Bill Clinton Flatly Asserts He Opposed War at Start

For more evidence suggesting that Clinton is either dishonest or amnesiac in claiming initial and consistent opposition, check out today's Counterspin:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=5

@cobrafifty:

Bill Clinton was not simply WRONG...

It is one thing for you to have been wrong about the WMD, after all there was MASSIVE propaganda at the time, and it simple OVERWHELMED most people. But none of that propaganda held up under scrutiny, not even in 2002/2003. Here is what was known in 2002/2003:-

http://web.aanet.com.au/webspace/BloodForOil

It was simply not possible for to believe that mass of propaganda if you made the effort to find out. That goes for politicians, and it goes for those in the media. Those who pushed the WMD propaganda were either lazy or they were dishonest.

Now Bill Clinton maintained the sanctions on Iraq for so many years. And it would beggar belief that he could have been so uninformed.

I dont care if Bill had it off with all of his staff in the most perverted way possible. Let the emperor have his pleasure! But with regards to Iraq - Bill Clinton Lied. 1.5 million Died:-

http://web.aanet.net.au/webspace/BloodForOil/Postings/holoc.txt

Clintonism at its best. No philosophy, no principles, just test the waters from time to time and come up with some position. Clinton HIMSELF said he supported the war because Hussein may have WMD. He was wrong just like his wife.

Its nice to see he's turned around on the war, but he cant deny his position then. Bill was a great president to me, but no doubt he has his flaws, especially on Iraq. He just reminds me even more not to vote for Hillary...

Kucinich '08!!! Strength through peace, bring the troops home now!

What a triangulator!
http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1129-09.htm

Hell, Iraq is ancient history.
Maybe big Bill will get his chance to "grab a rifle and jump into a foxhole to protect Israel with his life," if Hillary has her way with Iran.

"Nor was she running for the nomination against a Democrat who opposed the invasion from the start - Senator Barack Obama of Illinois."
Thank you, goner. I wanted to read all of the comments before I injected mine. How maddening that Kucinich is the only candidate with actual plans and he never gets any credit - even on CommonDreams. He needs money and TV exposure - that's what Americans relate to. If it's not on TV, it's not real. We need to have a "Concert for Kucinich" with the likes of Springsteen and Fogarty on stage. Doesn't anyone endorse him? Let's organize a Strength through Peace movement and invite celebrities to give Kucinich a hip hip.

To paraphrase a memorable quote from Robert Graves novel 'I, Claudius': "[Mr. Clinton] was a liar, but so fine a general of lies that he knew how to marshal them into an alert and disciplined formation... which would come off best in any skirmish with suspicions or any general engagement with truth."

Truly, America desperately needs this upstanding and visionary individual in the White House for yet another eight years! And then, who knows, maybe Chelsea after that?

Clinton fatigue to the point of collapse.
No need to be a forensic photographer to see personal ambition and escalating greed in both partners.
The use of the white house to expand their business proved handy but. again...?

gavingourley November 28th, 2007 2:57 pm

"This is the chronic ailment that affects the left. Too focused on ideological purity and unable to compromise or set realistic objectives."

Unable to compromise? We have been compromising for decades but particularly since Ronald Reagan deregulated corporations and encouraged unlimited mergers (hostile takeovers). This is where the age-old lust for "profit maximization" began to take root and then continued to prosper under Clinton's NAFTA. This is where CEOs began to earn up to 400 times more than the average worker while they outsourced our industries, cut wages and benefits and depleted the "living wage" job market in America. This is where and why over the past 25 years the top 1 percent of households have grown by almost 80%, while the bottom 40 percent lost 59 percent.

Ideological purity has nothing to do with what the left is looking for; what we are looking for is a government that passes "fair" legislation which encompases the needs of all Americans and not just the militarized elite corporatocracy.

If the majority in this country were intelligent enough to join together as Americans and demand the restoration of a constitutional government, "we the people" would be back in power. The right and left MUST join together in an effort to restore their power which has been usurped by a corporate-controlled government.

As Thomas Jefferson said: "When people fear the government, you have tyranny, but when government fears the people, you have liberty."

Is it too much to ask that an almost totally corrupt system be changed to meet the needs of tax paying American citizens? Our political system is broken and needs fixing!

@dreamertoo November 28th, 2007 7:59 pm
"The Iraq sanctions targeted Iraqi children?"

The declared target may not have been children, but the effect was predictable, predicted and documented, and it was OK with the clinton adminstration.

As my reply keeps getting censored, I would kindly ask you to follow this link to a page on my home site:-

http://web.aanet.net.au/webspace/BloodForOil/Postings/holoc.txt

Clinton is a 100%, filled to the brim, master of all masters p-o-l-i-t-i-c-i-a-n.

It's going to take a lot more than a democrat or a republican to change this country's path. If history is a guide, and I'm pretty sure it is, it's really going to come down to the people. Both parties are, just like clinton, entrenched in a mucky bog called corporate power. And they like to throw the mud in our face when we're looking right at them and then when our eyes start to burn they just keep claiming they didn't do it. This has been going on unabated for years, with both parties slinging their fair share of the mud, at eachother before the elections, and at us after they've secured their job. I'm in my mid-twenties and this is all I've ever seen from american politicians. Spread knowledge...change will follow. Keep Networking.

This is a true "whopper" from Bill Clinton. I well remember--an American in Denmark at the time--the massive demonstrations, in many countries around the world--the UK and Denmark among others--opposed to the preemptive attack that the Bush Administration, with Blair in the UK, were preparing to undertake. Blair was taking tremendous heat not only from the British public (hundreds of thousands in the streets) but from his own Labor Party MP's. Yet Blair was intent upon joining Bush in the attack.

At this critical juncture, Bill Clinton SUPPORTED Blair, explicitly ENDORSING Blair's course to join Bush. This is simply on-the-record fact, as a previous poster, dougnwager, noted. Clinton, a very influential and liked figure in Europe (far more than Bush) used his considerable charisma and influence to advocate IN FAVOR OF Blair's war participation with Bush, and AGAINST those Labor Party MP's (and hundreds of thousands of Britons in the streets) who tried vainly to oppose Blair's choice to join Bush in launching that war.

In his own words.
"Trust Tony's judgment", by Bill Clinton, _The Guardian_, March 18, 2003:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916233,00.html

And see also "The agony of decision", Guardian Unlimited, March 18, 2004, referring to March 18, 2003 and the decision in UK to commit British troops to the Iraq attack.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1172404,00.html
("Debate raged in the corridors and tearooms, every member of the cabinet and even Cherie Blair lobbied backbenchers, while a letter from Bill Clinton was handed around to convince MPs to support Tony Blair.")

And Mr. Clinton now says he was against the war from the beginning?? Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable. He helped it happen (by his support for Blair at a moment when UK's role hung in the balance).

gavingourley (and by association 'Dangerous Dan' David:

I'll bet you are card-carrying AIPAC agents.

The DLC DESTROYED the Democratic Party. The same money that backs Shrub and his merry minion authors of PNAC are also die-hard Clinton backers.

It would be just more of the same.

I wonder why Common Dreams hasn't revisited the Rove revision of history as well. Hmmmm.

dreamertoo, the sanctions didn't have to target the Iraqi children. We bombed their infrastructure so they didn't have clean water or sewage disposal. The sanctions didn't allow them to repair anything because the parts might have been used for military purposes. Ditto for medicines. Not even painkillers, antibiotics or anti-diarrheal medicines for children (a big loss of life there). They were also starving until Clinton offered in 1995 to let the UN set up an oil for food and medicine program - which was riddled with corruption, but people were getting fed. That ended in 2003 when the Coalition Provisional Authority (J Paul Bremer) took over and malnutrition rates started rising again.

Bullshit.

"As Blair has said, in war there will be civilian was well as military casualties. There is, too, as both Britain and America agree, some risk of Saddam using or transferring his weapons to terrorists. There is as well the possibility that more angry young Muslims can be recruited to terrorism. But if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam." -Bill Clinton, March 18, 2003

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916233,00.html

"All of us have heard this term 'preventative war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time... I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

"If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power."- Dwight D. Eisenhower

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower

GO OBAMA!

Funny, I followed the antiwar movement and its leaders at the time of the run up to the Iraq illegal invasion. I heard not even a peep from this guy.

The Iraq sanctions targeted Iraqi children?

gavingourley---should warn you that most people who regularly post on CD have been exposed ad nauseum to your same talking points by another poster Danial David. And you know what? VERN has said it all, so I need not repeat----the steady move to the right didn't happen because the American people suddenly decided that Republican corporatism would set them free. Tehy just got increasingly narrower ranges of choices.

The rightward shift in our political leadership accelerated because Dems did nothing to distinguish themselves, so there was never a countervailing force to slow the slide.And then there's Emmanuel's blue dogs designed to muzzle progresives.

Progressives despise what the Dem party has become,since there is no place for us there. And frankly your condescension, your arrogant dismissal of our desire for a government of by and for the people, instead of the corporations, just exposes you as a Dem apologist, masking as a realist, trying to bring us "dreamers" to our senses.

We're quite realistic here on Common Dreams. We see quite clearly that unless something changes drastically, there won't be anything even remotely resembling a democracy left. I am a 61 year old grandmother and I have had it with the rigged game in Washington. It's going to take something other than "more of the same" to turn our country around at this juncture. We dare to dream big---do you?

He may or may not have opposed the war, who the hell knows, he's a known lier and double talker. He did support sanctions against Iraq during his "glorious reign" which caused millions of children to be without adequate food and medicine resulting in massive illness and death.

Bush's war is all bluster and haughty bullying while Clinton's was underhanded and insidious. It's still war upon the innocent regardless.

My, my, my oh my...all this venom spewing! I am not a Clinton fan, but hindsight might teach us at least the obvious. Whereas Bill Clinton reigned for 8 years and left the office and the country in pretty good shape (but he did stoop to an slimy indiscretion), GW will leave Americans burdened with horrific debt, nearly 4000 soldiers in bodybags and many thousands more wounded and traumatized, the country divided as never before, a squandered account abroad in the realm of moral leadership, and a reputation that has people the world over thinking of Americans as fools and warmongers.

In the light of that comparison, maybe a little oval office hanky panky wasn't so bad. While Bill was caught with his pants down, George parades proudly naked as emporer. Surely those who hate the Clintons with such evangelical fervor must despise the sitting president. Or could it be that the rancor is not related to fair logic?

Kerry Alert! Kerry Alert! Clinton was against the war before he was for it!

Sorry Bill (and gavin)--we're not swallowing what you're spewing.

Ok.

True - the DLC are not friendly to progressives. They have different ideologies and in a less binary political system they would be in separate parties. But that's not the system we have.

Why do Clinton and the DLC get to call the shots when most of the voters would prefer different candidates? If progressives are in the majority why don't they control the Democratic party?

I'm guessing (correct me if I'm wrong) that you think people really would support Kucinich if they would just wake up and smell the coffee, but you'd be wrong. The problem is that Kucinich and progressives like him don't know how to wield power. They can't get out the vote, can't pick progressive delegates for primaries, can't rely on a solid block of votes in Congress, can't force fellow Dems to vote with them, can't intimidate their enemies.

Who am I serving by echoing the talking points of those who would crush a progressive agenda? I'm serving progressives. By injecting poison into the process we weaken the Democratic Party, it's ability to win Congress or the White House, and our ability to affect outcomes within the party. Like it or not, progressives will not control Congress or select a progressive Presidential candidate without making a deal with the DLC. While they feed off the corporate teet, we alienate them and we're left out of the process entirely. That's why the progressive majority gets the DLC calling the shots.

Who are you serving by atacking the Clintons so publicly and venomously? Aside from the damage you're doing to Dems, have you noticed that you're playing into the Republicans hands? They're afraid of Hillary because they know she can beat them. Their claim that nothing would invigorate their activists more than a Clinton candidacy is an obvious talking point designed to deter Dems from selecting her. Why? Because they know she can win. They are not afraid of Edwards or Obama.

I'm not a big Clinton fan. I share the progressives policy goals, but most of all I'm pragmatic. Progressives are Democrats or we are nobody. We have to fight to control the Party from within, and make sure it beats the Republicans. Attacking Clinton is not the way to reach that goal.

If anyone believes anything either Clinton says, they must have been born yesterday.

"Nor was she running for the nomination against a Democrat who opposed the invasion from the start - Senator Barack Obama of Illinois."

You'd think that the New York Times fact-checker would have realized that they should have placed Dennis Kucinich's name as the war opposition candidate, not the guy who keeps voting to fund the war.

There may be a rational argument to voting for the greater of two evils, so long his greater evil is balanced with an even greater incompetence. The ability to make good on his evil would be diminished in that way. Results-based lesser of evilism.

He "did not precisely declare" and "at the same time"--what it all boils down to is the famous Clinton triangulation. Both Clintons are great at not saying anythingthat would pin down their opinion. They want it all ways, want to be all things to all people, and what they end up doing is lying, lying, lying.

THIS IS THE REASON WERE IN IRAQ, not just Bush.

Here we see another example of how Clinton equivocation has only one true purpose: to divie and confuse the opposition so that Bush can run up the "Center"(ed) of the field.

If I hear anyone raise the religion of resignation,"lesser of two evilism" I will have to scream " has your brain turned into pure jello" This lesser is not lesser. In some way it is MORE evil.

You've got to admire the man. How many people manage to stand on both sides of a fence at once? He's far more agile at doublespeak than Hillary. But yes, his sanction policies did kill a million Iraqis, half of them children.

Clinton's domestic policies were a boon to the rich and the corporations, but destructive to the middle class and disastrous for the poor.

dreamertoo, they didn't go all that quickly into war. They started beating the war drums in August 2002, right when the press was eagerly asking questions about George's 1990 Harken Energy insider trading investigation by the SEC. The SEC, loaded with George H.W. Bush cronies, ultimately found that although a board member, George Junior had no knowledge of the company's problems when he sold his stock 3 days before their value plummeted. That's our president. Remember the movie, Wag the Dog? But George intended to invade Iraq even before he became president. This was about timing.

"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." And this would be because...??? As usual, Clinton is hedging. Neither one of them can give you a straight answer... I'm a liberal democrat, but I'm pulling for the conservative PAC "Stop Her Now" (hey, let their side spend the money!). Edwards and or Obama 2008!

You want to give me a stinkin' break gavin?
The DLC centrist (Republican with neo-con leanings--are the positions supporting Israel indistinguishable?)demands allegiance and spends more time attacking and chastising PROGRESSIVES than it does holding the criminal Bush junta accountable --EVEN when the majority of Americans polled don't oppose Impeachment. The fact that they attack the Left with such intensity proves that they CAN attack when they choose to.

Most Democrats in blind tests find themselves most closely aligned with Kucinich on the issues. Clinton and bush are closer than Kucinich and most Democrats who align with him on the issues but get Clinton and her power brokers calling the shots.

When the hell are you going to wake the f up and quit mouthing the damn talking points that you NEVER even think critically about before you start spouting them off?

Now answer this--who are you serving by echoing the talking points of those who would crush a progressive agenda as some kind of political purity?

The article reads:
"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."

> choke! <

Weasel words from a weasel-come-deep-throat stoat!
Take another look at that photo up top: - This is not the picture of a sane, rational, loving 'man-of-the-people'.
It is a picture of a raving nutter who has quite lost his bearings in the world.
Compare this pic with that of Kucinich? The latter is still on planet Earth, but B. Clinton is lost to the ravages of lunacy, ~ as is his very (un)-adoring wife.

I'd sooner vote for Homer Simpson than any of these sickos...

Jonno, thanks for helping me make my point.

Sure Bill we believe you....NOT, but we better agree with you as anyone who doesn't seem to commit suicide as the records show only to well,from one crime family to another,whats the cut of the profits is GW giving you?*LOL*We know you and your wifey there have sold yer souls

Former President Carter opposed the war; I sent an interview he did at the time to the White House asking them to reconsider.

The "rush to war" is real.

The Bush administration went to war quickly and deliberately precluding any objections. No one had time to collect their thoughts or feelings about the war before it started except members of the Bush administration and its allies who knew well beforehand.

New rule of American politics: No more Clinton's or Bush's as president- EVER!

Ah yes, those terrible anti-war commie Leftists who brough you civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, work place protections, environmentalism, that pushes for healthcare, economic justice, exposing corporate looting of the treasury, buying off our country.

Yeah, must be all a matter of perspective, huh?

So, where exactly are you, or for that matter, most Americans? I'll bet if you measure it by the issues as opposed to Right wing red-baiting, you would find most people--are on the Left.

Typical progressives, always bitching about the Clintons. It's like complaining about Starbucks and doing nothing about Nestle.

The reason the Clinton's look so much like Republicans to you is your perspective. You're so far to the left, everything is to your right.

Absolutley, the majority of Americans are well to the left of the corporate discourse that passes for government today. But the same isn't true for progressives. Vocal support and sincere belief in Kucinich's candidacy, unable to distinguish between Bush and Clinton, or Bush and Gore, wedded to unrealistic policy goals, spending more time kneecapping natural allies than endorsing viable candidates. Yeah, progressives are so far to the left, everyone looks right to them.

This is the chronic ailment that affects the left. Too focused on ideological purity and unable to compromise or set realistic objectives. Too busy in-fighting to build a winning coalition. Watch Pat Robertson endorse Rudy Giuliani despite the catalog of ideological differences between them. He knows when to bend and when to stand firm. Its a good example of why the Republicans are so effective at taking and holding power despite the leftward slant of the American population.

Nowhere is this more evident than the assault on the Clintons. They're centrists, not fascists - the degree of venom directed at them is way out of proportion compared to the criticisms directed at other candidates.

Clinton cut us a break. Your explanations and excuses are tiring. Go play golf with your corporate buddies.

And Hillary will be just more of the same old, same old; that hidden agenda, corporate special interest logic that got this country where it is today.

He was the best Republican president the Democrats ever had.

His sanctions and regular bombing raids speak for what he "supported" far more than his opportunistic false hindsight. He and his wife are cold-blooded "realpolitik" scum.

Yeah, just like "I didn't inhale" and "I did not have sex with that woman." Yeah, right Mr. Clinton, we really believe you. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!

nothing they won't stoop to.

Clinton initiated/continued war/genocide aganist Iraq throughout his administartion and is responsible for over a million deaths before his war was escalated by Bush. I think this an important point--Gulf War I was never stopped, just continued through the genocidal sanctions, illegal "no fly zones" and continuous bombing campaign. Bush merely accelerated already bipartisan US gov policy to destroy Iraq and establish control over its hydrocarbon resources. And throughout Clinton's continuation of the war he was supported wholeheartedly by Gore.

Both Clintons are lying sacks of shit that should never have been elected to ANY office.