Former President Clinton gives an interview.
By Moe Lane Posted in War — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
And what an interesting interview it was. The BBC article is starting to make the rounds, but as always it's the original transcripts that put the sparkle in the blogger's eye.
There's a surprising amount to mine out of this one, despite its length - and said mining could be quite multilateral (former President Clinton's shiv re Chalabi was indeed very pretty, in its way). But, at bottom... well, read:
President Clinton: Well he tried, let me say in addition to what you said, It’s important for the people in the UK to remember what else he did. He supported a resolution in the United Nations which would have given Hans Blix the time that he sought, and would have said that at the end of that, if Blix found that Saddam had not co-operated and therefore the UN resolutions could not be met, then he would be removed, and the French and the British < Germans> opposed that resolution, that as long as inspectors were there even of Saddam wasn’t co-operating there was no reason to attack him. And we could have gotten a majority in the United Nations Security Council if Mexico and Chile had gone along, but by then public opinion had so hardened in their own countries and they didn’t do it.
But I think it’s important for people here you can second guess Blair if you like, but, and it’s clear in our country according to our own Senate, the Intelligence was not what it should have been. But at the time nearly everybody thought there was probably a stock of chemical and biological weapons there and it was vulnerable to falling into the wrong hands, either by design or by corruption within Saddam’s regime. And essentially the French and the Germans said we still don’t care. Now as I understand it a lot of people in the world, because Saddam himself could not pose a direct threat, he wasn’t going to attack anybody because he was too weak. So that left the prospect of what we all believe was a substantial amount of material there. Had the final UN resolution passed there’s a good chance that war could have been avoided, that’s what Blair was trying to do. When the French and the Germans moved away from him and the Chileans and the Mexican’s didn’t go along he then basically had to go back to their position or go on with Bush’s position, he was in an impossible position really.[Bolding mine]
Now, I agree readily enough that just before this former President Clinton had opined that he had favored additional sanctions. I'll also note that he thinks that not giving Hans Blix more time was the USA's greatest mistake in this situation. Both of those positions are going to be debated for the next thirty years, anyway. What's very, very interesting is that Clinton has explicitly placed the responsibility for the recommencment of ground warfare squarely on France and Germany's metaphorical shoulders. For that matter, by conceding that he himself was convinced of the existence of chemical/bioweapons at least up to the resumption of the war former President Clinton is taking a bit of a hit in order to defend Prime Minister Blair*. I suspect that neither assertion will please certain elements of the Democratic base.
Admittedly, the fact that it's by now fairly obvious that the former President does not in fact eat babies and worship Satan is probably not pleasing certain elements of the Republican base, but that's life**.
Moe
*Which, oddly enough, means that he's also giving a bit of cover to President Bush. But this could be simply serendipity: Clinton and Blair are by all accounts friends, and this isn't the first time that the former has stood up for the latter.
**I encourage everyone on both sides of the spectrum to read this transcript: the bits about the difference between what British and American intelligence were telling their respective principals is interesting, if subtly unfavorable to President Bush.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Why Should He? — Comments (18) »
Former President Clinton gives an interview. 7 Comments (0 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
moe,
when clinton said:
at the time nearly everybody thought there was probably a stock of chemical and biological weapons there and it was vulnerable to falling into the wrong hands
He was covering himself for his own signing of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act - the one that enshrined "regime change" as official US policy, an act that Gore supported as well. I'm sure you're aware of it, but it might bear repeating in this context.
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm
(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.
(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.
(12) On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.
Related purposes = overthrow of Saddam.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime...
(e) REIMBURSEMENT RELATING TO MILITARY ASSISTANCE-
(1) IN GENERAL- Defense articles, defense services, and military education and training provided under subsection (a)(2) shall be made available without reimbursement to the Department of Defense except to the extent that funds are appropriated pursuant to paragraph (2).
(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated to the President for each of the fiscal years 1998 and 1999 such sums as may be necessary to reimburse the applicable appropriation, fund, or account for the value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of defense articles, defense services, or military education and training provided under subsection (a)(2).
People need to remember that Clinton (and Gore, for that matter) were no doves on Saddam. How soon they forget. To be fair, some on the right want to slag them for not doing anything about Iraq...but I have no doubt that Gore would have taken on Iraq had he become president (given that Blair did, which is the closest one can get to a control).
leaves the door wide open for future WMD revelations, particularly in Libya.
Clinton gives a fair appraisal of where we generally stood on the key dates giving both Blair and Bush cover.
He paints an interesting scenario for forcing Blair into war, but the British force situated in the Kuwaiti desert refutes that particular observation.
Clinton's real problem is that during his two terms radical Islam both organized (militarily and financially) and pursued a multifaceted nuclear weapons program, which the Clinton Admin did absoulutely nothing about. That bridge Clinton was building into the 21st century came home to roost one morning in September 01.
that Bill Clinton is not History's Greatest Monster.
We all know that Jimmy Carter is.
. . .had their good points, and Clinton is the Democrats' closest equivalent of both. On this, give the man his due--he speaks the truth.
Hmmm. . .I suggest that the RNC buy rebroadcast rights to that interview from the BBC--or simply invoke "fair use" copyright law for some of the more useful parts should they prove unwilling to sell. It might make an effectively blackmail tool or counterattack should the Ticket of the Lesser Johns show signs of getting too nasty with their criticism of the decision to go to war.
I suggest that the RNC buy rebroadcast rights to that interview from the BBC
Beautiful idea, especially if we can compare/contrast Kerry's insistence that we work with our "traditional allies" (read: France and Germany) and Clinton's explanation of what France and Germany were doing.
. . as to Iraq and Al Qaida was his hesitance to take really bold actions. But the experience of the past year shows Clinton was wise to doubt the voting public would support bold actions, pre-9/11. In hindsight, it is easy to say Clinton should have done in 1998 what Bush finally did in 2003. But would the public have supported him? How far should we expect elected leaders to press correct but very unpopular policies?
wow - another insta-hit - good job guys. and good post.