What's new
By:
Filters

Clintons Announce Opposition to Iraq War

G

GoingNova

Peak Forum Legend
PF Member
Messages
6,142
Reaction score
1
Points
404
No one is debating whether or not they have the right to say this, they do, but do you think it is right for the Clintons to make such statements while we are at war?

From NewsMax.com

In twin moves that amount to a 180 degree reversal of their previous positions, former President Bill Clinton called the Iraq war yesterday "a big mistake," while his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, voted for a Democratic bill that would announce a timetable for U.S. withdrawal.

"Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done," Mr. Clinton told students at the American University of Dubai.

"It was a big mistake," he added, in quotes picked up by the Associated Press. "The American government made several errors, one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country."

Mr. Clinton had previously said that he supported the decision to remove Saddam Hussein, although he wished U.N. weapons inspectors had been given more time.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton reversed herself on whether the U.S. should announce a timetable for a U.S. pullout, voting for an amendment proposed by Iraq war opponent, Sen. Russ Feingold.

The Feingold Amendment stipulates "estimated dates for the phased redeployment" of U.S. troops in Iraq. Sen. Feingold has set a target date for a complete U.S. withdrawal by Dec. 31, 2006.

Asked in February, however, whether she supported a timetable for withdrawal, Mrs. Clinton told NBC's "Meet the Press":

"At this point in time, I think that would be a mistake. I don't believe we should tie our hands or the hands of the new Iraqi government. Now obviously, as this government is stood up and takes responsibility, there may come a time when it decides for its own internal reasons that we should set such a deadline and withdrawal agenda. But right now I think it would be a mistake."
 
I have three points:

  1. Such public statements by such high profile Americans aides our enemies. Right now, somewhere, there are terrorists using these words to help boost moral, support their positions, and recruit more people to their cause. Allowing terrorists to say "Even President Clinton and Senator Clinton believe, as we do, that the war in Iraq is wrong" is a TREMENDOUS boon to their cause!
  2. Traditionally, former Presidents do not criticize sitting Presidents. For Bill Clinton to be doing this is just inappropriate. Does he have a right to do it? Of course he does: free speech. It is just not right for him to be doing it.
  3. The bill that Hillary Clinton is supporting is a horrendous one! To announce to the terrorists "We will be leaving on such a such date" completely undermines the war effort. Essentially, you are giving them a mark: if you can just hold on until X date, you can win.
 
Yes but without some kind of timeframe we are locked into "babysitting" a country for an unknown period of time. I fully expect to be getting deployed to Iraq for the next 14 years(time I have left) because the administration didnt think through the whole problem before commiting the forces. Iraq is looking to become another Korea where we will have forces stationed there 50 years after any kind of cease fire.
 
Brainfreeze said:
Yes but without some kind of timeframe we are locked into "babysitting" a country for an unknown period of time. I fully expect to be getting deployed to Iraq for the next 14 years(time I have left) because the administration didnt think through the whole problem before commiting the forces. Iraq is looking to become another Korea where we will have forces stationed there 50 years after any kind of cease fire.
Click to expand...

I don't think so, but who knows. I still contend that at this point, you can not simply give an exit date.
 
I can almost guarantee you that after Iraq has finally cooled down it will be used as a staging point for any contingencies in Iran and surrounding countries.
 
Brainfreeze said:
I can almost guarantee you that after Iraq has finally cooled down it will be used as a staging point for any contingencies in Iran and surrounding countries.
Click to expand...
Which is a very good move in my oppinion. Its nice to have allies in a hostile land.
 
We still babysit South Korea from the North Koreans. We sat in Germany for numerous years to protect the west from USSR. So people's expectations we pack up and leave quickly after a war is a bit unreasonable considering our past history.

True our troop numbers will decrease over time in Iraq while Iraqis will take more and more of their national security into their hands. Will we be completely gone by 2006. I seriously doubt it. We are still in many countries around the world. Probably still have U.N. troops in Croatia, which was a fight that happened over a decade ago.

So honestly its an unreasonable demand to pull out. I note no one said we should pull of the other countries, Afghanistan, South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc. We have bases there all because of a previous war.

United States has to complete its job.
 
Yes, it is a terrible, horrific thing for important people in our society to question authority. How dare they change their minds about a war that's continuously drawing controversial remarks on all sides? Who do they think they are disagreeing with the current presidential administration that's drawing a constantly declining approval rating? It's absurd. They should be tarred and feathered for treason. I'm sure Osama is sitting in a hole somewhere right now cheering for the Clintons. In fact, I hear these speeches have given him the information he needed to obtain nuclear devices. Now we're all ****ed.


In case you didn't notice, that was sarcasm.
 
ski2bfree said:
Yes, it is a terrible, horrific thing for important people in our society to question authority. How dare they change their minds about a war that's continuously drawing controversial remarks on all sides? Who do they think they are disagreeing with the current presidential administration that's drawing a constantly declining approval rating? It's absurd. They should be tarred and feathered for treason. I'm sure Osama is sitting in a hole somewhere right now cheering for the Clintons. In fact, I hear these speeches have given him the information he needed to obtain nuclear devices. Now we're all ****ed.

In case you didn't notice, that was sarcasm.
Click to expand...
With all due respect Ski, you apparently just don't get it. Maybe you might if your mother, father, sister, or brother were fighting in the war in Iraq. Their statements are being made for political reasons, and political reasons only. As a result of their statements, people will die, directly or indirectly, we will never know, but I can guarantee you that what they are saying is helping terrorists.

If you think statements for pure political gain, that hurt soldiers in an ongoing war are worth the cost, then so be it. Just please do not try to hide the fact that they are:

A) political in nature
B) damaging to our troops

No one ever said they did not have a right to say what they are saying now, just that they are intelligent enough to know better, and frankly don't give a **** about that. They are more interested in potential political gain.

I have said it a thousand times, the time to debate a war is BEFORE THE WAR. Once the country goes to war, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT! A former President and a sitting Senator should know better.

They do know better, they just don't care because they are more concerned about themselves. Par for the course as a Clinton.
 
GoingNova said:

With all due respect Ski, you apparently just don't get it. Maybe you might if your mother, father, sister, or brother were fighting in the war in Iraq. Their statements are being made for political reasons, and political reasons only. As a result of their statements, people will die, directly or indirectly, we will never know, but I can guarantee you that what they are saying is helping terrorists.

If you think statements for pure political gain, that hurt soldiers in an ongoing war are worth the cost, then so be it. Just please do not try to hide the fact that they are:

A) political in nature
B) damaging to our troops

No one ever said they did not have a right to say what they are saying now, just that they are intelligent enough to know better, and frankly don't give a **** about that. They are more interested in potential political gain.

I have said it a thousand times, the time to debate a war is BEFORE THE WAR. Once the country goes to war, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT! A former President and a sitting Senator should know better.

They do know better, they just don't care because they are more concerned about themselves. Par for the course as a Clinton.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I believe that I get it very well and that you're blowing a political statement well out of proportion considering detrimental political statements are made on all sides of every political debate on a constant basis. My points are this:

A) If you're going to criticise the Clintons for making these statements, you should also pay attention to those statements made by our own Commander in Chief, which I would say has a much greater effect on our armed forces. Bush, rather than honoring our armed forces as is the traditional and appropriate thing to do on Veteran's Day, used his speech to further his own political agenda in opposition to opponents of the war. Veteran's Day is not supposed to be about politics; it's about honoring our armed forces regardless of political affiliation. He should have taken the time to honor the soldiers who are fighting in Iraq. It's not like he doesn't give a speech to denounce Democrats every other day of the week.

B) It's our duty as citizens to question authority. The minute we allow someone to rule over us without question, we allow our rights and liberties to be forfeit. I commend anyone with the gall to stand up to the people in power and make their voices heard.

C) There has been political debate over the war since before it even started. Political statements have been made on both sides continually. Some of those statements may have been detrimental, some positive. I certainly do not believe that any of the statements on either side are aiding terrorists, especially because such a claim is too abstract to support or deny with certainty. I believe it is a detriment when our leaders highlight the positive aspects of the war without addressing the problems. The problems are complex and need to be addressed immediately, yet the plans laid out for these are vague at best with no real goals in sight.

D) Do you really believe that the U.S. will withdraw from Iraq completely? Even when we finally do take our troops home, there will always be a U.S. presence in Iraq. Most likely, due to its strategic location, it will be used as a military outpost. We will also probably be providing Iraq with weapons and training for combating terrorist activities in their country.

E) The time for political debate of our continuing presence in Iraq IS NOW. When I say that, I AM thinking about our troops. Our troops who have now been in Iraq for an extended period of time, much longer than the time table laid out for the American people when the war was first proposed. I'm not saying we should just take all our troops and walk. What I'm saying is that it's time to start setting some goals to work toward Iraq's independence. Show some foresight for once and lay out a plausable plan.

When I'm debating this topic, my concern for the U.S. Armed Forces is genuine, regardless of whether I actually know someone who is fighting there. Don't make the mistake of telling me that I lack concern because my brother isn't fighting.
 
I don't think that these statements will be damaging at all. I'm sure the terrorists already realise there's worldwide opposition to this war, and I don't think that a former president's comments are going to incite a new rash of attacks. I seem to recall Pat Robertson making a far more dangerous statement, and it blew over in a couple of days. Statements calling for the assassination of heads of state are far more detrimental to foreign relations that an expression against a war could ever be.
 
Black Mage said:
I don't think that these statements will be damaging at all. I'm sure the terrorists already realise there's worldwide opposition to this war, and I don't think that a former president's comments are going to incite a new rash of attacks. I seem to recall Pat Robertson making a far more dangerous statement, and it blew over in a couple of days. Statements calling for the assassination of heads of state are far more detrimental to foreign relations that an expression against a war could ever be.
Click to expand...
I disaree. It is very much helpful to the terrorist cause when they can use speeches from Hillary and Bill Clinton as evidence that their cause is "just". Something to the effect of "See, even President Clinton thinks they do not belong in Iraq!". It worked in Vietnam, it may work in Iraq.

Pat Roberston's statements had nothing to do with the War on Terror, so I doubt they were much useful to terrorists. They are certainly not as damaging as the Clinton's speeches.
 
Let me start off by saying that I agree with Nova that "the time to debate a war is before the war".
However, let me emphasize a few things from the quote that Nova used:

Asked in February, however, whether she supported a timetable for withdrawal, Mrs. Clinton told NBC's "Meet the Press":

"At this point in time, I think that would be a mistake. I don't believe we should tie our hands or the hands of the new Iraqi government. Now obviously, as this government is stood up and takes responsibility, there may come a time when it decides for its own internal reasons that we should set such a deadline and withdrawal agenda. But right now I think it would be a mistake."
Click to expand...


Apparently she believes that time is now.
 
Responding to GoingNova…

Traditionally, former Presidents do not criticize sitting Presidents. For Bill Clinton to be doing this is just inappropriate. Does he have a right to do it? Of course he does: free speech. It is just not right for him to be doing it.
Click to expand...


Why? Because he’s damaging another president? But that’s his right, me nor you may not like it but you can’t use it as a point.

It worked in Vietnam, it may work in Iraq.
Click to expand...
Oh okay, compare Iraq and Vietnam when it suits YOU.
 
Hilary is changing her tune because she doesn't want the rest of the Liberals to think she is a free thinker. She is wishy washy here and if she is that way now then she will always be that way.

Her husband could have avoided any comment about Bush and the war but his only interest is in campaigning for his wife. He may have another stab at the White House so obviously he is going to do what he can to discredit Bush and the President's stand on the war.

I can't see how the man can face the world after the Monica incident. Seriously how many Presidents do you look at and think "Blow Job"? Not many. Clinton is more known for his.... you know! I wonder if he named it? LOL
 
Mentioning Clinton making unfriendly comments about the President isn't new. He made comments about President Bush after he came into office, so he has always been criticizing the President. He isnt like other former Presidents. True other former Presidents tend to keep their mouth shut about the operations of a current President but Clinton likes being in the lime light so you will hear more things from him then any other former President.

A respected leader or former leader saying bad things about one's country - especially at war will always help the other side. Negative comments will always make the appearance that even the leaders are not united and if the enemy keeps up the attacks, they will believe we will finally give in like they have in the past - Somalia.

Criticism about the conduct of the war is one thing. To say the war is wrong affront an international audience sends the wrong message.
 
Klashbash said:
Responding to GoingNova…
Oh okay, compare Iraq and Vietnam when it suits YOU.
Click to expand...

 Actually, I never compared Iraq to Vietnam. What I am comparing is what I perceive to be the media's attempt to undermine them both. There is a huge difference.
 
What ever anyone's reason for stating their opinions is their business and right. I don't think the terrorist need anything more to add fuel to their fire. They are on a mission to cause as much damage as possible, no matter who says what in America. Most people around the world have their opinions about America, before all this back and forth about the war hit a fever pitch as of late.

We are a nation divided when it comes to the war.
 
Shortly after the 2004 election Bill Clinton said:
And I want to say this; this is important. I don't want to be too political here, but it bothers me when America gets as divided as it was.

I once said to a friend of mine about three days before the election -- and I heard all these terrible things. I said, "You know, am I the only person in the entire United States of America who likes both George Bush and John Kerry, who believes they're both good people, who believe they both love our country and they just see the world differently?"
Click to expand...
I didn't see anywhere in the article you mentioned that he was criticizing a sitting Presidents. What he said was "The American government made several errors, one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country." This is entirely true regardless of whether or not Clinton says it and the entire world knows it. I remember Rumsfeld on TV before the war scoffing at a $200 Billion estimate for the war and saying that it would cost less than $50 Billion. Clearly he was wrong. Clinton is not "aiding the terrorists" by saying anything. They don't need help from Clinton, having the US military stomping around in the Middle East and our unilateral support for Israel are plenty. They probably didn't even notice him speaking.

Not that it matters to the Clinton issue but this war is completely different from Vietnam. Most notably in the massive amount of opposition before the war. There was almost no opposition to Vietnam for the first 8 years of that conflict.
GoingNova said:
Once the country goes to war, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!
Click to expand...
That may well be the most un-American thing anyone can say. If you think that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms are you trying to appease them by taking those freedoms away?

SISTER_KATE said:
Seriously how many Presidents do you look at and think "Blow Job"? Not many.
Click to expand...
Oh, about the same number as will be remembered for starting a war under questionable pretences.
Moderate One said:
We still babysit South Korea from the North Koreans. We sat in Germany for numerous years to protect the west from USSR. So people's expectations we pack up and leave quickly after a war is a bit unreasonable considering our past history.
Click to expand...
Those situations are not the same and hence the comparison invalid. There we were defending one country from an outside aggressor, that is not the situation in Iraq. Don't forget, "We will be greeted as liberators" and the war was supposed to take less than 6 months. Did I mention "Mission Accomplished"?
 
Free speech dies the moment we start to confuse dissent with giving aid and comfort to our enemies. It is not sufficient to say that "the time for debate is before the war starts" when one of the central arguments of the growing opposition is that we were led into this war under false pretenses. When, exactly, were we supposed to have this fair and open debate? When we had no reason to disbelieve what the President was telling us about Weapons of Mass Destruction? Or now that we know he was either misinformed or lying? Because it seems to me that that conversation cannot possibly take place before the war. And even if you believe that the President didn't lie to us or mislead us, you have to admit, that it's pretty abusive to expect those of us who do to be able to prove a negative about a weapons program in a foreign country to which we have no access.

I guess what I'm saying is this: if the debate before the war was--as the opposition now argues--stifled by misinformation, and if debate now is unpatriotic, unamerican, and helpful to the terrorists, when exactly do we get to debate this openly and freely? After the American withdrawal that we are debating about the timetable for? After the President is out of office and there's nothing we can do to hold him accountable? The Bush Administration's biggest contribution to American politics is not its tax cuts or wars, but its characterization of the national debate. It's easy to get re-elected, even when people don't like you, if you can stifle all dissent as unpatriotic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top