I bet that within a month of election day the Clintons will be houseguests of pater Bush in Kennebunkport. There will be high-fives and laughs all 'round.

I've never understood the fascination with Bill Clinton. As far as I've ever been concerned, he's the worst thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party. And he taught Tony Blair everything he knows. The two of them, and their 'hold power at any cost' mentality, are responsible for the demise of any hope of a progressive, left-wing government in either the US or the UK barring a major catastrophe on the order of the Great Depression or World War II.

Bastards.

Clinton was in a tough spot. He'd alluded early in his term to being willing to consider dropping the sanctions against Iraq. Immediately after that an "assassination attempt" on Bush Sr. occured which obviated any chance of a thaw.
Bush Sr. and Louis Freeh by then had begun setting up what amounted to a rogue State Dept. in Saudi Arabia and Cheney and his PNAC pals were pressuring Clinton into invading Iraq.
Clinton was stuck on the one hand justifying to the UN keeping the sanctions while staving off Cheney and the other jackals on the other. See, Bush Sr. didn't expect he'd be voted out of office, and these guys didn't just twiddle their thumbs for eight years - they kept working on their invade Iraq plan.

By the way, the earliest trace of the invade Iraq plan that I can find was a 1975-era Harpers article under the pseudonym of Miles Ignotious but was probably written by Kissinger.

Or President Clinton's February 1998 Statement on Iraq to the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

"In 1995, Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more."

I realize this is a whole other subset of lies and only remotely on topic, but here he's doing the same thing in this interview with Larry King in February 2003, a month before Newsweek let the public in on the big joke:

"You know, in 1995, keep in mind we had information from two members of his family, two men who had married into his family that defected to Jordan. They gave us the information and basically the Iraqis, said, OK, we were lying all of the time, here's what we really have. We went in and got that and destroyed it. Everything these guys knew about. Then they foolishly went back to Iraq and they were killed within a month of going back.

"In 1998, when we and the British bombed for four days when we kicked the inspectors out, we degraded their capacity further, but there's no question they've had some time to rebuild.

"Now based on the declarations they made in '99 and the estimates that were there in '91 at the end of the Gulf War, it's clear that the inspections destroyed more stuff than was destroyed in the Gulf War. but it's pretty clear there are still some things, substantial amounts of chemical and biological stocks unaccounted for."

And I find that last bit real funny. OTOH he didn't repeat the Bushian narrative about how Saddam kicked the inspectors out, so that's something.

This is what is perennially nauseating about American politics. I despised Clinton in office and despise him now and that goes for both of them, but would greatly prefer either in office to Bush.

Which is like saying that given a choice between having the earth hit next Tuesday by a 1 km asteroid vs. a 10 km asteroid, I'd prefer the smaller one.

It is not my fault, I could not help it, maybe I am weak willed but after reading the op-ed bonus posted by Jonathan I just had to see what Pollack is saying now, here in the present. So I took a look-see right here.

http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/pollack/20060820.htm

Here I discovered a very long essay on Iraq of all things and unbelievable as it may seem the man is still giving us advice!

Why?

Pollack is a man without shame, born without a filter. The best part of the piece comes at the very end which I am pasting below.

"How Iraq got to this point is now an issue for historians (and perhaps for voters in 2008); what matters today is how to move forward and prepare for the tremendous risks an Iraqi civil war poses for this critical region. The outbreak of a large-scale civil conflict would not relieve us of our responsibilities in Iraq; in fact, it could multiply them. Unfortunately, in the Middle East, one should never assume that the situation can't get worse. It always can -- and usually does."

Gee Kenny, how did Iraq get to this point? Never mind the book you wrote with the title a clever take on Winston Churchill's tome The Gathering Storm it is now an issue for historians everywhere. All I can say is Ken has an extremely selective memory.

Ken is a human dynamo and after regaling us with the dire threat of Iraq Ken is moving on to bigger and better things like Iran.

http://www.brook.edu/views/articles/pollack/20060612.htm

I believe it was Charles de Gaulle who said the grave yard is full of indispensable people so I must conclude Ken will be buried somewhere else.

Which is like saying that given a choice between having the earth hit next Tuesday by a 1 km asteroid vs. a 10 km asteroid, I'd prefer the smaller one.

At this point, I think the 10 km one would be for the best, all around.

Hillary? Please, God, no. Enough of your monstrous jokes. We really haven't sinned that badly.

rob payne wrote, "Here I discovered a very long essay on Iraq of all things and unbelievable as it may seem the man is still giving us advice!

"Why?"

Because someone is actually willing to give money to this idiot to dispense yet more "advice."

Yes, it helps that Pollack has no sense of honor, but follow the money.