Calling Clinton’s Bluff On Iraq
Calling Clinton’s Bluff On Iraq: Our ex-weasel-in-chief is abroad in Britain and he was talking about Iraq. At first, he sounds like a hawk….
“Arguing that weapons inspectors should be sent back to Iraq, but backed with the new resolution, Mr Clinton told Britain’s ruling party convention: ‘Saddam Hussein as usual is bobbing and weaving. We should call his bluff.'”
Clinton sounds like Bush here doesn’t he? He acknowledges that Saddam isn’t serious about inspections and Clinton wants a new resolution that will allow truly unfettered resolutions. Clinton is even acknowledging that we’re going to be “call(ing) his bluff.” Indeed, Saddam has made it very clear that he will not accept unconditional inspections. So then what?
“‘If the inspections go forward, as I hope they will, perhaps we can avoid a conflict,’ he said.
He also distanced himself from hawks in the Bush administration, saying a ‘regime change’ in Iraq should ideally be achieved through non-military means, such as supporting opposition groups there.
He added that international institutions were the best guarantee of a peaceful future.”
Wait a second — I thought we were going to call Saddam’s bluff just a moment ago? Saddam’s people have made it crystal clear that he’s not going to accept exactly the type of inspections that Clinton endorsed. So inspections aren’t going to “go forward.” Clinton’s comment about ‘supporting opposition groups’ is meaningless. There are no opposition groups in Iraq that have any chance of unseating Hussein.
So when Clinton says ‘(w)e should call his bluff’ he literally means we should point out that Saddam is bluffing and then we shouldn’t do anything about it.
Clinton and the rest of the Democrats have to be called on the consequences of what they’re suggesting. Let’s follow the path Clinton is wants us to walk to its logical conclusion. Clinton is saying for all intents and purposes that he doesn’t think we should try to stop Saddam even if he is seeking nukes and already has biological and chemical weapons.
How can we just ignore the consequences of letting someone like Hussein who has connections to terrorists including Al-Queda, who hates the United States, have nuclear weapons? I mean, what do you say after 3 or 4 US cities disappear under mushroom clouds, “Whoops? Maybe we should have done something?” Isn’t that what we’re saying about Afghanistan now? Didn’t we know that Al-Queda was a threat before 9/11 and Afghanistan was their home base? Didn’t we know that like Hussein, they harbored ill will towards the United States and wanted to do us harm? Did we not largely choose to ignore the situation in Afghanistan just like Clinton is suggesting that we do with Saddam now? Can we afford to let this Saddam do as he pleases even if it means millions of Americans may very well die because of it one day? Bill Clinton and the Democrats say ‘yes.’ George Bush and the Republicans say ‘no.’
I’m with W. and the rest of my fellow GOPers on this one….