Interview with [Americas Future Foundation]/[Tom Ivancie]: There are several arguments for attacking Iraq. One is the violation of the convention against genocide. If you sign the Geno Cide convention, you have to punish people who commit genocide, and Saddam certainly has done that. I think the strongest case is the responsibility to rescue the Iraqi people from a bastard regime. Then there's the threat of weapons of mass destruction... All of the groundwork on Iraq was laid a long time ago, by Saddam Hussein. It's pointless to pretend otherwise. But there's one thing that nobody dares mention to this day. I'll never forget it - Bill Clinton's Impeach Ment trial - he bombed Iraq the day it started and stopped the bombing when the trial was over. That action led directly to the collapse of the inspection regime. He destroyed the inspection regime, treated the UN with contempt, the Congress with contempt - everything Bush is accused of doing. And then stopped because he had no more use for it. (Unrelated bit in interview: Q. Is there anyone in public life who comes close to representing your views? A. Most recently, I'd say it would be Jerry Brown or Ralph Nader. One is a crazed, semi-Catholic, and one is a sort of crazed health nut, safety-first fanatic. But both are people of integrity, and they're in politics because of conviction. And I'm very, very glad that neither of them ever had a chance of becoming President. But I'm glad that they ran.)