You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #57: Transcript of Bill Clinton interview, 2003 [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
frogmarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 08:05 PM
Response to Original message
57.  Transcript of Bill Clinton interview, 2003
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/031303-y-speech.htm

(snip)

Bill Clinton: But I also believe it's worth a whole lot over the long run to do this in a way that empowers international cooperation, instead of snubs our nose at it. So that's why I opted for the third way, I guess it's the third way because it's the third thing I said tonight. But you may not feel that way, you may feel that it's so bad, and that regime change is a value in and of itself-which is what my friends in Israel think. Most of my friends in Israel, whether they're Labor or Likud, favor regime change, and they're glad that the arms thing gives us an excuse to have regime change. Or you may believe that he (Saddam) presents no problem to us, he's weaker than he was in 1991, and he's sure not going to use or give away that stuff while we're looking down the barrel at him. That's the last thing in the world he's going to do. So why do we want to go to war, because once you start dropping bombs, I don't care how precise they are, innocent people will die.

This is not an easy issue. I could stand up here in a debate and make a case for either of the three courses, but I believe the third course is the correct one, and by the way, the only course that gives us a chance to have disarmament without war. Because if you ever thought a huge majority of the UN was hell-bent on disarmament, and prepared ultimately, if he forced us to use force, that's the only circumstance under which Saddam Hussein at length would disarm. That's another reason I favor the third course. It's the only we might have disarmament without war, as well as keeping the global community together.

(snip)

Do you believe this matters? If you believe it matters-as I do-then you have to decide if it matters whether we bend over backwards to try to disarm him in a way that strengthens rather than divides the world community. If you don't think it matters, then you're with a lot of the people in the current administration who think that we'll just go over there and this will take a few days, after we win-victors always get to write history-everybody will get over this and we'll get everybody back together and they'll be glad he's gone because he's a thug and a murderer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC