Posted on 11/27/2007 6:25:39 PM PST by jdm
During a campaign swing for his wife, former President Bill Clinton said flatly yesterday that he opposed the war in Iraq “from the beginning” — a statement that is more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003.
Before the invasion, Mr. Clinton did not precisely declare that he opposed the war. A week before military action began, however, he did say that he preferred to give weapons inspections more time and that an invasion was not necessary to topple Saddam Hussein.
At the same time, he also spoke supportively about the 2002 Senate resolution that authorized military action against Iraq.
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.
Mr. Clinton has said several times since the war began that he would not have attacked Iraq in the manner that President Bush had done. As early as June 2004, he said, “I would not have done it until after Hans Blix finished the job,” referring to the weapons inspections there before the war.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Depends on what the meaning of the word "war" is. ...and "opposed". ...and "start."
Isn’t Bill the first person to have called for regime change in Iraq?
Bill Clinton, as usual is a congenital liar.
Someone should stuff a sock in his mouth, and send him to Iraq for a bicycle tour through Halabjah. One wonders how far he would get on his mountain bike?
Same here. I can still remember seeing his face on the cover of Newsweek or Time, can’t remember. Just looking at him I said to myself “this guy is going to be bad trouble.”
Nothing I have seen, read or heard since has changed my mind about that.
To the ‘toon: So? Who cares?
But opposing a sitting president's military decisions now is perfectly okay. Whatever, Bill.
Notice how they use a question mark - as if it's really up for debate. LOL!
But it is OK now????? Right, tell us another lie Willy.
Is bill’s name (somewhere) on the oil for food program, run out of the UN, under an alias? If hill can turn $10 grand into $100 grand in the commodities market, bill can have an alias?
The man is a liar-he can't help himself--so's his wife.
He also flatly stated that he “did not have sex with that woman...”
The day that he dies, the video of him wagging his finger, denying his plumper, will be played far and wide. (wider even than Hillary’s ample, pantsuited arse) And forevermore, that will be the most remembered image of him.
Who cares? He doesn’t hold any sort of office, he’s just an everyday nobody like the rest of us.
Billy Bob basically started this whole thing by not nipping it in the bud when he had the chance. I guess he was just to busy with Monica
Right and your approved oil for food program was making Saddam more powerful. I simply cannot believe that these idots get away with changing history simply because they state it.
Ok so finally the war in Iraq is over we have won the peace. The ME is a bastion of freedom and this directly reduces the terror threat to the U.S. history approves of the way that George W. Bush handled the crisis...
WHAT THEN ... will the Rats claim that it was they who sponsored the whole shabang....
I loathe the bastards.
Uh, Mr Clinton, excuse me a$$hole, but it is still inappropriate for you to comment on your replacement's performance. As for the 'full throated' reference, I am certain that you had Ms Lewinski in mind as a regression to your past perversions!!!
he's a pitiful spectacle, really, and getting more so with each appearance on the public stage.
gimme an “s,” as in “thinks.”
“I would not have done it until after Hans Blix finished the job.” BC
Hans Blix would still be looking and we’d still be waiting...
It’s interesting that many of the Dems have been consistently wrong on everything. First, they supported the war, and voted to invade based on the threat of WMD. Then it turned out they were wrong because there were no WMDs.
Now they oppose the war, and demand that we withdraw even though we’ve already won it.
I really don’t know how anyone can be so consistently wrong in everything. You’d think, “even a stopped clock is right twice a day.”
It appears that the Dem clock is not stopped, or even slow—just set to the wrong time. As a result, it is always wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.