The Scarlet Woman Is A War Monger (Rev 17)

Clinton was hawkish on Iraq war

In his May 28 letter, B. J. Roberts accused M. Reza Behnam (letters, May 25) of conducting a “tirade” against Hillary Clinton’s hawkishness in foreign affairs, labeling as “innuendo” his claim that her efforts against Saddam Hussein aligned perfectly with the neocons in demonizing the Iraqi leader.

Innuendo?

Let’s consider that further.

Clinton was among the minority of congressional Democrats who supported Republican President George W. Bush’s request for authorization to invade and occupy Iraq, a vote she says she cast “with conviction.”

In spite of being informed beforehand by prominent arms control analysts that none of the Bush administration’s claims and charges regarding Hussein’s possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons was true, Clinton persisted that they weren’t in doubt, and said “if left unchecked, Saddam … will continue to increase his capacity” to wage such war, disregarding his total lack of delivery systems.

She further sought to discredit those questioning the administration’s alarmist rhetoric by insisting that Iraq’s possession of such weapons and weapons programs were true, and said “if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

She even went so far as to insist that Hussein would “employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States,” justifying “action by the United States to defend itself” via invasion and occupation of that country, now disintegrating into ruin.

Roberts’ charge of “innuendo” — defined as “an allusive or oblique remark or hint” — is easily dismissed.

Bob Thompson
Eugene