Reply #16: I believe this analysis is correct.

[skyzics]

The policy of Bill Clinton regarding Iraq was not fundamentally different than that of either the current Bush or his daddy. Bill Clinton kept the sanctions going strong along with routine bombings in the US imposed (not UN sanctioned) no-fly zones. Inspections continued, along with spies being planted in order to try to ascertain Hussein's precise location, one presumes in order to target him for assassination. Bombing was intensified in 1998 after unilateral withdrawel of inspectors, killing civilians.

The aggression initiated by Bush One continued unabated throughout Bill Clinton's two terms. The rational was the save then as now - control of the oil and gas resources of the region and a determination to keep massive US forces in the region in order to prevent other foreign powers (read France, Germany, Russia, China) from becoming 'threats' to US interests (read US big oil).

Furthermore, the Democratic Party (for the most part), particularly the leadership of the party, voted to give Bush authority to go to war even though it was well-known that the stated reasons for the inevitable invasion were false and a fraud.

In fact, there is no particular reason to believe continued aggression against Iraq would not have occurred if Gore had been allowed his victory, though it probably would have taken a less extreme and costly form than we are seeing now.

Fundamentally, however, there are no differences between the leaders of the Democratic Party (including Bill Clinton) and Bush and the neo-cons regarding Iraq policy. Thus, Bill Clinton's remarks, while shocking to many considering the persecution he endured and still endures at the hand of the right-wing, should not, unfortunately, come as any great surprise.