He was in Europe during the first few months of the new presidency and that is where we coincidentally starting hearing reports about how little the Eurosnots thought of GW.
Then we had the orchestrated defection of Jeffords on the "principled" stand that Bush was too responsive to the rightwing of his party (sounds like Clinton and his obessive hatred with the Christian Right).
Until 911 I think that strategy was working towards more open and hostile remarks. Afterwards, he and his strategists in the Democratic Party had to gnash their teeth over the fact that he was too untouchable to criticise.
Clinton seems to have a real problem with Bush. He dismissively called him a "frat boy" during the last election. When that hasn't worked he and his minions have done everything to call into question his integrity and convictions.
He must see this as the only opening the Dems can weasel into to try to put some space between Bush and those high public opinion polls.
This is a gamble that leads me to believe the Dems are orchestrating an attack on Bush to head off a war that could hand Republicans a victory this fall at best and, at the very least, distract from the issues they want to talk about.
It's a calculated risk. I'm not sure that he anticipated Blair giving such unqualified support and if more join in it will make his remarks look very political and crass.
This could get very interesting and Iwonder if Clinton is going to be prepared for the political fallout to himself personally and his party of followers when the country rallies around Bush rather than him.
I'll lay my bet on GW over Clinton anytime.