Stop On A Dime And Head In The Other Direction

Stop On A Dime And Head In The Other Direction: I want you to try to guess which American politician is being talked about and quoted in this article. Ready?

“(Politician X) who voiced his support for the troops fighting in Iraq, said it made sense after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to become more concerned about Saddam Hussein’s potential for producing and distributing weapons of mass destruction.

“It is … illogical to believe that (Iraq’s weapons) stocks would not get into the wrong hands,” (Politicians X) said.

“It’s easier to deal with the production and spread of this stuff than to deal with the aftermath.”

Is this politician not making almost the same case for preemption in Iraq that Conservatives have been making for more than a year? That we need to intervene in Iraq rather than risk having Saddam Hussein give the weapons to terrorists who might use them in American cities? Ok — let’s see who it is….











Answer: Bill Clinton. The same Bill Clinton who in October of 2002 in Britain said,

“If the inspections go forward I believe we should still work for a regime change in Iraq in non-military ways, through support of the Iraqi opposition and in trying to strengthen it. Iraq has not always been a tyrannical dictatorship. Saddam Hussein was once a part of a government which came to power through more legitimate means.

…This is a difficult issue. Military action should always be a last resort, for three reasons; because today Saddam Hussein has all the incentive in the world not to use or give these weapons away but with certain defeat he would have all the incentive to do just that. Because a pre-emptive action today, however well justified, may come back with unwelcome consequences in the future.”

So which is it? Is it, “illogical to believe that (Iraq’s weapons) stocks would not get into the wrong hands” or does Saddam have, “all the incentive in the world not to use or give these weapons away”?

So are we better off dealing with the “production and spread of this stuff (WMD)” via a preemptive attack or should we avoid a preemptive attack because it, “may come back with unwelcome consequences in the future”?

Come on, show a little backbone, stop flip-flopping, and take a stand that is based on something other than pure politics.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend