Iraq needs government now: Bill Clinton

[cal04]

FORMER US president Bill Clinton said Iraq needed to get a government up and running soon to stop the strife-torn country from becoming a "launching pad" for terrorists. He told BBC television this morning that rather than withdrawing US troops from Iraq, he would concentrate first on setting up a unity government that could command the support of different factions within the country. Asked if history would judge the current instability, sectarian violence and political vacuum in Iraq as a "Vietnam in the making", Mr Clinton said that depends on what happens now.

Earlier, insurgents carried out a series of attacks killing eight people, five of them from one Shiite family as the civil strife showed no sign of abating. "The most important thing is to talk about what might offer a way out," Mr Clinton said. "I think this has happened because it's been a long time since the election and no government has been stood up. "The increased capacity of the security forces to do their job therefore is largely irrelevant because they're not working on behalf of a coherent government which seems to have the allegiance of a majority of Shias, Sunnis and
Kurds.

"So the number one thing they've got to do is to realise they had this enormous turnout and Iraqis who risked their lives to vote, and they have gotten nothing for it. "There is no functioning government that can hold the country together and stop it from becoming a launching pad for terrorists." Iraqi parliamentarians met overnight to move forward the arduous negotiations on forming a government but could not reach a consensus. Talks had been suspended since Wednesday in a dispute between the dominant Shiites and minority Sunnis over who should oversee the security portfolio.

Efforts to form a government have dragged on since the December election in arguments over cabinet posts and rejection by the Kurds and Sunnis of incumbent Shiite Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari's candidacy to keep his job. Mr Clinton, whose eight-year term in office ended in 2001, was asked if he would withdraw US troops from Iraq were he still in power. "What I would do is focus on getting the government up and going, that could command the support of the country," he replied. "The security forces of the Iraqis are capable of doing a lot more protection work. If we had an ongoing government, America could reduce its forces more, put them in safer areas and change the composition. "You could have more special forces, more Arabic speakers, more intelligence people, they could be brought forth when they're needed."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18675963%255E1702,00.html

[bemildred]

1. It's too late, Bill.

The whole invasion was a stupid idea to start with, and you aren't going to fix it with more bullshit at this late date ...

[IsItJustMe]

6. I would agree, way to late. But we will be there until these idiots

figure that out.

[killerbush]

2. At least Clinton wouldn't have fucked it up

Like Chimpey has done.

[bemildred]

3. Bill would have taken longer to fuck it up.

But it still would have been just as fucked up, because Bill would still have agreed with the basic program. You can argue about whether that would have been better or worse; I don't think the difference matters much at this point.

[ECH1969]

4. No Iraq would have been in a civil war faster under Bill

His relience on air power is even greater then Bush's as shown by Bosnia. What Iraq needed was 400,000 US troops to keep order.

Iraq is really 3 seperate countries that hate each other, but can't be seperated because the oil is only in the north and the south of the country and the Sunnis would fight forever rather then be cut out of the oil.

[bemildred]

5. Iraq had 12 years of "air power" before we invaded.

It was not as fucked up as it is now.

Bill would not have sent 400K in either, and if he had, it would have just made it take longer. The notion that the invasion was not a bonehead stupid idea in the first place, that it was just done wrong, is a stupid idea, and it needs to be refuted every time it's suggested. The only feasible, moral, and intelligent approach to Iraq was to leave it alone.

[stillcool]

7. but....if the issue is the pipelines....

which I was under the impression....the whole 'Afghanistan-Taliban' thing was so the oil-companies could run the pipeline through a stable Afghanistan rather than meddle with the Iranians or the Russians..... and when the Taliban thing back-fired, they went to plan b...or the military option. Another administration may have been able to get the goods through other means. No?

[bemildred]

8. But it isn't the pipelines. That is wrong.

Which doesn't mean they would not do the pipelines if they could, it just means that that is not why they dragged us into this stupid war. They invaded with the intent to occupy Iraq and install a stooge government, to control Iraq; the various other "plans" are and were frosting.

[stillcool]

9. That is wrong?....

You seem very sure of that. Do you think this is about something other than geography?

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt="Image hosting by Photobucket"></a>

[bemildred]

10. It isn't just the pipelines, then, or primarily about the pipelines.

It is like the fact that the VietNam war was not about the rubber, and the destabilization of Nicaragua under Raygun was not about the bananas. The Iraq war was instigated for purposes of establishing and maintaining hegemony and political control in the region. One result of that, if successful, would be pipelines with oil in them going here and there.

I thought that clear from my post, but perhaps not.

[stillcool]

14. What I found clear in your post....

was that an opinion other than your own is wrong...invalid...and without merit.

If you flip over the rock of American foreign
policy of the past century, this is what crawls out ...

invasions ... bombings ... overthrowing
governments ... suppressing movements
for social change ... assassinating
political leaders ... perverting
elections ... manipulating labor unions ...
manufacturing "news" ... death squads ...
torture ... biological warfare ...
depleted uranium ... drug trafficking ...
mercenaries ...

It's not a pretty picture.
It is enough to give imperialism a bad name.
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/parenti.htm

[bemildred]

15. Absolutely, I rule.

Mr. Parenti is an amusing fellow, to be sure. And if it pleases you to believe that its all about the pipelines, then by all means do so. It appears to me that we more or less agree about US foreign policy, but feel free to argue anyway.

[allisonthegreat]

17. amen.but i still love bill..billclinton2008 n/t

[bemildred]

18. He is the pick of the litter.

I don't care for him a lot, but you have to give him credit when compared to his peers.

[Orsino]

13. Clinton wouldn't have *started* it.

He had eight years, and only kept a lid on Saddam. A brutal lid, but he didn't take office with a hard-on for *war*.

[bemildred]

16. Probably true, though hard to prove.

Bill was a much smarter man, at least when there were no interns around, then Bush and his cronies will ever be.

[Rex]

11. That's the problem with removing a dictator, Bill.

You have to be prepared to RUN everything and immediately do so. There are no guarantees on how long it will take for our RESPONSIBILITIES and OBLIGATIONS to be paid off in blood money. No one wants to run anything, because of assassinations. Should have taken Saddam out in the Gulf War. Another Bush dropped the ball on that one.

[WhiteTara]

12. Clenis is pimping for Poppy

Bill is such a kool aid drinker. You know Poppy put him up to this. Trying to sound reasonable in an unreasonable situation. I am so fed up with the propaganda out of all of them. Shut up Bill, and if you get those papers, you better not turn it into a right wing rahrah. :grr:

[bpilgrim]

19. are we supposed to get behind a theocratic rule of law?

i can't.

peace