Bill Clinton now says that he "opposed Iraq from the beginning." Now that the war has fallen out of favor, did you expect something different from this world-renowned liar? Bill Clinton vocally supported the Congressional authorization of force against Saddam Hussein's regime, and in 2004 told Time: "That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for. So I thought the President had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks."

I take offense to Clinton's attempt at re-writing history in a way that I don't think I took offense at so many of his past attempts to re-write history to suit his needs. "I didn't inhale" was comical. "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" was pathetic. I "opposed Iraq from the beginning" enrages.

I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. I did so by voicing my opinion prior to the war on the O'Reilly Factor and Donahue, before college audiences, and on talk-radio shows. I did so in venues that were in no mood for my view and at a time when opposition to the war was unpopular. Witnessing the movement I served for more than a decade support, in lockstep movement fashion, George W. Bush's nation-building war of choice alienated me from what essentially had been my calling from the early 1990s onward. My position had costs. Some were minor annoyances, like the time a cable network revoked its invitation to appear on a discussion program (that wasn't about the war) after finding out I opposed the war. Others were more personal, such as the discovery that so many of the people with me in the conservative movement were more into being part of a movement than being conservative. Of course, none of this compares to the deadly costs to American servicemen and Iraqis civilians as a result of this war. That's why I am not laughing at President Clinton's latest lie. Playing politics with issues of life and death is vulgar.

Bill Clinton, who would have suffered no political fallout for saying he opposed the war--particularly within his own party--nevertheless went along, like he has always done, with the polls. Now that the polls have swung in the other direction, Bill Clinton has too. He is a scoundrel whose politics serve his interests, and not the interests of his country. If you doubt this, why on earth would he proclaim support for a war that he now says he all along was against?

It's okay to change your mind. I wish even more people would do so on Iraq. It's not okay to make your reversal of opinion retroactive. This is particularly true when your opinion, as President Clinton's does, matters. He could have made a difference. Instead, he was complicit. He could have shattered the bipartisan delusions that brought out the worst in both parties. Instead, he contributed to them. He could not have stopped the war. But he could have persuaded his many admirers, including his wife[?], that the war was wrong. He didn't. Instead, he said it was right.

We don't know if Bill Clinton was against the war then or if he is for it now. We don't know because his words frequently don't correspond to the truth. Alas, his successor, in stubbornly pursuing a wrongheaded course, presents an altogether different set of problems.

I agree wholehearedly w/ your sentiments both about the war and Clinton lying here but I think you are missing the motive.

Hillary is running a horrible primary campaign. Everyone in the world has always assumed that she is a shoo-in for the Dem nomination and yet she is currently being overtaken in Iowa polls by Obama and has lost serious ground in NH. That is, she is stalling and even flailing a bit. Why? B/c she is running her primary campaign as if it was already a national election. She is constantly avoiding staking out any positions on any issues that might alienate moderates (or really anybody). This is what candidates do AFTER they win nominations. They feel assured of the base's 30% vote and so go after the undecided independents. This is happening b/c she is stupid and stubborn. Her husband is the much more "sophisticated" (emphasis on the sense of sophism) campaigner and although she always wants to do things her way he is maneuvering to shore up the base on the left for her . . . so she doesn't have to!

This is totally outrageous, and totally a sham, and totally a "brilliant" play in Machiavellian terms in pursuit of their mutual goal of 8 god-awful more years in the WH.

The thought is so nauseating, and seeing this maneuver by Bill fills me w/ so much disgust w/ our electoral process and our biased media that manipulates and seeks to control American opinion to such an extent that we will have ANOTHER election w/ no real choice. The establishment loves depressed voter turnout, as more and more people drop out of the process it guarantees their power w/ that 40-50% of the electorate willing to vote for the no real alternatives offered.

This disgust I feel is also for having suffered through the CNN/youtube debate (sham) tonight . . . the media is determined to have a Giuliani-Clinton race so then zip, zero, nada changes. They want the status quo BS "partisanship" on every issue of actual importance to the general good of this nation to continue w/o end.

Bill Clinton is doing his devious part to make sure that happens.

I can't even imagine the shape this country would be in after another four years of Bill Clinton. And make no mistake about it; if Hillary were to get in, she wouldn't be running squat. It would all be up to the great prevaricator.

In this case, it appears that these two reprobates were made for each other. Like wife like husband, Hillary has backed down from her position on the war big time and she now says that she was duped by that evil Bush Administration when she voted for and supported the war.

There are two problems here. First, if she’s so GD smart, how is it that she’s getting fooled by (as the Democrats say) the stupidest President we’ve ever had? And a recorded interview a couple of years ago has her clearly taking charge of her opinion that Saddam was a bad man that needed to be taken out and that she had seen all of the documentation to confirm that.

The Clinton’s have taken lying and obfuscation to a high art form.

asdf: I really doubt that Hil would be Bill's puppet in the WH. I find the idea totally absurd, in fact.

Why is that absurd? Do you really believe that she was the woman behind the man? That she was making policy or had that much influence on making policy? I don’t.

You may not think that he was in control and maybe he wasn’t, necessarily. But he did have people who were and I have my doubts that they were listening to his shrill better half and not him.

So outside of covering for Bill when he screwed up, I'm not sure what she really ever did while in the White House.

Contrary to her public display of extreme independence, I think she's in awe of her husband and would look to him to guide her on all policy issues.

asdf: I don't think she is behind him, or he behind her. I think they are a couple dedicated to certain common goals and strategize together.

I don’t think we can know any of this for sure. But it was he and not she who served (Lord help us) twelve years as Governor of Arkansas and eight years as President.

If Bush would have done the things that needed to be done in the first place, we wouldnt be here, arguing about who and for how long he or she opposed the war.

What I have read about the two in the WH is that they were two factions w/in it, w/ Hillary's people (mostly women) being a very very tight-lipped and close-knit group fiercely loyal to her and not him.

The Bill staff had a term for Hill's staff and i can't remember what it was, maybe just the "sisterhood." Anyway, the two staffs did not interact well at all and Hill's took on her traits of an air of superiority and us against the world attitude. Rather given to secretiveness and even seeing opposition as a conspiracy against them.

I can't recall all the places I have read about this rift in the Clinton years, but assuredly it would be much more the Hillary show this time around although we would also get ole Bill's crew back.

Many of the worst aspects of Bill's presidency are traceable to Hillary. E.g., Janet Reno was her gal and she refused to abandon her. You remember the secretive development of Hillary-care I am sure. Then she goaded Bill into fighting Paula Jones instead of just settling it out of court like he wanted to do. Then there is the "vast right-wing conspiracy."

She was and will be worse than Bill.

And w/ Republicans retiring from Congress left and right to take up cushy lobbying jobs they see the writing on the wall. Too bad the GOP is so stupid that it will go under on a moronic foreign policy that needs to be scrapped rather than admit a mistake, correct it, and get back to really taking care of our nation's problems.

Batman, it's not that the GOP is stupid, it's just that they're sick of fighting and are greedy.

Ironically, when all intelligent resistance against the Democratic power base is gone, they will have free reign to really f#$k things up and the recipients of accumulated political largesse will see their windfall evaporate.

Greedy sleazy Lott will get his but his ilk will fade. Unless they get tough, smart and hungry.

Not sure they have it in them.

ASDF,

I am more cynical than you, and I am not Batman but do admire his ways.

I say the GOP is stupid b/c there are clear avenues to win against the current Dems but they refuse to do it b/c it would mean reshaping the party away from the Neocon/Rockefeller liberal direction. It is a combination of echo chamber, true belief, narrow range of acceptable "elite" opinion shared by both parties, and obtuseness.

The Clintons will say or do whatever it takes to get in power. They are a packaged deal. A marriage of convenience born of a radical leftwing mindset.
If McCarthy were around today, he would have alot of questions for the Clintons (not that he would get any straight answers). They are the absolute embodiment of what he was trying to expose- communist infiltration of the U.S. Government. They want collectivism. Capitalism is their common enemy, and they have lots of support from communists all over the world in their devious quest to convert the U.S. into a socialist state.

It's ironic that it's been the Clintons' success with Capitalism that's allowed them to be relatively successful in their quest to form the United States into a socialist/collectivist entity.