Do You Honestly Believe Bill Clinton's Story That He Opposed the Iraqi War?

[David Zephyr]

Poll question: Do You Honestly Believe Bill Clinton's Story That He Opposed the Iraqi War?

This is a painful question for me to pose, but I gotta get it off my chest and ask for a moment of honest reflection by the DU Community.

I just can't swallow Bill's story. I'm sorry, but I can't. It diminshes the activism of the millions here in the U.S. who marched in the streets and were vocal in their opposition to this wicked war. It also cheapens the courageous role of may in Congress who spoke out against the war and who proved it with their vote against the Iraqi War Resolution.

This one is just too much for me to let fly by. Too much.

If truth matters anymore, I ask you:

Do you believe Bill Clinton's recent headline grabbing announcement that he was opposed to the Iraqi War?

This is a question that should be asked. It didn't need to be asked before, but it does now since he brought it up.

And it's a very simple question.

Do you believe Bill Clinton's story?

I'd like to hear your comments, too.

Poll result (149 votes)
Yes, I believe Bill's story.	(30 votes, 20%)	Vote
No, I don't believe Bill's story.	(119 votes, 80%)	Vote

[saracat]

1. No because many times publicly both before and after the invasion he stated he supported the

attack. He was also part of the "team" that advised his wife as well as John Edwards to vote for IWAR. This is opportunistic BS because the polls that the Clintons live and die by are not boding well.

[truedelphi]

48. I remember being somewhat shattered the first time

I read that he did not oppose the War in Iraq. It was truly disappointing.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. Of course he supported it, he laid the groundwork for it!

The man who spent much of his administration carpet bombing Iraq, who tightened embargoes to the point where tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, died for want of warm clothing, clean water and basic medicines and who seemed at every turn ready to humiliate the sovereignty of the nation did not support the logical conclusion of his own policies? Yeah, right.

[1corona4u]

3. Who cares. It's history. Can't change it now. Get on with life man.

[babylonsister]

5. It does beg the question why he'd lie about this. I'd like to know. nt

[1corona4u]

12. Only people

who continually obsess over things they can't change dredge up the past. It begs no question for me. At all. Just more slamming of the Clintons, who, may I remind you, just so happen to have had the BEST ecomomic times I have lived through in all of MY 50 years. And, ther most peaceful. Take that on for a change.

I'm really getting sick of the Hillary/Bill bashing. It's as if people think they will sway the voters by posting this tripe. You're swaying this voter alright. Right to Hillary, should Biden not be the nominee. And, I'll vote for her just for this reason alone. Deal with that.

[David Zephyr]

14. Or possibly...only people who think that being truthful is important anymore.

.

[babylonsister]

15. Hard to argue with that. If Bill had been truthful, none of this would

have happened.

[1corona4u]

17. Perhaps I wasn't clear...

I DON'T FUCKING CARE. IT'S HISTORY.

[David Zephyr]

25. Using the "F" word in caps tells me that you do care...a lot, too.

In any event, you made your point. You don't care about untruths because they are "history".

[hedgehog]

22. The problem is that Bill Clinton is trying to change history by

claiming he opposed the war before it started.

[1corona4u]

32. SO WHAT

Bush is trying to rewrite history too, him and Rove, by suggesting that it was the DEMOCRATS fault that we rushed to war!! That, was the lost story on Hardball tonight, and it should have been the MOST important. This is what people should be outraged over, not Bill Clinton's remarks.

God, why in the hell do people hang on every word someone says, when it's no longer relevant?? WHO cares what BC says.

[Rageneau]

33. It is the media and sufferers of CDS who are trying to change the facts.

Clinton NEVER supported the invasion. There is not a single quote anyone can cite that shows he did. Instead, people are quoting things Clinton said about weapons inspections and are falsely claiming the two are the same thing.

Lots of eople dislike Clinton.

And nearly every one of them justifies that dislike by lying.

[David Zephyr]

41. Show me a quote where he "opposed the war" at the time.

Some opposition.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

62. As of March 18, 2003 he was actively working to avoid invasion

One can debate what constitutes opposition. Bill Clinton certainly did not do all he could to oppose the war, and did many things that ended up enabling the war. I very much disagree with Bill Clinton's actions regarding Iraq in 2002. There is no doubt he supported the IWR, but he seems to have sincerely felt it would help force Iraq to accept inspectors, which it did.

He was an Iraq hawk insofar as he was a strong advocate of acheiving Iraqi disarmament by some method. He believed in the WMD 100%, having himself bombed Iraq on that basis in 1998, and couldn't immagine there was nothing there to disarm.

I disagree with his statement of opposition "from the start," but in his mind he supported paths that would not end in war, so that's probably what he means by that odd statement.

In any event, for all his enabling of Bush on Iraq, I wouldn't say he supported the war... constituting unilateral American invasion and occupation of Iraq. Unlike the Republicans, he did not favor the invasion scenario or the neo-con vision of invasion for the simple sake of throwing our weight around and was, in his understanding of things, working to prevent war in early 2003:

In the face of the foot dragging, hawks in America have been pushing for an immediate attack on Iraq. Some of them want regime change for reasons other than disarmament, and, therefore, they have discredited the inspection process from the beginning; they did not want it to succeed. Because military action probably will require only a few days, they believe the world community will quickly unite on rebuilding Iraq as soon as Saddam is deposed.

On the other side, France, Germany and Russia are adamantly opposed to the use of force or imposing any ultimatum on Saddam as long as the inspectors are working. They believe that, at least as long as the inspectors are there, Iraq will not use or give away its chemical and biological stocks, and therefore, no matter how unhelpful Saddam is, he does not pose a threat sufficient to justify invasion. After 150,000 US forces were deployed to the Gulf, they concluded the US was not willing to give inspections a chance anyway. The problem with their position is that only the threat of force from the US and the UK got inspectors back into Iraq in the first place. Without a credible threat of force, Saddam will not disarm.

Once again, Blair stepped into the breach, with a last-ditch proposal to restore unity to the UN and disarm Saddam without military action. He secured US support for a new UN resolution that would require Saddam to meet dead lines, within a reasonable time, in four important areas, including accounting for his biological and chemical weapons and allowing Iraqi scientists to leave the country for interviews. Under the proposed resolution, failure to comply with this deadline would justify the use of force to depose Saddam.

Russia and France opposed this resolution and said they would veto it, because inspections are proceeding, weapons are being destroyed and there is therefore no need for a force ultimatum. Essentially they have decided Iraq presents no threat even if it never disarms, at least as long as inspectors are there.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916233,0...

[Jackpine Radical]

4. I Believe, I Believe. I Believe he didn't inhale. I Believe he didn't have sex with

That Woman, Monica Lewinsky.

But I don't believe he opposed the Iraq war. There are limits to credulity, after all.

[bunnies]

6. I believe Bill thinks we're all dumb suckers...

who dont have access to the internets. What a joke.

[elizm]

10. He AND Hillary think we are all dumb suckers. nt

[ClarkUSA]

53. Bill's lost his touch.

And his mind - if he thought he could get away with bald-faced lying in the age of Google.

I hope Iowans have taken note.

[H2O Man]

7. Of course not.

It's one of a series of lies he has told. Another recent one was when he tried to take the "blame" for the earlier health care business. Anyone familiar with human behavior recognized that he had a difficult time completing that whooper without laughing at his audience.

[elizm]

8. No. He is digging the hole even deeper. I hope he keeps it up. nt

[geek tragedy]

9. He didn't inhale that war!

He did not have political relations with that war!

No, no no!

[Bitwit1234]

11. Who in the hell cares...Lets go ask Obama's wife is she opposed

why she did, did she come out against it in 2003. How about Elizabeth Edwards or Kucnich's wife and all the other democrats wives, because after all they make a difference, they are going to tell their husbands what to do. AND DOES ANY PERSON TRUTHFULLY BELIEVE THAT BILL CLINTON IS GOING TO TELL HIS WIFE WHAT TO DO...HELL DAMN NO.

[blm]

18. He advised Tony Blair to join Bush and he advised every Dem lawmaker in DC

to support Bush on his terrorism and Iraq war decisions.

[jenmito]

64. HE obviously cares...which is why he SAID what he said, while campaigning for his wife!

How can you compare the other candidates' spouses to HILLARY'S spouse? Duh-he was a PRESIDENT and Hillary claimed she consulted with him before voting FOR the IWR! How can you people who think it's no big deal not see that???

[AtomicKitten]

13. The evidence indicates he was for it and against it.

I have no clue why politicians don't seem to get that every utterance of theirs is recorded somewhere by someone.

[polichick]

16. I'll answer the question I asked a while back...

YES, Hillary needs to reel her man in ~ maybe he could carry her bags or something (quietly).

[blm]

19. Neither Clinton would side with Kerry's opposition to Bush's decision to invade and

during Bill's June2004 book tour, he made SURE to support Bush on his terrorism and Iraq war decisions REPEATEDLY.

He forgot that Kerry even had an extensive background in tracking terror networks, it seems.

[JerseygirlCT]

46. I remember that

So no, I'm not buying any back-peddling now.

Just like his wife needs to do, just come clean. No waffling, no hedging, none of it -- "I MADE A MISTAKE" Why the heck is that simple idea so hard for either of them to act on?

[madrchsod]

20. he prolonged the suffering of the iraqi people

by using those stupid sanctions against the people of iraq. there`s a lot of blood on everyones hands from reagan to bush.

[ilovesunshine]

21. Does Saddam factor into the blood on everyone's hands factor?

[hedgehog]

23. Here's what's really important: when did Senator Clinton start opposing the war

and why? I went nuts posting here the summer of 2006 because she refused to debate the anti-war candidate, Jonathan Tasini, before the NYS Primary. Smart campaigning, because debating him would have given him a huge boost because most people weren't even aware he existed. She couldn't afford to be against the war as most New Yorkers were then because she had her eye on the national stage. My guess is that she turned against the war November 8, 2006.

[Uncle Joe]

24. No, I don't and I believe this D.U poll is a microcosm as to what motivated him

to come out and say he opposed the war with Iraq.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Poll result (44 votes)
Her Vice President (6 votes, 14%) Vote
Her Husband (38 votes, 86%)

[Imagevision]

26. I'd love to know what Hillary is thinking right now...?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

27. No, I don't believe it for a second.

And the sooner other folks here figure it out and lose their infatuation with the man, the better. And we think the freeps are idiots for falling for Bush's shit all these years abnd making excuses for his actions. I, thankfully, have freed myself from being the Clinton enabler I was for his two terms.

Bill Clinton has shown himself to be a liar. It's cold, it's harsh, but it is a fact.

We need to deal with that straight ahead and stop pretending it isn't the truth, and learn that everything he says must be seen through that prism.

[David Zephyr]

28. This poll is too similar to TeamJordan23's poll. Please vote there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[peace13]

29. It all depends on what your definition of is, is. n/t

[Inspired]

30. No and I'm not sure why it matters. Or is HE running for president by proxy? n/t

[tammywammy]

31. No, I don't believe it n/t

[Perry Logan]

34. No wonder the Democrats lose all the time.

[asdjrocky]

35. I stopped believing the Clintons sometime after NAFTA.

[IndianaGreen]

36. Tweety called it Clinton's "flim-flam," and Olbermann debunked Big Dog

Tweety even showed 2002 quotes from Hillary and Bill supporting the war, and enthusiastically at that.

Tweety also showed that in the space of 10 minutes, Bill Clinton used the pronoun "I" 95 times in the space of 10 minutes in a speech supporting Hillary.

Nominate Hillary, and the Clintons will become the number #1 campaign issue.

[David Zephyr]

42. Pretty sad. This will cost Hillary with those that were trying to overlook her IWR vote.

He "opposed" the war before it began...in a parallel universe.

[SDuderstadt]

37. I voted yes and here's why....

Here are WJC's remarks delivered in New York on March 14, 2003, just days before the war:


"Do you believe this matters? If you believe it matters -- as I do -- then you have to decide if it matters whether we bend over backwards to try to disarm him in a way that strengthens rather than divides the world community. If you don't think it matters, then you're with a lot of the people in the current administration who think that we'll just go over there and this will take a few days, after we win -- victors always get to write history -- everybody will get over this and we'll get everybody back together and they'll be glad he's gone because he's a thug and a murderer. That's what they think. If you believe it matters to keep them together, then you've got to support some version of what Prime Minister Blair's doing now, which is to say, okay, he's finally destroying his missiles. And the administration, to be fair, is nominally in favor of what Blair's trying to do.

He's finally destroying his missiles, so let's give him a certain date in which, in this time, he has to destroy the missiles, reconcile the discrepancies in what we believe is the truth on chemical weapons, reconcile the discrepancies on biological weapons, reconcile the issue of the Drones, and offer up 150 scientists who can travel outside of Iraq with their families for interviews. If you do that, then we'll say this is really good-faith disarmament, and we'll go on without a conflict. Now if that passes, however, then you have to be willing to take yes for an answer. You see what I mean? I'm for regime change too, but there's more than one way to do it. We don't invade everybody whose regime we want to change. There's more than one way to do this, but if that passes and he actually disarms, then we have to be willing to take it, and then work for regime change by supporting the opposition to Saddam Hussein within and outside Iraq, and doing other things."



Seems pretty clear to me.

[_Wayne_]

38. What a ridiculously stupid poll

What's painful isn't your question, but the fact that you decide to ask, especially without citing one quote that justifies your line "I just can't swallow Bill's story." Why not? Cite one thing. ANYTHING. A quote? Video clip? Show me something that Bill said that leads you to believe that he was against the Iraq War from the beginning.

Can't do that. Take a page from Rush's playbook. Throw shit against a wall.

[BootinUp]

39. Of course. He never would have invaded. nt

[defendandprotect]

40. The reason I said "Yes" is because the PNAC were trying to get Bill to attack Iraq ....

after the first WTC "terrorist" attack ---

He said "No" ---

So --- I have to give him the benefit of the doubt ---

PLUS, we don't know what Gore might have done if pressured by the PNAC . . .

After all --- this is about OIL .... and Gore has OIL in his background --

[blm]

45. Bill wanted to attack in 98 but the allies wouldn't go with him and he was wise enough

to not do it on his own. But he did WANT to.

And who the eff do people think Tony Blair was listening to the entire time? Bush didn't convince Blair - Bill did.

[defendandprotect]

56. Where do you get that impression from---? Clinton was BOMBING Iraq for 4 years ----

[defendandprotect]

57. Did we see Clinton going to the UN to invade Iraq --- ???

[blm]

59. I mean a full on attack - not the targeted bombing.

.

[defendandprotect]

60. Again --- Did Clinton go to the UN requesting permission to attack Iraq --- ???? Bush did ---

[blm]

61. No - he spoke to the allies to see if he could get them on board. It never went to UN

because they were operating under the UN resolution from 1991 that was still operable.

[defendandprotect]

65. Guess he didn't want it as much as Bush . . . who simply gave us an "illegal" war --- !!!

[blm]

69. WEll, Bill should have thought of that throughout 2003-4 when he was supporting

Bush's decision consistently and PUBLICALLY.

[defendandprotect]

70. While I think it would be disgusting for anyone to support the "illegal" war on Iraq ....

Bill Clinton, himself, did not take us to an illegal war on Iraq ---

[Nye Bevan]

43. No, and here is why...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS238U...

[Auntie Bush]

44. Know one knows for sure. As an x-president

it wouldn't be appropriate for him to disagree with the president...
"In a time of war" was already on the table and anyone who disagreed was a TRAITOR! Remember? If his wife was going to run for president...he wouldn't have her treated the way Kerry was for not wanting to go to war...or was it Gore? I forget.

[wiley]

47. Yes, I do. He may have wanted to kill Saddam Hussein or Bin Laden

but he definitely did not support what people are calling the Iraq War. He never would have sent in troops to Iraq.

[blm]

49. He wanted to in 98 but the allies wouldn't join him, and he wouldn't do it without

them.

After 9-11, the allies were more willing to be persuaded.

BTW - who do you THINK had been advising Tony Blair to join Bush's efforts?

Who do you think was advising Dem lawmakers on Iraq before the vote based on what he 'knew' from his privileged info as president?

You think if Bill was against it he would have told other Dem lawmakers privately that he was against it and they should consider that when they voted?

[wiley]

50. I think you are wrong, wallowing in hindsight, and just anti-Clinton.

When Clinton left the neo-pukes kept those people who would perpetuate the struggle between the FBI and the CIA, so they could produce their own special intelligence that would "justify" a war on terrorism. Those that once had access to current info about actual threats were just shut out. Condi and Cheney and Wolfowitz created convincing propaganda that most people believed - or polls really are just fabricated tools of deception for whoever pays for them for whatever reason - that there were WMDs and that it would take one maybe two $600,000 bunker busters to take out Hussein and disarm the threat. That sounded reasonable to most people at the time. If Clinton was advising anyone on anything, it was to not let anyone go nuclear. Let's not forget who was controlling the country - politicians and religious pimps who actually believed that getting head from a consenting adult in the White House was the most heinous disgrace ever perpetuated upon this country or the world.

No one needed advising to attack Afghanistan and you're confusing that with Iraq. Iraq was just a bad excuse for an oil grab that has made every country who participated in it wealthier, especially the ruling corporate classes and the Carlyle group. The US people got fooled by the lies of the Bush administration. They appealed to the base security and survival instincts of the populace and made them think that not doing anything would produce a nuclear cloud in Des Moines, or Dallas or Seattle. Even then, support for actually starting a war with ground troops was slight, although many people were deceived into thinking that the whole let's just drop a few bombs and have our incredible special ops Marines get the WMDs and Saddam and the oil while we're at it didn't sound so insane to a country of people accustomed to being fed packaged crap by the media, whose sole purpose was to portray a strong, vigilant and peaceful but we'll do what we have to do to protect ourselves with our own lives and bare hands if necessary image to not disturb ongoing ad sales.

The idea that Clinton actively supported the Iraq war is just so simple-minded of an analysis that it merely demonstrates the brilliance of Rove and Fleischer and others to control the mindless, overweight and intellectually challenged tube surfers who have always believed that some one would take care of their messes and the next day the TV news would end the same way that every crime show and drama and comedy show does. I think you're mistaking corporate complicity in "justified" violations of the Constitution with any influence that Clinton could have ever had on anyone at that time. The Christian and Jewish right was all too happy to support the depiction of out of control muslims raping or beating women as a sign that the country was being told that we either accept this horrendous evil or reject it and blindly follow the President, who had all the accurate information and the best interests of the kids in mind.

[blm]

55. Your post is based on what you WISH Clinton did. He ADVISED Dem senators to vote for IWR

and to support Bush on his decision to invade.

He was also Blair's top adviser and we know what Blair chose to do.

Clinton also spoke publicly MANY times, especially during his June 2004 book tour, of his support for Bush's decisions on Iraq and even said that Bush had no choice -



http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq /


I believe that supporting Bush on these decisions was a key aspect to protecting his term.

There were definitely other moves to protect 2004, too.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did...

[dave29]

51. I'm beginning to believe he does not want his wife to be President.

He's way too shrewd to believe people will fall for this.

[ClarkUSA]

52. Well, he did say "I" 95 times in 10 minutes while mentioning Hillary only 7 times.

I think HE wants to be President.

[TankLV]

54. Yes - I never remember anything about this repuke crap...

And I pay very close attention...always have...

I would have gone ballistic if he had said what the repukes are trying to spread...

[illinoisprogressive]

58. no. I don't believe him. too much evidence he was not against it.

[ConfidentialStatus]

63. Bill would never lie

"How dare you" "How dare you" ask this question? Bill Clinton will be coming on DU and put you in your place. If you don't have any self control we can live with it.

I can see the headlines now Bill gives it to truther who disrupts message boards

And the zombies are jumping for joy how Bill shot you down.

[paulk]

66. the real question should be - do you think Clinton would have

invaded once the arms inspectors were in place?

I don't.

I think that Clinton felt Bush was doing the right thing up until the point where arms inspectors went in - something that he had been unable to do for four years. Talking tough is part of the diplomatic game, which is what his "support" was about. I don't think he felt that an invasion was necessary once that goal had been accomplished, and I don'[t believe in a million years that Clinton would have invaded if he had been in the Oval office.

[KoKo]

67. Those "30 Somethings" who "Believe in Hillary" really DO BELIEVE!

Always the DU Polls show lack of support for Hillary yet it's the same 29% who always vote on polls to do with Clintons who seem to be the BRAVADO here.

[youthere]

68. nope