Reply #12: Bill's Op-ed in the UK Guardian:

[mod mom]

One notable example that has yet to make the rounds is a March 18, 2003, op-ed by Bill Clinton in the UK Guardian, titled "Trust Tony's Judgment." Clinton chastised the European states that had vetoed a resolution by ex-Prime Minister Blair justifying the use of force against Saddam if the Iraqi dictator did not meet several time-specific deadlines for weapons inspections.

More importantly, Clinton rationalized the impending war on grounds that it would be far less dangerous than doing nothing at all.

As Clinton opined:

"As Blair has said, in war there will be civilian as well as military casualties. There is, too, as both Britain and America agree, some risk of Saddam using or transferring his weapons to terrorists. There is as well the possibility that more angry young Muslims can be recruited to terrorism. But if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam."

-snip

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/28/bill-clinton-i-was-for-_n_74501.html

I AM SICK OF LYING POLITICIANS WHO RE-WRITE HISTORY TO BENEFIT THEIR GOALS. WE NEED CHANGE IN THE WH-NOT CONTROVERSY OVER TRUTH. I REALIZE HE IS NOT RUNNING, BUT AS HRC REMINDS US YOU ELECT HER YOU GET BILL.