Clinton Claims He Opposed Iraq War From The Beginning

But like his wife, the former president supported giving President Bush the authority needed to go to war.

"I supported the President when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," said Clinton in 2003 while delivering commencement remarks at Tougaloo College in Jackson, Miss.

Read article here

Comments

[TexasYoungDemocrat]

On the eve of war with Iraq, former President Clinton said we should avoid war and seek a new U.N. resolution. Here's what he said in New York on March 14, 2003, less than a week before the war began:

He’s finally destroying his missiles, so let’s give him a certain date in which, in this time, he has to destroy the missiles, reconcile the discrepancies in what we believe is the truth on chemical weapons, reconcile the discrepancies on biological weapons, reconcile the issue of the Drones, and offer up 150 scientists who can travel outside of Iraq with their families for interviews. If you do that, then we’ll say this is really good-faith disarmament, and we’ll go on without a conflict. Now if that passes, however, then you have to be willing to take yes for an answer. You see what I mean? I’m for regime change too, but there’s more than one way to do it. We don’t invade everybody whose regime we want to change. There’s more than one way to do this, but if that passes and he actually disarms, then we have to be willing to take it, and then work for regime change by supporting the opposition to Saddam Hussein within and outside Iraq, and doing other things.

[SiskoKid]

I'm gonna repeat YoungTexasDemocrat's piece, because it bears repeating. I am getting SICK of Obamington Post. There is an important differentiation that Clinton already made: He was against the war but didn't want to judge a sitting president.

On the eve of war with Iraq, former President Clinton said we should avoid war and seek a new U.N. resolution. Here's what he said in New York on March 14, 2003, less than a week before the war began:

He"s finally destroying his missiles, so let"s give him a certain date in which, in this time, he has to destroy the missiles, reconcile the discrepancies in what we believe is the truth on chemical weapons, reconcile the discrepancies on biological weapons, reconcile the issue of the Drones, and offer up 150 scientists who can travel outside of Iraq with their families for interviews. If you do that, then we"ll say this is really good-faith disarmament, and we"ll go on without a conflict. Now if that passes, however, then you have to be willing to take yes for an answer. You see what I mean? I"m for regime change too, but there"s more than one way to do it. We don"t invade everybody whose regime we want to change. There"s more than one way to do this, but if that passes and he actually disarms, then we have to be willing to take it, and then work for regime change by supporting the opposition to Saddam Hussein within and outside Iraq, and doing other things.

[TexasYoungDemocrat]

On the eve of war with Iraq, former President Clinton said we should avoid war and seek a new U.N. resolution. Here's what he said in New York on March 14, 2003, less than a week before the war began:

He’s finally destroying his missiles, so let’s give him a certain date in which, in this time, he has to destroy the missiles, reconcile the discrepancies in what we believe is the truth on chemical weapons, reconcile the discrepancies on biological weapons, reconcile the issue of the Drones, and offer up 150 scientists who can travel outside of Iraq with their families for interviews. If you do that, then we’ll say this is really good-faith disarmament, and we’ll go on without a conflict. Now if that passes, however, then you have to be willing to take yes for an answer. You see what I mean? I’m for regime change too, but there’s more than one way to do it. We don’t invade everybody whose regime we want to change. There’s more than one way to do this, but if that passes and he actually disarms, then we have to be willing to take it, and then work for regime change by supporting the opposition to Saddam Hussein within and outside Iraq, and doing other things.

[WhatWouldJesusBomb]

This is a petty DrudgeReport-style attack. Here's another Drudge-Style headline you can use...

FLAHBACK: Arianna Huffington... staunch Republican before she was liberal?

See, you can do this with almost anybody.

[imnotstopping]

I am deeply troubled by Bill Clinton's unquestioning support for Hillary's campaign to be President. This man is intelligent enough to know that Obama would be a much better choice, but his ever-inflated ego won't let him say so or do anything except perpetuate his own Presidency. Had he done the decent thing and resigned in 1999, we'd still have Al Gore as President and the world would be a better place. But Bill has to try his darndest to get Hill to be President so he can be back in power. It's time for him to give real democracy, what we have left, a chance. I want us to go FORWARD with OBAMA, not backwards with Clintons and no way anywhere with Republicans.

[ajax2]

it's simple, he opposed the war, but supported prosecuting it.

[NoPCZone]

I guess that depends upon how you define "support", kinda like the definition of "is". Remember the quote 'That depends upon what the definition of 'is' is.

For those young voters who do not remember the endless triangulation, doublespeak and half-truths of Bill Clinton, this is what you will get if you elect Hillary.

[Nyland8]

You know, it’s funny how everyone is so quick to accuse people of flip-flopping on these issues when clearly, any simple study of the timelines brings all of these things into perspective … and even into focus.

When the vote to authorize empowerment of the president came up, most people on both sides of the aisle were for it, with very few exceptions. After the events of 9/11, it makes perfect sense to try to empower the president to respond quickly to whatever threats against America our national intelligence might reveal. But things change. Data is gathered. After that vote, weapons inspectors were readmitted into Iraq and informed us that cooperation was being given, no weapons had been found and more time was needed before jumping to conclusions about any “imminent threat”. THAT is the reason that Bush has no excuse, but Senators who voted to empower him DO. They were voting in good faith, confident that if and when the time arose, the president would do the right thing. They gave him the benefit of the doubt. Instead, we know from what has been subsequently revealed that he (really Cheney/Rumsfeld) had intended to invade all along no matter what the evidence showed. That’s why Kerry “voted for the war before he voted against it”. Nobody with half a brain believes that the Senate votes on exactly the same thing twice. They don’t. The first vote empowers the president to act. The second grants funding for his acts if he has done the right thing. He didn’t.

We also know that Clinton is telling the truth when he says he opposed the war from the beginning, because “the beginning” for him was really when the PNAC cabal begged him to invade Iraq when he was president … long before 9/11 … but he refused. He is telling the truth. In 1998 he opposed going into Iraq, and rightly so. They were no threat to us.

Nobody is rewriting history here. People are just too willing to forget what the history really shows.

8

.

[RalphB]

And a few more:

After the war commenced, President Clinton repeatedly said he would not have invaded Iraq; he would have waited for inspectors to finish their job.

President Clinton: 'I would not have done it until after Hans Blix finished the job.' According to an article in TIME magazine, President Clinton said, "I would not have done it until after Hans Blix finished his job. Having said that, over 600 of our people have died since the conflict was over. We've got a big stake now in making it work. I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn't agree with the timing of the attack." [TIME, 6/24/04]

President Clinton: 'I thought that we should not have gone in there until we let the UN Inspectors finish their job.' On CNN’s The Situation Room, Clinton said, “Well, at the time, Wolf, I thought that we should not have gone in there until we let the U.N. inspectors finish their job. That was, after all, the understanding the Senate had when it was asked to vote to Congress to give the president authority to go in.” [CNN, The Situation Room, 8/11/05]

President Clinton: 'I don’t agree with what was done when it was done.' On CNN, Clinton said, “The question is, what's now best for the American people, for the war on terror, and for the people of Iraq, and the stability of the Middle East? We don't want to set a fixed timetable, if that led to chaos, the establishment of permanent terrorist operations in the Sunni section of Iraq, and long-term greater instability in the Middle East. So, whether you are for it or against it, it seems to me you should all be praying that it succeeds. I am. And so -- and I didn't agree with what was done when it was done. But we are where we are.” [CNN, 12/1/05]

[RalphB]

Some actual quotes from Bill.

President Clinton said in New York on March 14, 2003:

Do you believe this matters? If you believe it matters—as I do—then you have to decide if it matters whether we bend over backwards to try to disarm him in a way that strengthens rather than divides the world community. If you don’t think it matters, then you’re with a lot of the people in the current administration who think that we’ll just go over there and this will take a few days, after we win—victors always get to write history—everybody will get over this and we’ll get everybody back together and they’ll be glad he’s gone because he’s a thug and a murderer. That’s what they think. If you believe it matters to keep them together, then you’ve got to support some version of what Prime Minister Blair’s doing now, which is to say, okay, he’s finally destroying his missiles. And the administration, to be fair, is nominally in favor of what Blair’s trying to do.

He’s finally destroying his missiles, so let’s give him a certain date in which, in this time, he has to destroy the missiles, reconcile the discrepancies in what we believe is the truth on chemical weapons, reconcile the discrepancies on biological weapons, reconcile the issue of the Drones, and offer up 150 scientists who can travel outside of Iraq with their families for interviews. If you do that, then we’ll say this is really good-faith disarmament, and we’ll go on without a conflict. Now if that passes, however, then you have to be willing to take yes for an answer. You see what I mean? I’m for regime change too, but there’s more than one way to do it. We don’t invade everybody whose regime we want to change. There’s more than one way to do this, but if that passes and he actually disarms, then we have to be willing to take it, and then work for regime change by supporting the opposition to Saddam Hussein within and outside Iraq, and doing other things.

[mcearlgrey]

This prevarication brought to you by The Clintons: We Love To Lie, And It Shows!™

[Chocolate2008]

Lying isn't as easy today as it was in the 1990's huh Billy?

I DID NOT SUPPORT THIS WAR.

THE IRAQ WAR

I NEVER SAID IT WAS A GOOD IDEA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs&feature=related

[Balzac]

It was obvious that Bush intended to use his newly granted power to launch the unprovoked invasion of Iraq.

The Clintons and Bushes are one family - The Clintushes.

They are ruining America.

When Congress voted for Bushes authorization for invading Iraq, they were preemptively discarding their power and duty to balance Bush's executive powers.

The reason we have a congress is to check the power of the President, but our Democrats like to roll over and piss themselves if the (p)Resident gives them the stink-eye.

The Clintush family is not American. Neither is the government American.

Their shredding of our Constitution is UNAMERICAN.

[chowderhead]

Oh, for goodness sake, Bill, stop lying!

[coonce]

Someone said a bit ago that Hillary needed to distinguish herself from Bill, well guess what....Bill did it for her.

Coonsey's View
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/