Clinton Says Iraq War Justified...cites Libya action.

Clinton on Libya 2011

HILLARY CLINTON: But, Bob, I think it’s important to take a step back and put this into context.
When the Libyan people rose up as their neighbors across the region were doing and said,
“Look, we want to see a transition,” it was after forty-two years of erratic and brutal rule.
Qaddafi’s response was to basically not just ignore but to threaten and then to act on those
threats. Our-- our country along with many other countries were watching this unfold. The
United States Senate passed a resolution calling for a no-fly zone on March 1st. As, Bob
reminded everybody, there’s a difference between calling for it and actually enforcing it. When
the Security Council in a really stunning vote of ten to five--ten-four, five abstentions said, look,
take all necessary measures to fulfill this mission of protecting the Libyan people. It was a
mission that the United States, of course, was going to be in the forefront of because of our 5
unique capabilities. But look at the coalition of European, Canadian, Arab countries that have
come together to say, we’re going to make sure that we protect these civilians. The military
mission is not the only part of what we’re doing. We have very tough sanctions that are ferreting
out and freezing Qaddafi and Qaddafi family assets. We have a lot of diplomats and military
leaders in Libya who are flipping, changing sides, defecting because they see the handwriting
on the wall. We have an ongoing political effort that is, you know, really just picking up steam to
see if we can’t persuade-

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/FTN_0 ... ontentBody

Obama on Iraq in 2002

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

What is the imminent threat by Libya to the USA?

On Meet The Press this morning, after Defense Secretary Bob Gates conceded that Libya is not a “vital interest” of the United States–but before he could complete his comments–Hillary cut him off. She launched into a minute-and-forty-second monologue seeking to justify US military involvement in Libya.

So this must be a smart war, or police action, or whatever one wants to call it.

“If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority,”

[youtube:236qio1o][/youtube:236qio1o]

On ABC’s “This Week,” host Jake Tapper asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in the context of the Libya operation, “Why not go to Congress?”

“Well, we would welcome congressional support,” Clinton said, “but I don’t think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago.”

Wow, I guess she just justified the Iraq war.

She thinks we don't need to follow our own laws because

internationally authorized intervention

we have the rule of law of the U.N. Amazing, isn't it?

OK talk about confusing, Obama says it was due to a threat that Libya posed to us and the killing of innocent civilians, clinton says it is a human issue, So if it was strictly a humanitarian issue so the lefthand is not talking to the righthand. Imagine that.