TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
28.11.2007
Which Way War?

Campaigning for his wife this afternoon in Iowa, Bill Clinton threw an asterisk over his position on the Iraq war:

"Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning," said Clinton, "I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers."

Bill still has it going on. Support the wife? Check. Support the troops? Check. Throw an arm’s length up between your team and the war administration? Check. This ‘two-for one’ bit sure has legs. But as much as Clinton may wish it otherwise, these days Bill's extra-credit work cannot go unchecked. Reporters soon rustled up a speech at the war's outset in which Clinton said:

"I supported the President when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

Not this old trick. Never to be “gotcha-ed”, HillaryHub blasted back with a series of Bill’s prior statements on Iraq. Their point: that timing is everything. Bill now says he wanted more of it before the war. And when he gave that speech, the war was going well--WMD-talk was still in. (This is not too different politically from today’s so-bad-it’s-good news from Iraq.) In summer 2004, he sorrowfully joined President Bush’s “wrap it up” chorus:

"I would not have done it until after Hans Blix finished his job. Having said that, over 600 of our people have died since the conflict was over. We've got a big stake now in making it work. I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn't agree with the timing of the attack."

The additional statements in the Clinton retort show that, from then until now, Bill has walked beside Hillary on Iraq. Which means today's revisionist history is more than a verbal diddle—but doesn't matter. Cynicists and both Clintons know voters' hindsight is blurry here. Bill can therefore speak of this war’s beginning as though the grim phases since--and progress now--eclipse the judgments (of many pols like Hillary) that led there.

Update: Beinart with more on forgetfulness. Patrick Healy on Bill's shifting stance here.

--Dayo Olopade

Posted: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:00 AM with 2 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

aeromonas said:

What?   I literally don't understand you.  What point are you making?  This point is in need of some editing for clarity.

November 28, 2007 8:27 AM

Robert Powell said:

If The O-bomber had been representing all of Illinois, and in some respects the whole nation, as a US Senator in 2002 instead of a relatively tiny, relatively liberal Chicago constituency in the Illinois state legislature; and had been the recipient of the same "intelligence" briefings as the other Senators--it seems to me entirely likely that he would have voted as the majority of them did on Iraq.

Amnesia is the key concept. Dems are counting on the hope that no one will remember how long we'd actually been engaged in war-like action against Iraq by 2002, and how appallingly unsuccessfully. Seems like a vain hope to me. Casualties in Iraq are now within the range of normal morbidity for the relevant age cohorts, if not below. We kill about 40,000 people a year in traffic accidents, many of them alcohol -related, and no one seems to give a shit. Ten percent of that in four year of Iraq, with the number falling now and likely to continue to do so, means Dems who think Iraq gives them a lock on the White House are living in a fool's paradise.

November 28, 2007 6:24 PM