Will Hill Kill Bill for Lying About Iraq?

I'm hearing that Hillary is ready to kill Bill. But it has nothing to do with his roving eye -- and everything to do with his Rovian lie.

By claiming that he had "opposed Iraq from the beginning" -- when the record clearly shows otherwise -- the former president served voters a piping hot reminder that the Clintons have frequently had an on-and-off relationship with the truth.

What made Clinton's statement infinitely worse, was that it came at the very moment when Karl Rove was being pilloried for his attempt to rewrite history on Iraq, with even Andy Card, his fellow member of the White House Iraq Group, rejecting his claim that Congress had pushed Bush into war. And just as Rudy Giuliani is being challenged for his penchant for playing fast and loose with the truth.

This should have been a week when Democrats could have asked voters: Have you had enough of all the lies? Are you ready for someone who will tell you the truth? Especially on the single most important issue of our time -- the war?

Instead, the public is left with the sour taste of "they're all the same" in its mouth.

No wonder Hill is lashing out at Bill. What the hell was he thinking?

Comments

[MrCoffeeCup]

Arianna: Most of the time I really don't agree with your articles; however, you are right on the money this time!
Bill Clinton is a consensus President! His governing was by "Going with the flow". He'd float an idea, see what happens then take the credit for whatever. The old "Let's float a balloon and see...".

Bill and Hillary are pretty much like this however, Hillary is more straight forward attack kinda gal. Bill is always around to accept the Lauds and atta-boys on every side of the equation in governance.

If tomorrow, we acutally caught Bin Laden, shot Armedinejhad, Watched Chaves go down in flames, and Hamas embraced all Israel and gave them awards, Bill Clinton would be right there claiming he had everything to do with it!

Bill Clinton cannot let Hillary govern without screwing things up. He is the biggest liability to her presidency if she is elected. She should quietly divorce him and they make a small but agreeable statement that She needs her space to govern without interference. Otherwise, Hillary is toast!

Actually if she did that, it would be a landslide election. Elected by 59% of the American voters

[Ravenlea]

It's no better for you to be misleading in your headlines than it is for Fox News or anyone else. Disappointed in you. As has been pointed out by others, Bill Clinton WAS - and said so publicly - against invading Iraq.

[watchingthings]

When she cools off she'll come to Bill and say...Oh Master, how can I make this up to you?

[RTIII]

...Only posting now as this is _still_ on the front page of the HufPo site...

Dear Arianna,

I love you, darling, but you've got this one wrong: The record _actually_ shows that both Hillary and Bill _were_ against the war, but had a more nuanced and sophisiticated view of how such politics is/should be played. Simply put, they were of a mind that if you give the president the stick, he can then use carrot and stick diplomacy. Read the record _carefully_ and you'll see this is true.

Now, don't get me wrong; I think it was a bad call from both of them. GW Bush isn't - and wasn't - trustworthy. Frankly, I don't give a damn how much patriotism you have behind your "this is my president" and giving him the benefit of the doubt, THIS GUY - to anyone as intelligent and world-wise as Bill and Hillary - CLEARLY was going to use the vote as a mandate for war and was neither capable of nor interested in a sophisticated, nuanced approach to anything, much less THIS war.

Regards,
RTIII

[SouthpawSass]

"One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping to get me elected." --Mitt Romney

[RecklessAbandonArteest]

I don't know what all the complaining is about in regards to HuffPo.

It's clear that HuffPo is pro Obama so the Site is going be hypercritical of anything Hillary does. For sure, it's easy to find fault and express criticism of any candidate [I'm not finger wagging, it's natural instinct to knock on the leader.]

I do think it somewhat amusing that "behind the curtain" HuffPo appears to be run by Chris Matthews, with all the aggressive slamming it does against the Clintons. Of course, just like Chris Matthews, most attacks lack foundation or support.

For example, Clinton's joke about Obama's kindergarten "I want to be president" statement. While she meant it as a joke, Matthews and Tucker asked "Is it right or good strategy for Clinton to attack Obama's kindergarten years? Are there no morals in politics and running for office? Does this signal how desperate Clinton is, to attack a candidate's kindergarten years?"

You have got to be kidding. I can't believe that these characters knew was clearly a joke and make the comment a main topic of discussion on their shows. If anyone was desperate, it was these clowns in looking for anything with which to attack Clinton, even statements they knew to be a joke.

In any event, you all have to realize this is just a personal blog. HuffPo is not a news site and they are not bound by the same standards of MSM, including accurate, unbiased reporting of the news. HuffPo is going to post news that supports its philosophy and viewpoints.

It's HuffPo's ballgame and they can set any rules of play that it wants.

HuffPo can support any candidate it wants and slam whomever they want to attack. Reminder: HuffPo's banner does say "News" and "OPINION." Expressing opinion does not mean unbiased news reporting. Again, this is a blog just the same as anyone can get up and running, in about five minutes.

[rixhex56]

I have read the statements being referenced --- they do not support what is presented in Arianna's post. It is disappointing that Arianna is engaging in this sort of misrepresentation of what was actually said. This is exactly the kind of "reporting" that got us into Iraq in the first place --- leaving out the important stuff.

The original context in which all of these statements were made presents a very different message than when someone "cherrypicks" sentences and presents them out of context, as the current administration has done and continues to do today.

[bolderdash]

I believe it is fair to say that Bill Clinton is a genuis of a campainer when it comes to getting elected to public office, but when it comes down to how he would govern once he's in office, is a completely different 'kind of beast'.

Hillary now has to contend with his ex-President of the United States husband, and when it comes to Bill's 'moral compass', saying "What is Is"! may be a problem. He may like to play the sax with his fans, but what is this touring around the World with George Bush Sr. for so-called world crusade issues?

[ChiMan1]

HELLO!!! BJ's Go Slow attitude is what got us into 911 to begin with.
Truth, like it or not. sorry.

[ChiMan1]

HRC has the Spine of a Twinkie!
If she can't distance herself from this repulsive letcher (BJ), we are going to make her Commander in Chief!
You gotta be KIDDING!!!

[Americano]

Lets all us not forget, 70% of America supported this invasion and this A-hole president was elected not once but twice by the American peeple. Important note, all these elected offical reflect who we are as Americans. We elected them. We like Ron Paul! We like Kusinich! We elected Bush! Lets stop calling the keddle black!

[itsnotmyfault]

From your own Huffington Post (Chris Matthews Rewrites History about the Clintons and the Origins of the Iraq War). How about promoting the truth and not some rightwing pathological fabrication.:
"Clinton Splits With Bush on Iraq," The Washington Post March 13, 2003
"Former president Bill Clinton, who has generally supported the Bush administration's Iraq policy in recent remarks, called on his successor yesterday to accept a more relaxed timeline in exchange for support from a majority of the United Nations Security Council members. ..[T]he former president has publicly espoused an approach substantially different from the administration's public stance."

"Deadline for war - Give the inspectors more time, urges Clinton" The Daily Telegraph March 13, 2003 "Bill Clinton yesterday urged the Bush administration to give Hans Blix as much time as he wants to complete weapons inspections in Iraq. The former president broke ranks with his successor...Mr Clinton said war might yet be avoided if Saddam Hussein were given more time to disarm. "

"Clinton recommends U.S. patience on Iraq," Reuters, February 11, 2003. "Former U.S. President Bill Clinton said in an interview broadcast on Tuesday the United States should exercise patience in its standoff with Iraq to help build allied support for a potential strike."

Hardball, February 12, 2003,when Chris Matthews asks "Christopher Hitchens, are you upset that President Clinton has emerged as a critic and perhaps a mild-mannered critic of the policy of this administration on the eve of war?"

[imusintheevening]

Arianna, you should consider reading the blog post by David Fiderer on your own website and see that there is ample evidence that the "Bill lied about Iraq" story is not true and simply a MSM concoction.

If you want to pontificate about lies of Presidents stick to the biggest lying President in History, W.

[lgillooly]

Arianna,
I have a lot of respect for you and read your blog daily,however your dislike for President Clinton is ruining what you have tried to do. One of your own bloggers yesterday showed that Clinton WAS against the war and used quotes by him to prove it. What is it about Clinton that you dislike so much. Personally,I think he is a great man and was a wonderful President. Please try to let go of the bias you have and report the facts.

[PuffAndStuff]

Arianna,

Maybe she has killed him already. Noting that it appears he hasn't been seen or heard from since this gaffe.

:)