July 15, 2004

Clinton Defends Bush. Again. Democrats ignore. Again.
Posted by Jon Henke

Captain Ed points me to this interesting story on Bill Clinton's recent comments in Great Britain...

Bill Clinton says that no government could have failed to act against Iraq after the 11 September 2001 attacks in view of intelligence provided. The former US president told the BBC that UK intelligence on the activity of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was more "aggressive" than Washington's.
[...]
The former president told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that before the war everyone had thought that Iraq still had chemical and biological weapons stockpiles.
In a separate interview with an Australian broadcaster, Clinton said....
"I think he (Mr Bush) was right to demand that we have the UN inspection and if the UN inspectorate said Saddam Hussein is not cooperating I would have supported the military action even if the UN didn't," Mr Clinton told Sydney radio 2GB in a wide-ranging phone interview from the US.

Mr Clinton said the Bush administration had been focused on getting rid of Saddam Hussein and was not just concerned about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Pay careful attention to those two highlighted statements. They directly contradict the current Democratic claims that:
1: the absence of WMDs invalidates the justification for war.
2: we should have waited for UN approval.

Say what you will about his Presidency, but Bill Clinton has been a far more honorable politician over the past 2 years--agreeing often with Bush despite his own Parties virulent drift, and disagreeing with civility--than have many of his peers in the Democratic Party.

UPDATE: Beltway Traffic Jam

TrackBack

Comments
Post a comment









Remember personal info?