Bill Clinton Rewrites His Support For Iraq War...

Yesterday in the great state of Iowa, former President Bill Clinton said this: “Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers"

Okay, “I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers," is a pretty odd statement, but that’s not the one I am going to take on today. No, I’m more interested in the phrase: “opposed Iraq from the beginning”. Really Bill? Lets look at some quotes from Bill himself on the issue:

On May 19, 2003, Clinton declared, "I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

A March 27, 2003 Iowa City Press-Citizen article reported that speaking before the University of Iowa, "Clinton, who voiced his support for the troops fighting in Iraq, said it made sense after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to become more concerned about Saddam Hussein's potential for producing and distributing weapons of mass destruction."

"It is...illogical to believe that [Iraq's weapons] stocks would not get into the wrong hands," Clinton said just days after the war began. "It's easier to deal with the production and spread of this stuff than deal with the aftermath."

Clinton also downplayed the potential costs of waging war. On September 3, 2002, a month before Hillary authorized the war, he told CNN: "I don't think it will be a big military problem if we do it." That statement begs the question: Instead of opposing the war, did Clinton actually urge his wife to vote in favor of it?

"Whether you were for it or against it or whatever your opinions of it are to date, every American ought to be pulling for this mission to succeed," he told Larry King in December 2005.

In 1998, on the eve of his impeachment hearings, Clinton addressed the country following his bombing of Iraq: “Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”

So yeah, I guess you really we’re opposed from the beginning Bill. Not convinced? Here are a few additional quotes:

March 18, 2003 (Guardian): "...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....Blair is in a position not of his own making, because Iraq and other nations were unwilling to follow the logic of 1441."

On September 12, 2002, Bill Clinton appeared on The Late Show With David Lettermen. There, this exchange took place: Letterman asked, "Are we going into Iraq? Should we go into Iraq? I'd like to go in. I'd like to get the guy. I don't like the way the guy looks."

"He is a threat. He's a murderer and a thug," said Clinton. "There's no doubt we can do this. We're stronger; he's weaker. You're looking at a couple weeks of bombing and then I'd be astonished if this campaign took more than a week. Astonished."

February 17, 1998 (CNN)"There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us."

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

I have to tell you, I’m disappointed. I’ve always felt that Bill Clinton was an amazing liar, but this is amatuer.

One last thing. Now that you know what Clinton said yesterday, and what he has said previously, I think it's pretty obvious that he is flip-flopping. Now go to the New York Times article on the flip-flop at the following link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/politics/28clinton.html. Now answer me this: Do you STILL think that there is no such thing as a Liberal media?