Posted by Curt on 28 November, 2007 at 10:48 am. 8 comments already!

The Clintons are something else huh

“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.”

But Bill, Did you not make it the position of the United States that regime change in Iraq needs to happen?

Can this family ever come out with a position on a subject and not change it with the winds of the polls. 

Because this is what its all about

Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues
to support President Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq
but chastised
the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

“I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the
left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N.
inspections were over,” Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that
will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book
“My Life.”

Oh, I forgot, he really opposed it but he didn’t want to step on the President’s toes three years after getting elected.  One more year and he would have no problem doing it but not in 2004.

Insane.

We all know what this all about.  Back in 2004 the war was supported by a majority of Americans.  So if the polls show the majority supports it a Clinton will support it.  When it dips a Clinton will oppose it. 

Always ruling like a leaf in the wind.  Whichever way the polls skew.

Meanwhile his wife wants us to believe she actually opposed the war back then when she was pulling the lever to support it.

Is your head spinning yet?

Some great quotes from Captain’s Quarters:

“So, you’re sitting there as President, you’re reeling in the aftermath
of [September 11], so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do
Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, well, my first
responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this
terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical
and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I’ve got
to do that. That’s why I supported the Iraq thing.” (“His Side Of The Story,” Time, 6/28/04)

“‘Saddam is gone and good riddance,’ former President Bill Clinton
said yesterday. Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned
weapons of mass destruction aren’t found. ‘I don’t think you can
criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have
a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. … That is what I was always told.‘” (Joel Siegel, “W Fought A Good Fight, Clinton Says,” [New York] Daily News, 4/16/03)

“I supported the president when he asked the Congress for authority
to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” (Former
President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Tougaloo College Commencement,
Jackson, MS, 5/18/03)

Just imagine having this family back in the Oval Office.  Bending like a leaf for whatever position will make the people like them.  What a cowardly family.

Meanwhile Mary Katherine Ham gives us another quote from a recent speech:

“That’ll require people like me, who got five tax cuts that I should
not have gotten, in my income group, when we had soldiers in
Afghanistan and Iraq. 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.”

Truly a lefty can only say, “force me to support the war by forcing me to pay more taxes!”

Amazing. 

Nevermind that the war is costing us 1% of the GDP and that the total defense spending of this nation is 4%.  Which means there is NO NEED to raise taxes and hurt this economy.  No, a true lefty wants the redistribution of wealth dammit!  Force it on me brother!

Lastly I just had to put up this quote from OneCosmos about the logic of the left which fits this new Clinton news nicely: (h/t Dr. Sanity)

This is one of the reasons that the left habitually attacks motives instead
of substance, for they first undermine the idea that you can know
anything objectively, and then insist that the purpose of knowledge is
domination and oppression anyway. For the last several years, “job one”
of of the left has been to make us doubtful of our aims in Iraq, in the
hope that we will simply become demoralized and surrender.

But
they do this so selectively that it is mind-boggling. For example,
surely there was more credible evidence that Saddam had WMD than that
the earth is undergoing catastrophic manmade warming. But in both
cases, their main argument is that people who disagree with them have
venal motives. In the case of President Bush, he really wanted to
invade Iraq because he thought it would somehow enrich his already
wealthy “friends.” And in the case of global warming, those who reject
the theory are simply on the payroll of Bush’s wealthy friends. So for
all practical purposes, humility is not possible on the left, since
their conspiratorial form of thought means that they always have the
answer. And it sounds humble to the stupid, since they are always
opposed to the intrinsically racist-sexist-homophobic America.

So,
just as the left engages in the moral inversion of detaching virtue
from tradition, they engage in a weird “cognitive conversion” that
combines “intellectual helplessness” with a kind of monstrously
arrogant omniscience. This is how you can spend some $100,000 plus on
an elite university education, only to learn that truth doesn’t exist and we possess it.

UPDATE

Newsbusters tells us that CBS and NBC ignored the Clintons latest flip-flop.  Which is not too shocking since the MSM are great pals with the Clintons.  What is surprising is that ABC called him on it:

Wednesday’s editions of the CBS “Early Show” and NBC’s “Today” show both ignored
Bill Clinton’s incredible assertion on Tuesday that he opposed
the Iraq war from its inception. Only “Good Morning America” correspondent Jake
Tapper pointed out the obvious fact that Clinton was no vocal critic of the
military action. Filing a report on the subject, Tapper incredulously wondered,
Bill Clinton opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning?”

After acknowledging that the ex-President did call for the U.N. weapons
inspectors to have more time, Tapper clarified the record: “…[Bill Clinton] was hardly, at least publicly, an opponent of going to war against Saddam
Hussein.”

But wait for it.  Another twisted explanation for the flip-flop will be coming shortly from the Clintons.

Other’s Blogging:

>