Apparently Clinton Thinks Pre-Emption Justified

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

Don’t agree with the former Pres on the higher-ups analysis of Abu Ghraib, but interesting that he is continuing to support Bush on Iraq generally. Wonder how this affects Kerry?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/index.html

Clinton defends successor’s push for war
Says Bush ‘couldn’t responsibly ignore’ chance Iraq had WMDs

Saturday, June 19, 2004 Posted: 10:36 PM EDT (0236 GMT)

(CNN) – Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

“I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over,” Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book “My Life.”

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be “reeling” in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush’s first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining “chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material.”

“That’s why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for,” Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

“So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, ‘Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.’ You couldn’t responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks,” Clinton said.

Pressed on whether the Iraq war was worth the cost to the United States, Clinton said he would not have undertaken the war until after U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix “finished his job.”

Weapons inspectors led by Blix scoured Iraq for three and a half months before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 but left after President Bush issued an ultimatum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to leave the country.

“I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn’t agree with the timing of the attack,” Clinton said.

Clinton blamed the Abu Ghraib prison abuses on poorly trained National Guard personnel and higher-ups in the Bush administration.

The former president said he was not surprised by the abuses committed by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib but that he was surprised by their extent.

“There is no excuse for that,” Clinton said.

Clinton blamed the abuses on the higher echelons of the Bush administration.

“The more we learn about it, the more it seems that some people fairly high up, at least, thought that this was the way it ought to be done,” he said.

Implying that the United States should lead by example, Clinton said of the abuses, “No. 1, we can’t pull stunts like that, and No. 2, when we do, whoever is responsible has to pay.”

2

I saw this today and my first thought was, ‘something don’t smell right’.

Then it hit me - this is the opening move in the “Hillary 2008” gambit.

She’s evidently not one of the chosen few meeting with Kerry in hopes of a VP nod. So she won’t be on the ticket this time around.

If G-dub wins, it’ll be an open seat in 2008. If Kerry wins, she’'l have to go up against an incumbent.

Clinton throws a little empathy - if not outright support - to the Bush side and it takes some carpet out from under Kerry.

If Kerry loses - Hillary’s looking like a lock in 2008.

3

I imagine he was reeling from the events of 9/11. Imagine coming back from a 1 month sabbatical to the worst terrorist attack ever carried out on this land.

I have to wonder what Clinton would have done in response to 9/11. I’m sure it would have been something similar. Aside from his views on the military and intervention in general, he’s just a republican anyway.

4

I was thinking something along those lines as well.

However, that assumes Clinton is purely a political animal, and is only capable of acting in furtherance of some political ambition.

I think that, while there may be that component there, this also has to do with Clinton wanting to define his legacy as being serious about the War on Terror. Also, to the extent Clinton can be viewed as saying something merelyh for the sake of its truth, one needs to recall that Clinton is one of the only people who had access to all the intel on Saddam from the eight years of the Clinton Administration. His insights, based on that knowledge, are valuable.

Whatever his motivations were, however, as a purely pragmatic political item, I think this will have the effect of screwing over Kerry – at least to the effect the Bush campaign uses it to persuade independent and middle-of-the-road types that Kerry is the one of the extreme end of the issue, and that Bush was being the responsible guardian of American safety in doing what he did.

5

Lucid -

Never say that again - Ron just rolled over in his grave.

6

Is Pre-Emption Justified?

Take a example that is not so close to home. For example India/Pakistan:

Is is good policy for India and/or Pakistan to have a pre-emptive nuclear strike policy?

Now move a little closer to home. What if the pre-emption needs to take place in Pakistan? Most likely Bin Liner is in Pakistan.

Does the doctrine of pre-emption work then?

In the end it really does not matter what anybody thinks. The powers that be will decide for us all.

7

Will you read his book?

8

A pre-emptive nuclear strike is completely different from pre-emptive invasion. The nuclear capabilities of India and Pakistan actually serve to stabilize the sub-continent. Neither country will ever attempt a large-scale invasion of the other with the threat of mutually assured destruction from nuclear strikes (as I last understood it, Pakistan has the capability to hit New Dehli but not much furter into India, India has the ability to level all of Pakistan). Reagardless, nuclear weapons never lead to a doctrine of pre-emption, rather they elevate the stakes of a potential conflict, making diplomatic solutions far more attractive then they may otherwise would have appeared.

9

"“I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over”

How does this equal “agreeing that pre-emption is justified”?

If Bush would have waited for the inspections to be over, we would have seen that there was no threat of WMDs in Iraq.

If Clinton actually thought pre-emption was necessary, he would have done it himself. However, people in Clinton’s administration did not get chumped by con men like Ahmed Chalabi, like Team Bush did.

10

Lumpy,

If it doesn’t give you too much of a headache, why don’t you review what Clinton’s stance on Iraq was:

Now, I realize you want to instinctively distrust a PNAC piece, but it is review of facts and statements, not an opinion piece.

11

[quote]sdp wrote:
A pre-emptive nuclear strike is completely different from pre-emptive invasion.

[/quote]

Don’t really understand how other than the stakes being greater.

[quote]sdp wrote:
The nuclear capabilities of India and Pakistan actually serve to stabilize the sub-continent.

[/quote]

By that reasoning the best way to peace and stability in the Middle East is for Israel, Sryia and Iran to have nuclear weapons?

[quote]sdp wrote:
Reagardless, nuclear weapons never lead to a doctrine of pre-emption, rather they elevate the stakes of a potential conflict, making diplomatic solutions far more attractive then they may otherwise would have appeared.

[/quote]

I would have thought so too. But if the men how are making the decisions are not personally at risk I don’t think this reason is as valid.