President Clinton Calls Iraq Invasion "Big Mistake"

[MrsSpringsteen]

I am trying to locate a transcript of his entire remarks, maybe his library web site or some other site will have it..


By LARA SUKHTIAN, Associated Press Writer

Former President Clinton told Arab students Wednesday the United States made a "big mistake" when it invaded Iraq, stoking the partisan debate back home over the war.

Clinton cited the lack of planning for what would happen after Saddam Hussein was overthrown.

"Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done," Clinton told students at a forum at the American University of Dubai.

"It was a big mistake. The American government made several errors ... one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country."

Clinton's remarks came when he was taking questions about the U.S. invasion, which began in 2003. His response drew cheers and a standing ovation at the end of the hour-long session.

Clinton said the United States had done some good things in Iraq: the removal of Saddam, the ratification of a new constitution and the holding of parliamentary elections.

"The mistake that they made is that when they kicked out Saddam, they decided to dismantle the whole authority structure of Iraq. ... We never sent enough troops and didn't have enough troops to control or seal the borders," Clinton said.

As the borders were unsealed, "the terrorists came in," he said.

Clinton said it would have been better if the United States had left Iraq's "fundamental military and social and police structure intact."

 

[nbcrusader]

Clinton only shows us how easy it is to lead the last four years instead of the next four years.

 

[DrTeeth]

Piñata anyone?

 

[MumblingBono]

That makes him the 3,491,552,766th person to say that.

 

[anitram]

Took him long enough.

 

[A_Wanderer]

If the USA had left the Iraqi Military, Government Bodies and Police Force intact after the invasion then they would be installing another dictatorship. Mistakes were made but in lieu of the options they were the lesser evils.

 

[deep]

So a Shi'ite coalition with Iran and the balkaniation of Iraq is better?
it is going from a low intensity civil war

to an all out Civil War only a matter of time

and any body with any common sense saw this one coming

all the neo-con rosey predictions were just crap fed to an ignorant American public

any and all experts with any experience in these matters predicted this mess we have today

 

[A_Wanderer]

I disagree, I think that the political engagent across Iraq and the shift form the alliance to the Allawi and Kurdish bloc will be a good check against Shi'ite power. The constitution has been approved and the next round of elections will cement the government.

Coalition troop reductions over 2006 are forcast and that is a good thing, the base level of violence driven by an ongoing outside presence must be removed, more responsibility for the Iraqi forces will minimise dependence.

The Iraqi Shi'ites are Arabs, I do not think that they have any desire to be under the dominion of the Persians. They did not defect in the Iraq / Iran war.

 

[deep]

The Iraqi Shi'ites are Arabs, I do not think that they have any desire to be under the dominion of the Persians. They did not defect in the Iraq / Iran war.

Who's who in Iraq: Ayatollah Sistani
Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani is the prime marja, or spiritual reference, for Shia Muslims everywhere.

Ayatollah Sistani en route between Najaf and London for heart surgery
The reclusive cleric left Najaf for the first time in years for heart surgery
He is one of only five living grand ayatollahs and the most senior Shia cleric in Iraq.

During the regime of Saddam Hussein, the elderly cleric lived in uneasy stalemate with the status quo. He spent long periods under house arrest but avoided overt political activity.

The low-profile approach he had to adopt to survive in Iraq has been criticised by younger, more radical Shia leaders such as Moqtada Sadr.

In April 2003, just after the fall of the regime, club-wielding members of the Sadr Group besieged Ayatollah Sistani's house, demanding that he leave the country and that he recognise Moqtada Sadr as a marja.

The ayatollah went into hiding - but he since re-emerged to wield enormous power over Iraq's Shia majority.

The Persian-born ayatollah represents the conservative and mainstream of Iraqi Shias.

 

[Keebler884]

Actually, I thought Clinton supported the invasion of Iraq, just not the timing of it or (apparently) how the post-invasion is now been handled. In an interview with Time magazine in 2004, he is quoted as saying:

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over,"

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.

Pressed on whether the Iraq war was worth the cost to the United States, Clinton said he would not have undertaken the war until after U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix "finished his job."

 

[A_Wanderer]

In an important step towards more credible and fair elections, senior cleric Ali al-Sistani announced through his office that he will refrain from receiving any of the political leaders running for office in the next elections and will reject the many requests made by many Iraqi politicians.

In my opinion, such steps constitute real support for the coming elections and a declaration on the part of the Ayatollah of his awareness of the previous mistake when politicians convinced the clergy into endorsing their lists which resulted in rendering the clergy liable for criticism from the public and affected its popularity rewarding the clergy with nothing but contempt from the people due to the poor performance of Jafari’s government.

People here are cautious (I mean the liberal people) from the interference of the clergy with the elections like what happened last time and I’ve discussed with many people that the outcome of last time’s experience will make it hard for the clerics to get involved in a similar mess again and tell them that there’s no need to be afraid this time.

The previous lesson they learned from the January elections and the aftermath was in my opinion enough to convince the Sheat senior clerics that they were wrong by interfering with politics while as to Sunni clerics, they will try their luck this time, apparently without making use of others’ mistakes and actually this is not something unexpected since we’re still in the early stages of learning how to accept and practice democracy and making mistakes will remain the main source of knowledge for some time. Here maybe I should refer to Salih al-Mutlaq’s separation from the main Sunni (mostly religious) list; this man has recognized that depending on sectarian emotions and affiliations isn’t going to take him and his party anywehere, I have reservations on this man though but I do encourage his choice and maybe his statement yesterday when he met Jack Straw about his interest in building a liberal state represents a positive sign to neutralizing clerics of both sects.

Don’t think I’m saying that the religious factor has been totally excluded or neutralized for good but I’m trying to say that it’s being reduced in magnitude and influence and the its interference in politics will undoubtedly be less pronounced next time and this is what I believe in. As a matter of fact, we have already seen signs indicating this change in the constitutional referendum where the voters turnout in the Sheat dominated cities was relatively lower when compared with January elections and the turnout in other regions despite the clergy’s call to participate in the referendum.

The coming election will certainly not be extensively governed by emotions like last time, well, at least when it comes to the Sheat, from what I hear and see here I tend to believe that voters are going to be more careful with whom to vote form.

And I’d like to remind those who persist to say that Iraq is a failed case that next month we will have witnessed three democratic carnivals within only one year, on January, October and one yet to come on December and I believe this alone is a striking proof on the accomplishments of a nation that has just emerged from the horrors of 35 years of tyranny and suppression and what adds to the value of the proofs of this success is that more of the community factions have joined the march and I want to remind you also that we’re human and we do err, one elections is not enough to state whether we’re successful or not and it is dead wrong to judge a country this way; we’re moving forward and nothing can stop the progress, this something I’m damn sure of.

link

And the wealth of Fatwas put out by Sistani and his hands off approach towards the Iraqi government is a good thing and represents the mainstream Shiite opinion, he has minimised sectarian violence. Iraqi Shiites are Arabs, they are not Persians.

 

[deep]

Sistani ...has minimised sectarian violence. Iraqi Shiites are Arabs, they are not Persians.

some jack ass blogger is not a very reliable source

Ali al-Sistani was born in Mashhad, Iran (Persia) to a family of religious scholars. His grandfather, for whom he was named, was a famous scholar who had studied at Najaf. Sistani's family comes from the area of Iran known as Sistan, which accounts for the title "al-Sistani" in his name. Sistani began his religious education as a child, beginning in Mashhad, and moving on to study at the Shia holy city of Qom in central Iran. After spending a few years there, he went to Iraq to study in Najaf under Grand Ayatollah Abul-Qassim Khoei.

Wiki can be wrong, but is more credible, I can post more


this "Iraqi shi'ites are Arabs" is a crap line put out by Bush Admin to cover the asses


Sunnis are more Arab

and that is why we are in a civll war

 

[A_Wanderer]

Arab is an ethnic group! Just like Persian or Kurd. Iraq is an overwhelmingly Arab country, wikipedia puts it at:

75% - 80% Arab
15% - 20% Kurdish
3% - 5% Turkoman, Assyrian or other

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iraq

It is true that more Arabs are Sunnis but saying that Sunnis are more Arab is like saying that Protestants are more white than Catholics.

The divide is religious not ethnic, Sistani is Persian and he is their spiritual leader but that does not make them Persian which is a different ethnic group.

That jack-ass blogger is giving his opinion of his own countries political situation. He links to stories from a lot of the Arab press and translates polls and what is going on. That information and those views (in addition to reading the press here) are valid.

 

[deep]

Arab is an ethnic group! Just like Persian or Kurd. Iraq is an overwhelmingly Arab country, wikipedia puts it at:

75% - 80% Arab
15% - 20% Kurdish
3% - 5% Turkoman, Assyrian or other

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iraq

It is true that more Arabs are Sunnis but saying that Sunnis are more Arab is like saying that Protestants are more white than Catholics.

The divide is religious not ethnic, Sistani is Persian and he is their spiritual leader but that does not make them Persian which is a different ethnic group.

That jack-ass blogger is giving his opinion of his own countries political situation. He links to stories from a lot of the Arab press and translates polls and what is going on. That information and those views (in addition to reading the press here) are valid.

I am not one that likes to make distinctions , but

"saying that Sunnis are more Arab is like saying that Protestants are more white than Catholics."

is probably correct


the Shi'ite Iraqis have a stronger loyalty to their religion
than to the concept of a united Iraq sharing power with Sunnis

 

[A_Wanderer]

But the Shiites have not been the ones leading the insurgency, they have the demographic edge their rights are protected in a democratic government, the Sunni minority is the group that feels threatened but the increasing political engagement and split between the Jihadist element and domestic insurgency show that this can be resolved with compromise and diplomacy. The constitution was a move forward on that front and the the elections will be a test of it. Securing the borders with coalition forces and handing the security over to the Iraqi Army will reduce violence and enable the removal of foreign forces.

 

[deep]

But the Shiites have not been the ones leading the insurgency,

Why would they??

It is breaking their way.

They HAVE the numbers!

All they have to do is wait it out.

It is set up so that they can get control.

That is why Sistani is advocating no violence
and work the process.


AND

that is why the SUNNIS are doing everything they are doing.

and why it is a low level civil war now

the WILL blow wide open when the Shi'ites take more and leave little for the Sunnis

the Kurds will not go over the top in fighting

they will demand "de facto" autonomy
much like they have enjoyed during the "no-fly" years

 

[NYRangers78]

if clinton is calling a new government and everything else a mistake, why did he tell america in 1998 that saddam posed a threat to world security because of his WMD programs.

he also said:

"the best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new iraqi government- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people".

he also warned that establishing such a government would take a great deal of effort and time...


now all of a sudden hes got a problem?

 

[Irvine511]

if clinton is calling a new government and everything else a mistake, why did he tell america in 1998 that saddam posed a threat to world security because of his WMD programs.

he also said:

"the best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new iraqi government- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people".

he also warned that establishing such a government would take a great deal of effort and time...


now all of a sudden hes got a problem?

it's not what was done, but how it was done that is the problem. i know many people who would have supported the removal from saddam IF it had been done in a smart, savvy fashion -- how the bush administration has done this is indicative of their inability to govern, their lack of attention span for the details, and their disinterest in understanding Iraqi society. first, to invade essentially unilaterally and pissing off the rest of the world, followed by the disbanding of the iraqi army, compounded by any sort of anticipation of an insurgency and inability to provide basic security, has caused iraq to become a quagmire that it didn't necessarily have to become. i think it's very possible to say that you are glad that saddam hussein is gone, that a new government that just might turn out to resemble a representative deomcracy, that these are good things -- but they were achieved at such a high cost, and now iraqi's are becoming suicide bombers and the insurgency is stronger than ever and getting deadlier, that when you look back you must admit that how it was all done was a mistake.

 

[Iskra]

CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[A_Wanderer]

So you keep the Iraqi Army in place to supress any potential insurgency without the deBaathification, then you will be accused of hypocricy (why go after some Baathists and not others) and the blood of people killed by the Iraqi army as it was dealing with problems would be because of that decision.

It is very easy to look back and say that that is what should have been done, it is also quite easy to pick out predictions by individuals that have turned out to be true, much like it is to pick out ones that never came to pass (e.g. Bogged down at the gates of Baghdad, Harsh Afghan Winter, Killer Duststorms, Elections Never Taking Place etc.).

 

[A_Wanderer]

but they were achieved at such a high cost, and now iraqi's are becoming suicide bombers and the insurgency is stronger than ever and getting deadlier, that when you look back you must admit that how it was all done was a mistake.

I really suggest that you take a look at the statistics of attacks, casualties and deaths as well as the political movements on the ground, the insurgency was unable to mount any serious campaign to undermine the parliamentary elections and attacks have been going down for months, if Sunni engagement continues then this trend can only continue so the real indicators of success or failure will be visible in six months. But as it stands over the last six months at least the Insurgency has not been getting any stronger.

 

[STING2]

The last significant increase in the Iraqi insurgency took place at the start of April 2004.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Now to clarify since then what has happened.