Deconstructing Bill (again)

Clarice Feldman
Yesterday, Bill Clinton stated he's always opposed the war in Iraq, which if true would have placed him at odds with his position in 1998 when he bombed an aspirin factory just as he was about to be impeached, and -- more significantly -- with his wife's position when she voted to authorize the war.

Don Surber shows that it's also at odds with Clinton's stated position during the war:
CNN reported on June 23, 2004:

Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."
So, why such an obvious and easy to prove fib? My guess is that he and Hil count on the public being clueless about their history and the media to cover for them. More importantly, this allows our "co-Presidents" to triangulate again: For those who are for the war, Hillary can point to her vote for it. For those who are opposed, there's Bill's transparent lie.

Red State has found two more instances (Besides the 2004 statement to CNN)of Bill Clinton supporting the war in Iraq :
At Time, Mark Halperin reminds us that Mr. Clinton said he supported the War in 2003. On April 14, 2003, Clinton praised President Bush:
"In his first speech in Minnesota since leaving office, former President Bill Clinton on Sunday praised President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. But he criticized Bush's domestic priorities and urged the administration to offer North Korea aid and a pledge of nonaggression in exchange for an end to that country's missile and nuclear weapons programs." [Minneapolis Star Tribune, 4/14/03]

On May 19, 2003, the Associated Press reported Clinton said he supported President Bush:

"Former President Bill Clinton accused President Bush of spending more time fighting the war on terrorism than on domestic issues during a commencement speech at Tougaloo College. 'I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but we can't be forever strong abroad if we don't keep getting better at home,' Clinton said Sunday to a crowd of about 8,000. [...] The Bush administration, Clinton said, 'is still focused on defeating terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and that's good, but not good enough. The power of our example is just as important as our military might.'"

Clinton may have questioned the timing of the invasion, but Clinton didn't oppose it "from the beginning."
We had eight years of this juvenile manipulation of the facts. Am I the only one who can't bear the thought of even more of this?
Yesterday, Bill Clinton stated he's always opposed the war in Iraq, which if true would have placed him at odds with his position in 1998 when he bombed an aspirin factory just as he was about to be impeached, and -- more significantly -- with his wife's position when she voted to authorize the war.

Don Surber shows that it's also at odds with Clinton's stated position during the war:
CNN reported on June 23, 2004:

Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."
So, why such an obvious and easy to prove fib? My guess is that he and Hil count on the public being clueless about their history and the media to cover for them. More importantly, this allows our "co-Presidents" to triangulate again: For those who are for the war, Hillary can point to her vote for it. For those who are opposed, there's Bill's transparent lie.

Red State has found two more instances (Besides the 2004 statement to CNN)of Bill Clinton supporting the war in Iraq :
At Time, Mark Halperin reminds us that Mr. Clinton said he supported the War in 2003. On April 14, 2003, Clinton praised President Bush:
"In his first speech in Minnesota since leaving office, former President Bill Clinton on Sunday praised President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. But he criticized Bush's domestic priorities and urged the administration to offer North Korea aid and a pledge of nonaggression in exchange for an end to that country's missile and nuclear weapons programs." [Minneapolis Star Tribune, 4/14/03]

On May 19, 2003, the Associated Press reported Clinton said he supported President Bush:

"Former President Bill Clinton accused President Bush of spending more time fighting the war on terrorism than on domestic issues during a commencement speech at Tougaloo College. 'I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but we can't be forever strong abroad if we don't keep getting better at home,' Clinton said Sunday to a crowd of about 8,000. [...] The Bush administration, Clinton said, 'is still focused on defeating terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and that's good, but not good enough. The power of our example is just as important as our military might.'"

Clinton may have questioned the timing of the invasion, but Clinton didn't oppose it "from the beginning."
We had eight years of this juvenile manipulation of the facts. Am I the only one who can't bear the thought of even more of this?