Bill Clinton "Opposed Iraq From The Beginning" But Not In Dec 2002

Bill Clinton told Iowa voters that he had "opposed Iraq from the beginning", thereby prompting some hooting and hollering - "Publius" at Obsidian Wings tells us that both Clintons were AWOL:

More substantively, there are two broad reasons why I oppose Hillary – and both relate directly to Bill. The first – and more petty – reason is that she deserves some retribution for Iraq. Perhaps it’s purely subjective, but I still resent that she – and he – abandoned progressives from August 2002 to roughly the spring of 2005 (the time we needed them most). For me, it’s less about August 2002 to March 2003 – it’s more about the post-war. Hillary remained silent for a very long time, even after the magnitude of our failure was quite clear.

...

That’s why Bill’s statement is so galling. He’s pretending that he didn’t scurry off at that critical time when we needed him most – but that’s exactly what he did.

Matt Drudge links to this TIME interview from June 2004 in which Clinton's opposition is somewhat muted at best.  But even more revealing is this address Clinton gave to the DLC in December 2002 in which he evaluated the Democratic Party's setback in the recent elections.  Look hard for his opposition to the Iraq war there - Salon has the full text over 1, 2, 3, 4 pages and here is a Times account).

I don't want to cherry-pick the intelligence but here are the passages I have found in which Iraq is mentioned:

Let's talk about the other things. The problem with our message was that to Democrats and Independents, we were missing in action in national security and we had no positive plan for America's domestic future.

It's not fair to say we were missing in action on national security. The Democrats supported the president against terror; they overwhelmingly supported the defense increases. Most of them supported the administration on Iraq. It was amazing that they were able to make such a big deal over the Homeland Security bill, a bill that was Senator Lieberman's proposal, which the administration opposed for seven months before finally deciding that it was the only wedge issue they had because they didn't have Iraq or terrorism anymore. But it's our fault that we let it happen. Now because of the national security issue and because we had no positive plan on the economy and other domestic issues, we had no access to a large majority of voters who were otherwise predisposed to vote for Democrats for two reasons: one, they thought by 20 points that the administration had given insufficient attention to the economy and other domestic issues; and second, they thought by 23 points that other things being equal, it would be better to have more Democrats in Congress to restrain the extreme impulses of the Republicans on the environment and other special interest issues.

Clinton segues to voter turnout but returns to national security:

What should the positions be? First, on national security, the facts are that the majority of the Democrats have been clear and virtually unanimous in the fight against terror, and in supporting defense increases. The majority of us stood up and said, yes, we do have to have unlimited and unambiguous inspections in Iraq and the ability to use force, if necessary, if those inspections and the mandate of the UN are not honored. That's what we wanted all along, exactly what has been done. We need to make that clear. We now have a homeland security department and that's fine. It'll probably do more good than harm.

But it's not nearly enough. What should our security position be? First of all, we ought to listen to Senator Graham. Al-Qaida should be our top priority, Iraq is important but the terrorist network is more urgent in terms of its threat to our immediate security as we have seen recently in the attacks in Kenya and in Bali.

He talks about the importance of properly organizing the homeland security effort, and then Iraq again:

We also ought to do more on weapons on mass destruction. I approve of what's being done in Iraq now and the way it's being done, but it's not enough. We spent a lot of your tax money when I was president getting all the nuclear weapons out of the other nations of the former Soviet Union and getting them all into Russia and then reducing the number of nuclear weapons and destroying the many of them.

And he turns to possible Russian proliferation of chemical, biological, or nuclear technology before returning to the domestic security front again.  America needs a positive national security vision, foreign aid, debt relief, and then he turns to the economy; Iraq is not mentioned again.  Clinton did favor Social Security reform and outreach to conservatives, so you know this was a DLC audience.

So, this was Bill Clinton's opposition to the impending war as of December 2002.  Pretty tepid.  He has since argued that he is constrained by the etiquette of former Presidents, which in his case was compounded by the desire not to criticize a prospective future President.  But by way of contrast, here is Al Gore on Sept 23, 2002 pounding the table in opposition to an Iraqi adventure.

So sure, Bill Clinton was opposed to the war in Iraq "from the beginning" just like Hillary was a NY Yankees fan all her life - the rest of us just didn't learn about it until the timing was right.

MORE:  And the timing was not right in May 2006:

A surprise guest at the meeting [of wealthy progressives] was Bill Clinton, whose agenda seemed to be protecting his wife. But things didn't work out quite as planned. When Guy Saperstein, a retired lawyer from Oakland, asked Clinton if Democrats who supported the war should apologize, the former President "went f****** ballistic," according to Saperstein. Forget Hillary, Clinton said angrily during a ten-minute rant; if I was in Congress I would've voted for the war. "It was an extraordinary display of anger and imperiousness," Saperstein says.

Admirable of Bill to conceal his true impulses in order to protect his wife.  And what an actor!

PILING ON:  Q&O has more vintage Clinton.

Comments

[clarice]

I'm afraid real nuance is lost on you,TM.

[Other Tom]

I just spotted Clarice's AT piece, now posted at Lucianne. I immediately posted (as Wacko) what I will share with my JOM friends: First, Wacko hearts Clarice. Second, Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are not actually hostile to the truth. They're just utterly indifferent to it.

Bless you for this one, dear.

[clarice]

Smooches back at ya,OT.

[Ralph L]

Did Clinton's ungovernable temper make him an ineffectual and indecisive president, or vice versa?

[Other Tom]

Does anybody else think that, for all his star power, in the end that guy is an enormous albatross around Hillary's neck?

[maryrose]

Great article clarice! I bet that one just flowed easily onto the paoer. Even MSNBC has the story.The Clintons are so busted. I also agree that Bill is trying to torpedo Hil's campaign. it's that passive aggressive narcistic personality of his that keeps getting in the way. He used the word I 94 times only memtioning Hil 7 times in ten minutes.

[maryrose]

should be narcissistic

[clarice]

It's hard to tell if this is just his sociopathy (i.e. can't tell the truth even if his life depends on it) or sabotage. As to the latter, the pathology of the dynamic duo is obvious. Ask yourself, didn't Hill look better and happier when Bill was on the ropes than she did at any other time in her public career?

[maryrose]

They both look bad now.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

The tale of Three Dollar Bill and the Red Witch is only interesting because of that uncertainty. An experienced marriage counselor and/or pyschologist would write the story as classic enabler meets malignant narcissist. Their common ground is lust for power and if Bubba really starts to be more of a stinking albatross than he is already, his SS detail better study up on polonium soup.

I don't think that Hussein Il Jong or Silky Pony can really beat her but it would be fun to see them toss a little Bubbablather at her. I bet she'd cast a conspiracy spell on them in a heartbeat.

[Neo]

Why is it that the Democrats that voted for the war, like Hiliary Clinton and John Edwards, have never just come out and said that the intelligence on Iraq su.... was lacking ?
Do they fear the intelligence agencies that much ? Or what ?

[clarice]

Because,neo--that would be the truth as opposed to the Wilsonian Bush lied lie which is so much more convenient.
Remember, Hil admitted she had an opportunity to read the briefings and declined to do so.
Nevertheless when she voted for war, she accurately described the circumstances--Saddam was able to quickly reconstitute his bio-chem warfare supplies and could quickly reinstitute his nuclear program. He had aided terrorists of every stripe. He was a danger to us and the world.
That was what the intel agencies reported and was true.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Look, what did you expect? We already pretty well know that to Bill, whatever he wants to be true is the truth, and anyone who refers back to previous sayings is a meany and probably in the pay of Bad People.

It's pretty damn near pathognomonic for a narcissistic personality.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

BTW, thank you Tom for whatever made it possible for me to post again.

[Semanticleo]

"It’s not even that he’s lying. It’s the nature of this specific lie that bothers me."

Pity the bar is so low for conservatives toward their selected Leader. Less tolerance for lies is a worthy goal conservatives would do well to emulate. If only Nosferatu tolerated mirrors in the Republican castle.

[Cecil Turner]

I see Bill's still trying to sell that shinola about the Cleland ad:

The president was against the Homeland Security Bill for 8 1/2 months. And Karl Rove told him they were going to lose the 2002 election unless the American people were scared about terror again. So they decided to be for a bill they opposed.

Yeah, right. In case everyone had an attack of amnesia, the actual issue was over collective bargaining for TSA employees:

A Senate committee voted Thursday to give airport screeners the collective bargaining and whistleblower protection rights that many other federal employees have.

I'm sure we can argue about whether reorganizing Homeland Security into its own cabinet post was a good idea, but as Max Cleland can tell you, civil service union membership for its employees is a political loser. And this little gem stuck out as well:

Saxy Chambliss, like me, had a deferment, and it worked.

Really? Because the way I read it, Chambliss had student and medical deferments. Bill Clinton defrauded the Selective Service system by pretending to join ROTC . . . which really ain't the same thing.

[Other Tom]

I have this (possibly navie) faith that most voters simply do not want to have another day, let alone four years, of this extremely strange couple looking into their eyes and lying right down to their toes. Those who say "Bush lied" seem content to let the condemnation rest there, and fall silent when asked to specify a lie. Those who brand both Clintons as habitual liars are simply bursting, chapter and verse, with the lies right there in black and white--and on their television screens.

[Seixon]

Tom,

Gore, in that speech, doesn't oppose an Iraq adventure. He was expressing disagreement with the timing and manner in which Bush was taking us into Iraq. As far as the entire idea of going into Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein, Gore didn't argue against that at all.

Gore even advocated staying the course in Iraq after an eventual removal of Saddam Hussein, asking whether Congress should require nation building as part of any resolution enabling Bush to go to war.

The Clintons, Gore, Kerry, and every other prominent Democrat had no qualms about invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein. The only thing they held out on was the way in which Bush was doing it. They wanted more allies on the table, more funding from allies, and to let the inspection process go on for a bit longer before going in.

All of those were unrealistic demands, though, since we got all the allies we were ever going to get anyways. We were never going to get Germany, France, and Russia to go along with it, regardless.

The only "opposition" the Clintons, Gore, and the rest had before the war was that Bush wasn't making our Iraq adventure impossibly perfect enough.

[Seixon]

Here is a relevant excerpt from Gore:

"Specifically, Congress should establish why the president believes that unilateral action will not severely damage the fight against terrorist networks, and that preparations are in place to deal with the effects of chemical and biological attacks against our allies, our forces in the field, and even the home-front. The resolution should also require commitments from the President that action in Iraq will not be permitted to distract from continuing and improving work to reconstruct Afghanistan, and that the United States will commit to stay the course for the reconstruction of Iraq."

Gore advocating "stay the course" in 2002, if we were ever to go into Iraq, which we did. Ooops.

[Seixon]

Here is a relevant excerpt from Gore:

"Specifically, Congress should establish why the president believes that unilateral action will not severely damage the fight against terrorist networks, and that preparations are in place to deal with the effects of chemical and biological attacks against our allies, our forces in the field, and even the home-front. The resolution should also require commitments from the President that action in Iraq will not be permitted to distract from continuing and improving work to reconstruct Afghanistan, and that the United States will commit to stay the course for the reconstruction of Iraq."

Gore advocating "stay the course" in 2002, if we were ever to go into Iraq, which we did. Ooops.

[Seixon]

Here is a relevant excerpt from Gore:

"Specifically, Congress should establish why the president believes that unilateral action will not severely damage the fight against terrorist networks, and that preparations are in place to deal with the effects of chemical and biological attacks against our allies, our forces in the field, and even the home-front. The resolution should also require commitments from the President that action in Iraq will not be permitted to distract from continuing and improving work to reconstruct Afghanistan, and that the United States will commit to stay the course for the reconstruction of Iraq."

Gore advocating "stay the course" in 2002, if we were ever to go into Iraq, which we did. Ooops.

[Seixon]

Argh! Typepad!!

[donald]

Seixon! My man! Any Norwegian Super Models Yet?

[kim]

Well! George AND Donald. Ah, old, forgotten, far-off things; and battles long ago.
========================

[clarice]

So glad to see Charlie again. Charlie, I didn't know you'd been blocked from posting! In any event, glad that is over.

[Semanticleo]

'Saxy Chambliss, like me, had a deferment, and it worked."

Of course, you didn't hesitate to offer yourself to some substitute public service like the Peace Corp. Or maybe you were a Volunteer Fire Fighter?

[glasater]

To tell a lie used to be a bad thing. What the Clintons have done is to make lying the norm.
The old saying "anyone who lies, will cheat and steal" comes to mind.

[kim]

Ask not what semi-coherent thought you can give for your country, ask how your patriotism can so warp your mind.
=============================

[kim]

There are really only four prohibitions; do not lie, do not steal, do not kill, and do not commit sexual folly. Now, where did I leave that scorecard?
===============================

[Rick Ballard]

"Saxy Chambliss, like me, had a deferment, and it worked." - Bill Clinton

Tic - you're really giving stupid a bad name. You obviously think that Aristotle was Belgian but there really isn't any need to display your erudition in public. A series of treatments by a good cranioproctologist would be a better use of your time.

[kim]

Not Aristotle, Rick, Heraklos chattel. The Belgians were stabled in Augea. Now that's public service.
====================

[Semanticleo]

"you're really giving stupid a bad name."

Marmalard, on the other hand, is making the condition famous. Politics is only public service when you act in the interests of the nation, rather than being primarily interested in keeping your 'job'. Neither Clinton or Chambliss have any credit for public service.

>maroon>

[Semanticleo]

"you're really giving stupid a bad name."

Marmalard, on the other hand, is making the condition famous. Politics is only public service when you act in the interests of the nation, rather than being primarily interested in keeping your 'job'. Neither Clinton or Chambliss have any credit for public service.

>maroon>

[kim]

You forgot to capitalize 'nation', Semi, and to genuflect.
=================================

[Other Tom]

A review of the nation's press this morning discloses that Bill Clinton is taking a savage drubbing from all sides for his out-and-out lying about his support for the invasion of Iraq. The man is simply incredible--literally.

[kim]

How dare he!
========

[Semanticleo]

"You forgot to capitalize 'nation', Semi, and to genuflect."

I am sorry if I have been neglecting you.

Say something thought provoking, and I'll see what I can do.

[GMax]

a good cranioproctologist would be a better use of your time.

Despite advancement in the field, when its buried that deep and for this long a period, the good doctors just shake their head and advise the afficted to see that all their affairs are in order. Its simply inoperable.

[MayBee]

Have you ever had a boyfriend that left you, and all you wanted was to have him back because he was so wonderful and nobody else was as good? And then he comes crawling back, and you go out a few times and you suddenly see all the flaws and you dump him?

That seems to me what is happening here with America/Dems and Bill.

[Porchlight]

Ha - MayBee, that is a great description. The Clinton rose-tinted glasses are looking a little 4-F these days.

[Other Tom]

"Have you ever had a boyfriend that left you, and all you wanted was to have him back because he was so wonderful and nobody else was as good?"

Can't say as I have, MayBee, but I get your point.

The remarkable thing is, this guy gets caught--univerally, unequivocally caught, red-naded with pants down--in a bald-faced whopper, and it's "dog bites man."

[Slartibartfast]

Interesting thing about that OW thread: there's lots of discussion about Clinton being impeached for being the recipient of oral sex, lots of scoffing about him being unjustly impeached, and absolutely not one mention of him being disbarred.

Probably no one noticed that, though.

[Ann]

Birds Got to Fly, Fish Got to Swim [Jonah Goldberg]
and Bill Clinton's got to lie. From today's Washington Post:

Bill Clinton's got to lie