Bill Clinton: If not for the U.S. invasion, none of what’s happening in Iraq right now would be happening

posted at 6:41 pm on June 26, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite, an easy lay-up here for a guy who (a) warned the world about Saddam’s WMD threat more than once as president, (b) cautiously declined to take a firm position against the war at the time, and (c) is of course married to someone who cast a vote in the Senate to invade.

But never mind that. This is an interesting counterfactual: What would have happened to Iraq during the Arab Spring and Syrian uprising if Saddam had endured? Clinton implicitly assumes that ISIS advancing on Baghdad is the worst possible outcome of the past 10 years, which is the smart play politically when your wife’s desperate to appease the anti-war left en route to her party’s nomination. Is it true, though? Assume that Egyptians had toppled Mubarak in 2011 with Saddam watching from Baghdad. At a minimum, he would have cracked down hard on Iraq’s Shiites to suppress an insurrection before it caught fire, and if you know anything about the 1991 Shiite uprising, you know how much blood a Saddam “crackdown” could draw. Meanwhile, maybe the Sunnis across the border in Syria, inspired by Mubarak’s ouster, still would have revolted against Assad. What would have been Saddam’s move then? He could have come to Assad’s rescue, one Baathist defending another from a rebellion in the name of protecting autocracy, but his relations with Assad were poor so he may well have stood pat — in which case Iran might have moved to defend Assad, fearing that the Sunnis in Syria would overrun the Shiite regime just as Saddam was crushing the Shiites in Iraq. That would have put Iranian forces on two of Iraq’s borders, an encirclement Saddam couldn’t tolerate. In which case, maybe he’d throw in with Syria’s Sunnis in the name of bleeding Iran. He wasn’t above cooperating with terrorists when it served his interests; in fact, one of his chief henchmen is rumored to be working with ISIS right now against Maliki. Would a long proxy war in Syria, with Saddam and Sunni jihadis on one side and Iran, Hezbollah, and Assad on the other, have been better or worse for the region? The virtue of it, such as it is, is that it would have kept a gigantic mess of degenerates fighting with each other instead of thinking about America. What the death toll would have looked like, though, heaven only knows. That’s the thing about the Middle East — there’s really no such thing as a good outcome. That’s the point Clinton should have made vis-a-vis the hubris of the U.S. invasion, not raising a counterfactual that relies on Saddam Hussein as some sort of moderating force.

Exit question: How would Saddam have reacted over the past 10 years to his archenemies in Iran bringing thousands of new uranium centrifuges online?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Liar

Schadenfreude on June 26, 2014 at 6:42 PM

If not for the obama-retreat, this wouldn’t yet be on the radar.

Since Jan. the US intelligence have been after obama to bomb ISIS and he ignored. This is all on obama, for leaving Iraq, after it was won, and for not bombing the ISIS convoys.

Plus, aren’t these potential ISIS?

The obamas/Clintons are scorchers of the USA.

Schadenfreude on June 26, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Thanks for telling the world Iraq had WMD’S.

rob verdi on June 26, 2014 at 6:45 PM

This has nothing to do with Cheney.

ISIS wanted and got a caliphate, with lots of green lights from obama.

ISIS will get through the open Southern borders and they will play soccer with American heads, soon.

Schadenfreude on June 26, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Because a black guy couldn’t really be expected to manage things, eh Bill?

rogerb on June 26, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Actually, on the face of it, quite true.
Instead, Saddam Hussein would have spent the last decade funding other terrorists, torturing and killing HIS enemies, possibly invading other countries, and potentially have developed actual working WMDs beyond the chemical weapons he already had….

dentarthurdent on June 26, 2014 at 6:48 PM

And few years ago obozo would be fetching you coffee.

Flange on June 26, 2014 at 6:48 PM

So what’s happening in Libya right now, and of course those 4 Americans who died, what caused all of that?

All we’ve got in Iraq is a continuation of the war between one group of savages and another over the issue of where Mohammed banged his first underage bride.

Or what, muslim sectarian barbarism hasn’t been occurring almost everywhere for the last 1400 years?

Bishop on June 26, 2014 at 6:49 PM

And if Bill had killed Osama when he had the chance, 3,000 people wouldn’t have been slaughtered on a sunny Tuesday morning.

RadClown on June 26, 2014 at 6:51 PM

Uh, Knucklehead? Your idiotic wife voted to go to war in Iraq when she was the Junior Senator from New York, remember?

Idiots.

Johnnyreb on June 26, 2014 at 6:51 PM

INVASION?

Billy Jeff you talking about the one on the Southern border that you helped create with the NAFTA precedent, and continuing the Open Borders policy of your Dad George HW?

Or are you talking about the invasion that happened in the Oval Office with your intern?

Ruling Class power Whore.

PappyD61 on June 26, 2014 at 6:51 PM

Bill, you will never win a “if not for” argument when it comes to Iraq.

Also, remember these words that came out of your mouth “Regime Change!”

can_con on June 26, 2014 at 6:52 PM

I fondly remember the days when past presidents stayed out of the political conversation. Take a hint Willy…

GrayDog on June 26, 2014 at 6:53 PM

This analysis assumes that the Arab spring was not caused (either in whole or in part) by the Iraq war itself, and the idea that a dictator could be toppled in the first place.

Revenant on June 26, 2014 at 6:54 PM

Thank Hillary, Bill.

CW on June 26, 2014 at 6:54 PM

MY god, I wish I had the luxury of living in a fcking fantasy land.

Diluculo on June 26, 2014 at 6:56 PM

Boooooooosh…

sandee on June 26, 2014 at 6:56 PM

Another liberal liar who has overstayed his welcome in the public eye.

tej on June 26, 2014 at 6:57 PM

Coming from the guy who passed on killing bin laden more than once…

frost_ on June 26, 2014 at 6:57 PM

I fondly remember the days when past presidents stayed out of the political conversation. Take a hint Willy…

GrayDog on June 26, 2014 at 6:53 PM

Yabut – he’s also planning/working to be the future first male first lady.
Just can’t wait to get his hands on a new batch of interns….

dentarthurdent on June 26, 2014 at 6:58 PM

So, if it weren’t for the invasion, Wahabbists would be living in peace with Shi’ites, the way they are in the rest of the Middle East?

A Chair of Some Kind on June 26, 2014 at 6:58 PM

Clinton ordered the overthrow of Iraq.

portlandon on June 26, 2014 at 6:59 PM

Meanwhile, maybe the Sunnis across the border in Syria, inspired by Mubarak’s ouster, still would have revolted against Assad. What would have been Saddam’s move then?

Or he’d have attacked Assad in a land grab. Iran then attacks Saddam who responds by recreating his WMD program and the Mid-East would be a white hot mess. In other words it would have been Tuesday in the Mid-East.

rbj on June 26, 2014 at 7:00 PM

Must be where the Clintons went broke. Soothsaying and what.

Bmore on June 26, 2014 at 7:00 PM

Once a dbag, always a dbag.

pambi on June 26, 2014 at 7:00 PM

The situation in Iraq is thanks to Mohammed.

Dan_Yul on June 26, 2014 at 7:02 PM

Actually, he may be right, though not for the reasons he states. Without liberals whipping up their idiotic base with Bush hatred, I don’t think we have an Obama Presidency, which means he’s not around to burn down the ME. Of course, that assumes another incompetent wouldn’t have taken over the Presidency and burnt down the ME, but still.

brainy435 on June 26, 2014 at 7:03 PM

OT – do your part

Schadenfreude on June 26, 2014 at 7:04 PM

If Clinton isn’t the perfect example of a cynical opportunist, he does a damn good job impersonating one.

BD57 on June 26, 2014 at 7:04 PM

If Bill wouldn’t been elected President then Monica Lewinsky would have never had a semen stained blue dress…

albill on June 26, 2014 at 7:10 PM

What ifs are always fun to play.

albill on June 26, 2014 at 7:11 PM

The Democrats are trying to set up the blame game when ISIS hits a European or US target.

albill on June 26, 2014 at 7:12 PM

If this is an example of Bill being the more intelligent of the two on foreign policy, Hillary is in big trouble.

BigAlSouth on June 26, 2014 at 7:12 PM

Exit question: How would Saddam have reacted over the past 10 years to his archenemies in Iran bringing thousands of new uranium centrifuges online?

Exactly. There is an alternate history where Saddam still rules Iraq and the UN sanctions have become meaningless and unenforced, which is the direction things were heading in 2003. Liberals never address this.

Mark1971 on June 26, 2014 at 7:12 PM

Bill Clinton: If not for the U.S. invasion, none of what’s happening in Iraq right now would be happening

Says the moron that called for a regime change in 1998. Pass the hat around you morally broke S.O.B.

Rovin on June 26, 2014 at 7:13 PM

OT – do your part

Schadenfreude on June 26, 2014 at 7:04 PM

#GiveOurUnderwareBack

VegasRick on June 26, 2014 at 7:13 PM

Bill Clinton- BlackHawk Down, and Bill SHUT-UP!

October 3, 2013
Black Hawk Down: 20 Years Later

Despite the increasing military operations tempo from nation building and the hunt for Aidid, the Clinton administration cut back U.S. resources as congressional pressure mounted to bring home U.S. troops. Thus, mission and resources were disconnected. Amid those cutbacks, U.S. commanders in Somalia requested armored vehicles, tanks, and AC-130 gunships fearing increasing danger to U.S. personnel. Secretary of Defense Les Aspin rejected those requests citing U.S. policy to reduce troop presence in Somalia.

American troops paid the price for Aspin’s decision. Instead of an AC-130 fixed-wing gunship flying out of range of rocket-propelled grenades with its powerful and highly-accurate cannon suppressing enemy resistance, helicopters were the only available aerial asset and were forced to fly low and slow over enemy-infested buildings in broad daylight. Black Hawk Down author Mark Bowden said in 2002 that it is likely there would not have been a battle in Mogadishu had the AC-130 been available. As a U.S. convoy attempted to get wounded troops back to base, their lightly armored Humvees were torn up by small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. Heavy casualties in the convoy delayed return to the airport and cost lives.

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2013/10/03/black_hawk_down_20_years_later_106897.html

canopfor on June 26, 2014 at 7:15 PM

And if Bill had killed Osama when he had the chance, 3,000 people wouldn’t have been slaughtered on a sunny Tuesday morning.

RadClown on June 26, 2014 at 6:51 PM

Yup.
He bombed an aspirin factory instead.

itsnotaboutme on June 26, 2014 at 7:15 PM

What would have happened to Iraq during the Arab Spring and Syrian uprising if Saddam had endured?

The same thing that happened all during his reign.

A lot of dead Arabs…

JohnGalt23 on June 26, 2014 at 7:16 PM

And if Bill had killed Osama when he had the chance, 3,000 people wouldn’t have been slaughtered on a sunny Tuesday morning.

RadClown on June 26, 2014 at 6:51 PM

Yup.
He bombed an aspirin factory instead.

itsnotaboutme on June 26, 2014 at 7:15 PM

itsnotaboutme:

You two nailed that,………….exactly:)

canopfor on June 26, 2014 at 7:16 PM

Clinton ordered the overthrow of Iraq.

portlandon on June 26, 2014 at 6:59 PM

“It’s GWB’s fault, not mine, that he took a liar like me to be sincere and serious.” -President Horndog

non-nonpartisan on June 26, 2014 at 7:18 PM

Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell
Published May 19, 2004
**********************

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/05/19/tests-confirm-sarin-in-iraqi-artillery-shell/

canopfor on June 26, 2014 at 7:20 PM

Detailed Preliminary Assessment of Chemical Weapons Findings
Iraq’s Chemical Warfare Program – Annex F

Chemical Munitions—Other Finds
Introduction

Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components.

The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist.

ISG has no information to indicate that Iraq produced more binary Sarin rounds than it declared, however, former Iraqi scientists involved with the program admitted that the program was considered extremely successful and shelved for future use. According to the source, General Amer al-Saadi sought to downplay its findings to the UN to avoid heightened attention toward the program.

Under UN Security Resolution 687, Iraq should have destroyed or rendered harmless all CW munitions, but we cannot determine without additional information whether the rounds we have recovered were declared or if their destruction was attempted.

An Iraqi source indicated that when weapons were forward-deployed in anticipation of a conflict, the CW weapons often became mixed in with the regular munitions, and were never accounted for again. Another source stated that several hundred munitions moved forward for the Gulf war, and never used, were never recovered by retreating Iraqi troops. A thorough post-OIF search of forward depots turned up nothing—if the weapons were indeed left behind, they were looted over the 12 years between the wars.
Iraq’s unilateral destruction of weapons in 1991 was far from perfect—a February 2003 UNMOVIC inspection at the Al Azziziyah Firing Range to attempt to account for 157 R-400 bombs by inspecting the debris turned up 8 bombs that had survived the 1991 explosions. So it is possible that Iraqi—or even UN—explosion pits could have been looted of a few surviving munitions.
Because of poor Iraqi inventory accounting, simple pilferage before or after the 1991 Gulf war could have resulted in some lost munitions.

May 04: 155mm Chemical Munitions Used as an Improvised Explosive Device
Military units recovered a 155mm artillery round near Baghdad International Airport. Analysis of the residue at the bottom of the round by ISG field labs returned positive indications for sulfur mustard CW agent. The lab results, type and condition of the round, and the lack of markings indicate it is an Iraqi CW-filled 155mm round left over from the pre-1991 Iraqi program. The lack of a driving band makes it difficult to determine whether the round was fired, where it was acquired, andsuggests the band probably was looted (see Figure 1).

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxF.html

canopfor on June 26, 2014 at 7:21 PM

Hey, Bill, why don’t you just shut your trap and go back to bed– preferably your own?

ricoliv on June 26, 2014 at 7:23 PM

So,…um, Billy is trying Revisisionist History Narrational
Operation Mission for HilKilRod me thinks!!

End result, to muddle the information stream, to Low Info Voters (LiV)!!

canopfor on June 26, 2014 at 7:25 PM

Haiti was the good invasion, I guess.

wolly4321 on June 26, 2014 at 7:25 PM

Woulda, coulda, shoulda ….

Allah makes all the right points. Still, Iraq is a lesson about foreign intervention and country building. More and more, the stock libertarian view seems to be holding. Whether you agree with that or not, our deficit is going to topple us before Jihadi’s do anyway – we can’t afford more messes like this. A strong defense yes, foreign intervention, no. Besides, they are just a bloody lot, let them get it out of their system on their soil. If we have to, take the oil fields and let the bloodthirsty fools slice each other up. Cynical, ya betcha babe. Besides, I am just baiting Libby Freordie.

Interesting exit question. My word. Seems to answer itself … Oy. OK so I am wishy washy – I haven’t had dinner yet. Get over it.

Chuck Ef on June 26, 2014 at 7:26 PM

Did we ever invade Syria?? Just asking. Syria and Iraq were ruled by Baathist dictators. Both had Russian supplied armies. Both threatened and invaded neighbors. Both produced chemical weapons. Oh and both are under attack from radical Sunni jihadists.Both current govts are supported by Iran. That is the only difference between pre 03 and post 03 Syria and Iraq. If the Clintons really believe the no invasion no civil war stuff they’ve actually inhaled this time.

xkaydet65 on June 26, 2014 at 7:29 PM

From the guy who took greater interest in pussy than the PHONE CALL to green light greasing Osama Bin Laden.
Two Words: Blue Dress

A Great Politician my arse … yet another Gimmedat with full Praetorian Guard treatment from the Presstitutes.

How many Gimmedats urged action against Hussein (the Original) and his WMD’s? TRY and deny it if you wish TROOLS but starting with Madeline Albright the LIST includes EVERY FUNCTIONAL LEADER in the Gimmedat Party for Gawdsake!

I agree with an earlier response: It Must be GREAT living in the World of Make Believe.
Harry Truman must be spinning at fifteen-thousand RPM!

Missilengr on June 26, 2014 at 7:31 PM

Every time I see a Clinton face on my iPad I’m tempted to spit on the screen.

Chowderhead123 on June 26, 2014 at 7:33 PM

For the party of science and living documents, there sure is a lot of static ponding in their platform.

BKeyser on June 26, 2014 at 7:36 PM

And if your daddy hadn’t done that, you wouldn’t be here. What a nice thought. This guy needs to shut up.

PaCadle on June 26, 2014 at 7:38 PM

what is happening in Iraq would still have happened, e.g. Libya, and Egypt

RonK on June 26, 2014 at 7:41 PM

Obama owns nothing.

CW on June 26, 2014 at 7:43 PM

Would a long proxy war in Syria, with Saddam and Sunni jihadis on one side and Iran, Hezbollah, and Assad on the other, have been better or worse for the region?

It would have been better- give Saddam permission to take Syria and then plan another war against Iran. It was only when Saddam invaded the wrong country that he became the bad guy- all his other battles were just fine by the US.

The suppression of fundamentalist Islam couldn’t have been a bad thing.

bayam on June 26, 2014 at 7:48 PM

Gee, Bill, everything was fine before a Liberal Democrat took over.

John the Libertarian on June 26, 2014 at 7:51 PM

Every time I see a Clinton face on my iPad I’m tempted to spit on the screen.

Chowderhead123 on June 26, 2014 at 7:33 PM

Go ahead! That’s what they’re for.

John the Libertarian on June 26, 2014 at 7:52 PM

He is right. The savages were killing each other but on this scale.
The Iraq war gave the barbarians license to kill en masse

weedisgood on June 26, 2014 at 7:52 PM

The savages were killing each other but not on this scale*

weedisgood on June 26, 2014 at 7:53 PM

Well if you want to play that game, the whole modern middle eastern problem was started by Jimmy Carter. His causing the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, allowing the Iatolas to take control is why.

portlandon on June 26, 2014 at 7:53 PM

There are lots of wild cards in this second-guessing game, and Saddam was as wild as they come.

Saddam was a Baathist dictator first, and a Sunni a distant second. Although Saudi Arabia is mostly Sunni, Saddam had no love for the Saudis, and probably would have invaded Saudi Arabia if the US hadn’t intervened after the invasion of Kuwait. After the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam, Saudi Arabia didn’t have to worry about Iraq, and could consolidate its efforts at defending itself from Iran. If Saddam was still in power now, would Saudi Arabia be trying to defend itself against two enemies?

Would those 1,800 tons of yellowcake removed by Americans in 2004 now be made into atomic bombs if Saddam had been in power these last 11 years?

The American invasion that toppled Saddam also killed his two sons. What if Saddam remained in power for a few years, then died of natural causes, and Uday or Qusay was now running Iraq, who were even more brutal than their father?

Steve Z on June 26, 2014 at 7:56 PM

So what did you do Billy Boy after :
1. US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Dar-e-salam
2. Khobar towers bombings
3. WTC bombings
4. USS Cole bombing
5. You were offered Osama
???????
Sold out your country to wahabis for a few million dollars ?

burrata on June 26, 2014 at 7:56 PM

Obama owns nothing.

CW on June 26, 2014 at 7:43 PM

Without the Iraq war there is no Obama presidency.
Bush and Cheney gave us Obama.

weedisgood on June 26, 2014 at 8:01 PM

Bush and CheneySTUPIDS AND BLACKS gave us Obama.


weedisgood on June 26, 2014 at 8:01 PM

and it can be proved !

burrata on June 26, 2014 at 8:07 PM

it is like saying “I wouldn’t have had an accident if you didn’t have a car.”

Dannic on June 26, 2014 at 8:08 PM

Why is Clinton even commenting on this? The fact that Bill is even commenting reveals the sheer panic happening on the left right now. They really believed their rhetoric and it is failing on an unimaginable scale right now, both in foreign and domestic policy. Frankly, I am shocked they are so out in the open with telling the American middle class to f off in their push for a large underclass, er, I mean amnesty. Democrat party is crashing and burning right before our eyes. Not that nobody never saw it coming.

Ellis on June 26, 2014 at 8:22 PM

What difference does it make?

Ronnie on June 26, 2014 at 8:41 PM

It was only when Saddam invaded the wrong country that he became the bad guy- all his other battles were just fine by the US.

brayam on June 26, 2014 at 7:48 PM

Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act 7 years after the Gulf War in Kuwait.

How come it took him so long to call Saddam the Bad Guy?

And that same year, his DOJ indicted bin Laden, and specifically (Article 1, Section 4) charged him with being in cahoots with Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

How come it took him so long to do that?

F-

Del Dolemonte on June 26, 2014 at 8:46 PM

Every time I see a Clinton face on my iPad I’m tempted to spit on the screen.

Chowderhead123 on June 26, 2014 at 7:33 PM

Slick Willie doesn’t need any more lube.

James on June 26, 2014 at 8:56 PM

The jackass never did a thing to quell the growing threat at the time he was in office. He wagged the dog and took advantage of woman.

crosshugger on June 26, 2014 at 9:06 PM

So says the first sex offender preznit who blinked in a stare-down with Haiti.

viking01 on June 26, 2014 at 9:19 PM

Keep runnin’ that mouth, Bill…If you had had any balls you’d have taken out bin Laden when you had him in your sights, and 9/11 would have never happened, either.

Hind sight is 20/20, and 2nd guessing from a liar who kept his pants around his ankles throughout his time in the Oval Office is something I place little credence to.

bimmcorp on June 26, 2014 at 9:27 PM

Saddam, the Sunni “Ba’athist” would never have gone to the resume of Assad, the Shi’ite “Ba’athist”! That’s why they were rivals/frenimies to begin with! I’ve had to tell people that for over 20 years!

Dale in Atlanta on June 26, 2014 at 9:43 PM

Hey, Willie!

Remember when you cut and ran from Mog?

That’s when thus started.

formwiz on June 26, 2014 at 9:56 PM

WOW! REALLY!? Thanks, Bill!

Say, when you’re done with that ‘crystal ball into an alternate universe’, can I borrow it? …lotto night, you know!

…ass-clown.

a5minmajor on June 26, 2014 at 10:11 PM

If my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle.

schmuck281 on June 26, 2014 at 10:23 PM

It’s like saying had the U.S. not defeated Nazi Germany then the Cold War would not have happened.

Saddam was shooting as U.S. planes thus explicitly violating the ceasefire treaty.

ISIS is gaining ground because Obama refused to leave a stabilizing force behind like Germany and Japan had after WWII.

Perspicacious on June 26, 2014 at 11:16 PM

Hey Bill . . . If you had accepted Bin Laden as a gift back in the late 1990′s – 9/11 would not have happened either.

Nat George on June 26, 2014 at 11:37 PM

This is the money question:

Exit question: How would Saddam have reacted over the past 10 years to his archenemies in Iran bringing thousands of new uranium centrifuges online?

But that is only half of it. Also ask, how would the Saudi’s (and the Egyptians, Kuwati’s and everyone else in the middle east) react to Saddam and Iran pursuing Nukes.

Deafdog on June 27, 2014 at 9:13 AM

If my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle.

schmuck281 on June 26, 2014 at 10:23 PM

LOL….I’m gonna to steal that line.

Deafdog on June 27, 2014 at 9:14 AM

I do believe Mr Clinton really has no way of knowing what would have happened if there were no invasion. We could also say if those idiots had not flown plane into the World Trade Center there would not have been an invasion. However, since we are going down the road of make believe, let’s imagine another fantasy. Had President Clinton done the right thing and killed Bin Laden when he had the chance, perhaps none of this would be happening. If President Clinton had taken the threat from there terrorist groups seriously, taken proper action (you can decide what that might have been, since we are wandering down “make believe lane”). Perhaps if Mrs Clinton had not gotten up there giving speeches about how dangerous Saddam Hussein and his WMD’s were to peace in the Middle East, and indeed to the world, others might not have voted along with her, to invade Iraq. It’s amazing the “fantasy world” the Clinton’s have crated since they left the White House.

yathink on June 27, 2014 at 9:56 AM

Bill Clinton? Wasn’t he the president who signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, making regime change the official policy of the United States?

J Baustian on June 27, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Wasn’t this idiot once touted as the smartest man in the world? More proof that education is not the solution for stupidity. If it wasn’t for the “useful idiots” this guy would have never risen above the status of draft dodger.

savage24 on June 27, 2014 at 3:27 PM