RECENT POSTS
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Re-writing Herstory?
November 28, 2007 8:59 AM
Senator Hillary Clinton heads to Iowa today to talk about health care reform.
But she may find herself overshadowed by comments made by her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who is now saying that he opposed the war in Iraq from the very beginning, a war that his wife voted to authorize and that he did not exactly seem to be protesting at the time.
The former president was talking to Iowans about military families and then made a startling claim, saying he "opposed Iraq from the beginning."
Really?
At the time, the former president said United Nations inspectors should be given more time to look for weapons of mass destruction. But he was hardly, at least publicly, an opponent of going to war against Saddam Hussein. He talked up the threat posed by Saddam's WMDs.
On his own foundation's Web site, a 2003 speech where Clinton said, "I supported the president when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
"Clinton defends successor's push for war," says a CNN story. "Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs."
This headline based on Clinton's assertion that because of any president should have a post-9/11 focus on ensuring terrorists cannot get "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material ... That's why I supported the Iraq thing."
The former president was also doing his best -- HERE and elsewhere -- to argue to Britons that they "Trust Tony's Judgment" as he led that nation to war against Iraq.
All of this refocuses attention where his wife does not want it, on her 2002 vote to authorize the president to go to war.
As she said in October 2002, as she cast that vote, "Perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania avenue, in the White House, watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation."
It refocuses attention specifically in Iowa on this vote, Iowa, a state where anti-war liberals are an important constituency, and where Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, leads in polls. Obama, whose 2002 opposition to the war manifested itself in a notable anti-war rally.
Watch our GMA report on this HERE.
What say you?
- jpt
November 28, 2007 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (24)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
DKNY, you wrote: "I don't really care what Bill Clinton says about his views on Iraq back in 2003, since he is not running for office." Actually Bill Clinton is running for office -- just not an elected office. If Hillary Clinton is president, she will likely appoint Bill as either Ambassador to the United Nations or possibly even Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton stated the other day, "I can certainly tell you that I intend to be very very vigorous diplomatically."
Now as for what Bill Clinton actually said back in 2003 and even as early as 1998, many of the anti-war crowd continue to hollar that Bush "lied," but give Bill Clinton and his fellow Democrats a total pass for telling the same "lie." And now Bill Clinton is lying about his original stance on Iraq in order to convince the anti-war Iowans to vote for Hillary in the Iowa caucus. This is continued proof that not only Hillary but Bill Clinton will say ANYTHING to get Hillary Clinton elected.
Posted by: James Danley | Nov 28, 2007 11:10:29 AM
What is happening is Hilary is using Bill to play both sides of an issue, she figures if Bill takes the opposite side then some people will overlook her indecisiveness because there are a few people that will vote for her to get Bill back in the Oval Office, (I doubt any are interns thou).
If Bill was against going to War why did he in 98 look for congress approval to remove Hussien and scream about the WMD's himself.
Posted by: spock | Nov 28, 2007 10:33:07 AM
That can't help what is already either a perceived or actual slide in support. She is trying to turn it around though:
Hillary Joins Borg Collective
Posted by: MistyD | Nov 28, 2007 10:06:25 AM
I don't really care what Bill Clinton says about his views on Iraq back in 2003, since he is not running for office.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has an albatross to deal with. Her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq was wrong then and it has proved to be disastrous both for the United States and, perhaps ultimately, for her Presidential aspirations. And no amount of explaining can make that vote go away.
Posted by: DKNY | Nov 28, 2007 9:47:22 AM
Post a comment
