opinion, but on balance, they decided they should leave that line in the speech.

I think the main thing I want to say to you is, people can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks...







Bush Lied! Bush Lied!

Well, say that all you want, but then Clinton lied too.

There's a bid difference between lying, and making a decision based on faulty intelligence. (Which, by the way, is still being debated on whether or not the intelligence was faulty)

 

The CIA had evidence Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction six months before the 2003 US-led invasion but was ignored by a White House intent on ousting Saddam Hussein, a former senior CIA official said, according to CBS. - "The (White House) group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested." - "We said: 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said: 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change'," added Drumheller, whose CIA operation was assigned the task of debriefing the Iraqi official. - "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy," the former CIA agent told CBS

How’s the war coming along?

P.S. I don't like Clinton.

 

My point was not that you must be a Clinton lover if you are a Bush hater... my point was, that EVEN Clinton believed that Iraq had WMD's, and that regime change was a viable option.

BTW, I really do not appreciate the fact that you are laughing about "how the war is going." People are dying, including 4 friends of mine from my unit (not very funny), that's how it's going, and we should do what it takes to win, and get it over with.

 

Sorry I used the laugh in the context of our debate. I don't find anything funny about the bloodbath either.

 

[QUOTE=Dr. Franko].

We have not brought democracy to Iraq only bloody civil war.

QUOTE]

How many democracies have never had a civil war, or rebellion?

 

I don't like clinton either and I don't agree with your points. Your opinion reflects a subscription to inaccurate reporting and blind judgment. Progress is being made in Iraq and America will prevail on the operational and tactical level. Regardless of outcome, you will be a contributor to strategic failure. Enjoy your party and the repercussions you develop.
What have you done for peace besides complain and sit on your butt? Enjoy the freedom others protect.

 

I do believe that one of our freedoms (even Norman Rockwell painted about it...is Freedom of Speech.) Yes, others potect it, but so does that great document. Agreement---nope, but while you have the right to espouse, so do others...

Tim C.

 

[QUOTE=89Lariat]Do you actually believe that bull about us wanting to set up a democracy in Iraq? What we want is a puppet government to protect our interests in the region.

P.S.
Democracy is a relative term. In reality most democracies are in fact veiled oligarchies. I assume you knew that.

 

[QUOTE=Dr. Franko]Is any system perfect? No. I do know that no democracy is purely democratic. The majority rules and the minority still usually gets screwed at times. But, its better than living under some ***** like saddam.

Of course any nation wants to protect its own interests. Thats what governments are elected to do (in theory) Bush isnt the idiot that hes made out to be. And yes I do believe that it is in everyones interests that democracy be set up in Iraq. Anyone who leads under any fanatical doctrine is dangerous. Remember Hitler had to start somwhere and that was as a nobody who was considered only a nuisance by everyone. Would saddam, al quida or the taliban have grown as powerful given the chance? Who knows, honestly I think everyone is better off knowing that they never had the chance.

 

Give it up franky. You have been absolutely proven wrong about 50 different ways in this topic alone, and I have yet to see you actually reply with a valid rebuttal.

The war sucks, people are dying, it isn't fun. No crap. no one REALLY wants to go to war. Honestly, do you truly believe that Bush WANTED to use his military purely to go to war so badly he managed to convince the country, and the world it was needed? PLEASE.

You are the one that is being naive.

BTW, to whomever posted that bit on Clinto, bravo.

 

I remember watching it in person... took me a while to find the transcripts online to quote.

Since I coulda swore I saw the interview live, it really pissed me off that it was never referenced by the media. Guess since it didn't bash Bush enough, it couldn't be fit into the nightly news.

 

ahah, so sad, yet so true...

 

From World Public Opinion.org

– Iraqi Support for attacks against US-led forces has increased sharply to 61 percent (27% strongly, 34% somewhat). This represents a 14-point increase from January 2006, when only 47 percent of Iraqis supported attacks.

– More broadly, 79 percent of Iraqis say that the US is having a negative influence on the situation in Iraq, with just 14 percent saying that it is having a positive influence.

– Asked “If the US made a commitment to withdraw from Iraq according to a timeline, do you think this would strengthen the Iraqi government, weaken it, or have no effect either way?” 53 percent said that it would strengthen the government, while just 24 percent said it would weaken the government.
– Asked what effect it would have “if US-led forces withdraw from Iraq in the next six months,” 58 percent overall say that violence would decrease (35% a lot, 23% a little).

– A large majority of Iraqis–71%–say they would like the Iraqi government to ask for US-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less. Given four options, 37 percent take the position that they would like US-led forces withdrawn “within six months,” while another 34 percent opt for “gradually withdraw[ing] US-led forces according to a one-year timeline.”

CNN) -- One in five Americans believes the United States is winning the war in Iraq, according to a poll. The number has dropped by half since December.
About the same number -- 18 percent -- believe insurgents are winning. But the majority, 60 percent, say no one is winning in Iraq.
The poll of 1,013 adult Americans interviewed by telephone found two-thirds -- 64 percent -- of those polled oppose the war in Iraq.