Bill Clinton: “Well, let's take them each in turn here. First of all, I think the response that we selected was entirely appropriate…”

“Well, let's take them each in turn here. First of all, I think the response that we selected was entirely appropriate under the circumstances. This will partly answer the second one. Keep in--here is what happened; this was a complicated matter. The United States and the entire world community told Saddam Hussein, you know, don't invade, in effect, the Kurdish communities in northern Iraq; yes, they're in your country, but part of the United Nation resolution was that you should not repress your people. Now, the situation was considerably complicated by the fact that the leader of one of the Kurdish factions actually asked him to do it, wanted to make, if you will, a temporary marriage. So he did it. From our point of view, it still constituted a violation of the U.N. resolution; plus which, the United States cannot be in the position after years and years and years of dealing with Saddam Hussein in which it's obvious that he's always pushing the envelope of saying don't do this and then have him do it and we did nothing. I mean, a lot of people would say well, ``We ought to just take a pass on this. After all, it's just the Kurds. They're divided. He's not invading a country beyond his borders.'' But to us it was more serious than that because we didn't want to create a precedent in which--which could lead him to believe that he could take further action. There is still a lot of debate about whether 5 or 6 years ago he was somehow misled by actions of others into thinking he could take over Kuwait with no consequences. So we didn't want there to be any ambiguity at all. Therefore, I believe that--I will say again--I told Senator Lott this this morning, my view is that the action we took was appropriate because it would not have been appropriate for the United States to send ground forces into northern Iraq to try to throw Saddam out of northern Iraq. We could have done that, of course, but it would have been at a very high price. It was inappropriate. It would not have been appropriate for us to take action that would have cost the lives of a lot of civilians in that country. What we did was appropriate. What we did by extending the no-fly zone is to say, ``We want you to understand, we have no intention of permitting you to threaten your neighbors. We're going to limit your ability to maneuver. The box you are in is now a tighter box.'' I still believe it was the right thing to do. In terms of northern Iraq, is he in a stronger position today? He's in a weaker position in southern Iraq and a weaker position to threaten his neighbors. Yes, he has his army deployed in areas of northern Iraq that they weren't there a few weeks ago. But I would remind you, there are a lot of shifting sands in the Kurdish political scene. And as the Secretary of State cautioned the Members of Congress today, if you look at where these Kurdish leaders are coming out, I think it is unlikely that there will be any profound, lasting benefits to him from what he has done in the north. I think it is perfectly clear that there are some significant disadvantages in the south, in the areas where we have the greatest interests, including his ability to threaten either Kuwait or Saudi Arabia.”