Slick
Says he opposed it from the start. Could be. As I recall, he preferred the do-nothing or harmlessly fire a few million-dollar missiles approach to fighting terrorism and dangerous pariah states. NYT:
During a campaign swing for his wife, former President Bill Clinton said flatly yesterday that he opposed the war in Iraq “from the beginning” — a statement that is more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003.
Before the invasion, Mr. Clinton did not precisely declare that he opposed the war. A week before military action began, however, he did say that he preferred to give weapons inspections more time and that an invasion was not necessary to topple Saddam Hussein.
At the same time, he also spoke supportively about the 2002 Senate resolution that authorized military action against Iraq.
Advisers to Mr. Clinton said yesterday that he did oppose the war, but that it would have been inappropriate at the time for him, a former president, to oppose — in a direct, full-throated manner — the sitting president’s military decision.
Mr. Clinton has said several times since the war began that he would not have attacked Iraq in the manner that President Bush had done. As early as June 2004, he said, “I would not have done it until after Hans Blix finished the job,” referring to the weapons inspections there before the war.
As I recall, Bill Clinton believed Saddam Hussein was deceiving UN weapons inspectors and running WMD programs. I seem to remember he made Iraqi regime change the official policy of his administration. As with Osama bin Laden, who blew up two US embassies, one US Navy destroyer and one US military barracks on Clinton’s watch, Clinton chose not to do anything about it. Except to lob a couple of missiles. It was a sort of speak loudly, carry a small stick approach. Worked great.
Bill now wants us to believe he opposed it back when his wife was supporting it. Of course, Hillary would also like people to believe she opposed it back when she was supporting it, so I suppose that’s OK. The following graph is interesting. As a highly trained archaeo-journalist, my intrepretation of this heiroglyphic passage is that it is intended to indicate even the High Priests think Pharoah is full of it:
At the time of those remarks, though, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York was not a presidential candidate, and Mr. Clinton was not campaigning on her behalf. Nor was she running for the nomination against a Democrat who opposed the invasion from the start — Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.
NYT makes up for that backhand with this softball:
Mr. Clinton’s remark yesterday came in the context of opposition to Republican-backed tax cuts for wealthy Americans like himself, and how that loss of revenue affected financing for the military.
“Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers,” Mr. Clinton said.
I’d be happy if he just got on his knees and begged forgiveness of Osama bin Laden’s victims, military and civilian. It’s a fascinating couple of lines that papers over a multitude of sins. The Clinton drawdown of the military in the 1990s, when it seemed like we wouldn’t need that anymore. The failure of the Bush administration to build it up again when it became apparent we would. But more immediately, I thought what was affecting financing for the military was Congress’ unwillingness to approve it.
If anyone wants to dramatically expand the military, and I wish they would, I’d suggest diverting some of the funds that have been earmarked for Hillary’s vote-purchasing agenda.
Hold on, I’ve got it. He “opposed it from the beginning” of his wife’s campaign. Just like she did. OK, got it now. It’s all a matter of when is is.
Boston Globe, of all places, parses Bill and suggests he may be too slick by half.
Topics: Clintons
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 7:59 am on Wednesday, November 28, 2007
7 Responses to “Slick”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
November 28th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Yes, something about The iraq Liberation Act…Bill forgets all the statements made by himself AND the overwhelming support of his Democrat base.
Gosh they sounded like warmongers.
They acted like warmongers, too. Lobbing the missles you spoke of Jules. Geez, even fring a few up camels asses in Afghanistan. Think that was shortly after the Sudan offered Osama on a plate.
Thank God, Clinton found that legal loophole, that at the time we couldn’t prove OR that the U.S. had nothing to act on, to accept the Sudan’s offer.
What a bozo…a yellow bellied bozo.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:17 am
I read that headline about Bill saying he “flatly” opposed the war in Iraq from the getgo and thought that he was taking the far left surrogate position on behalf of Hillary.
It’s a team (you’d get twoferone in the White House) and while Hillary wiffles and waffles around, Bill is out there satiating the lust of the Democrat party’s far left.
(I long for the King of Spain to put his imprimatur on all this endless yak yak.
You know, the guy who turned to Oogoe Chavez in Spain a couple of weeks ago and said…
Why don’t you just shut up ?)
November 28th, 2007 at 11:35 am
No surprises here from ex-President Marshmallow. He’s saying, yet again, what he thinks people want to hear. If he ever developed a real principle, he wouldn’t be able to stand up straight under the weight of it.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Wull yeah, he doesn’t want to sink his marriage of convenience partner’s chance to do the same to us for the next 4 to 8 years.
Wish he’d cut to the chase and go do Cialis commercials for a living.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Piss off, Bill. Have the good grace to keep your pie-hole shut as much as possible.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
During 2000, the last year of Bill Clinton’s peaceful reign, Coalition aircraft carried out airstrikes against targets in Iraq on the following dates…
December 22nd
December 7th
November 16th
November 14th
November 11th
November 1st
October 30th
October 23rd
August 30th
August 15th
August 12th
August 11th
June 29th
June 26th
June 19th
June 14th
June 12th
June 8th
June 1st
May 30th
May 29th
May 23rd
May 22nd
May 17th
May 16th
May 15th
May 12th
May 11th
May 10th
May 9th
May 3rd
May 2nd
April 30th
April 29th
April 25th
April 9th
April 6th
April 5th
March 29th
March 15th
March 11th
March 9th
March 2nd
February 29th
February 28th
February 20th
February 19th
February 9th
February 8th
February 3rd
January 31st
January 17th
January 16th
January 14th
January 13th
January 12th
January 11th
‘President Bill Clinton said flatly yesterday that he opposed the war in Iraq “from the beginning”’
War bad, airstrikes good!
November 28th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
The New York Times discusses Slick’s Iraq anti-war activities in an article dated August 13, 1999…
“While the nation’s attention has focused on Kosovo, American warplanes have quietly, methodically and with virtually no public discussion been attacking Iraq.”
“Over the past eight months, American and British pilots have fired more than 1,100 missiles against 359 targets.”
“That is more than triple the targets attacked in four furious days of strikes in December that followed Iraq’s expulsion of U.N. weapons inspectors, an assault that provoked an international outrage…”
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/081399iraq-conflict.html
Please don’t make the mistake of confusing this with a REAL war. In order for a REAL war to occur, a Republican must hold the office of POTUS.
When an anti-war Dem is POTUS we refer to these sort of activities as “negotiations”.