Wednesday, November 28, 2007


He seems to really like how FAUX News does reporting and today he comes out with another piece of half-spin:

Bill Clinton Flatly Asserts He Opposed War at Start
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.

The "not precisely" is EXACTLY what the wingnuts need to justify in their biased minds the charge that "Clinton is lying again." Don't believe me? Well, here's are few sample comments from the tendentious ABC News' Political Radar post, "Bill Clinton Rewrites History on Iraq?":

Now it really news that Bill Clinton is LYING. I mean how many times must he be CAUGHT telling falsehoods before the STUPID people who support him and the Mrs take their blinders off?
Posted by: leen58 Nov 27, 2007 7:33:54 PM

The guy can't wait to lie.
Posted by: DLeo Nov 27, 2007 7:55:48 PM

This guy would lie even if telling the truth would save his life. And so he did, and so he has, and so he will again.
Posted by: TH1567 Nov 27, 2007 8:04:38 PM

There is plenty of evidence that Clinton opposed the invasion and greatly preferred another approach. Over a month before the start of the war, Clinton spoke at the University of Texas, Feb. 12, 2003:

But politically, if we can get the other people with us by letting Mr. Blix have a little more time, then we should. This is not a military problem. We can do this two weeks from now as well as we can do it tomorrow. So if we can do that, then that's what we ought to do. And I know it's frustrating for people on our side, but it's also frustrating for the people in Europe who believe we never cared about the UN anyway. We've got to get rid of that and go back to the real objective. What's the real objective? Get the chemical and biological weapons out and do it in a way that brings the world together instead of drive the world apart. So that's what I think we should try to do.

On March 8, 2003, Clinton gave another speech at the Churchill Memorial Concerts and repeated his point that we need to get the U.N. and NATO with us on how to disarm Iraq:

I am sort of with Prime Minister Blair on this; he has tried to have three objectives - to maintain the Alliance, strengthen the UN and disarm Iraq. So I would like to see them get a final schedule; they are disarming the missiles now, and it would seem a little unseemly for us to attack them after we made them even weaker in defending themselves than they were before; but the missiles go 120 miles instead of 90 - the North Koreans make missiles that reach the United States. The real issue is the chemical and the biological stocks that are there. So I think there ought to be a reasonable timetable; finish the missiles, do the chemical, and the biological work. If our European friends are serious about disarming Iraq, and if our American friends are serious about trying to preserve the unity of the United Nations and the relationships with the Alliance, we can wait a bit. The military issue is not in question; we are stronger militarily than we were in ‘91 and they are weaker, much weaker. The question is, can we find a way to do this? And if Saddam disarms under the United Nations resolution, then we have to be prepared to work for regime change in ways short of invasion. But I would say, and I think Mr Churchill would say, don’t give up the force option; because there is a lot of chemical and biological material there. You can always kill someone tomorrow or next week or next month; we can’t bring them back to life; we can try one more time to get a schedule for disarmament.

Healy is apparently referring to the speech Clinton gave on March 12, 2003, as reported the next day:

Clinton Diverges From Bush on Iraq
Democrat Supports Relaxed Deadline

By David Von Drehle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 13, 2003; Page A13

Former president Bill Clinton, who has generally supported the Bush administration's Iraq policy in recent remarks, called on his successor yesterday to accept a more relaxed timeline in exchange for support from a majority of U.N. Security Council members.

Clinton warmly praised British Prime Minister Tony Blair and endorsed his proposal to set five specific benchmarks that Hussein must meet to prove that he is disarming. The former president also said chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix should set the timetable for compliance. "Then I would hope the United States would agree to that amount of time, whatever it is," he said.

While being careful to say that he feels President Bush is sincere in his pursuit of U.N. support, Clinton added: "The question is, do they want the support bad enough to let Mr. Blix finish his work and give enough time to do that?"

Clinton told his audience: "What I think you should be for, as Americans, is getting the U.N. to adopt a resolution that is not political on either side -- that just asks Hans Blix, the arms inspector, an honest, competent man, 'How long will it take you to verify that Iraq has or has not done these five things that are in Prime Minister Blair's resolution?' "

That may mean a long, taxing deployment for U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf region -- "a big headache," Clinton acknowledged. But "it's worth it to disarm Saddam and keep the world community together."

1 comment:

Business Development News said...

Says the Clinton Foundation "gave ONLY $5 million to charities, spent $85 million for their salaries & travels and KEPT the rest = $87 million" in 2014.

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen a claim about the Clinton Foundation’s charitable giving. In 2015, we fact-checked a similar statement from conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh.

"Eighty-five percent of every dollar donated to the Clinton Foundation ended up either with the Clintons or with their staff to pay for travel, salaries, and benefits," he said during his show. "Fifteen cents of every dollar actually went to some charitable beneficiary."