Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

Bill Clinton Pretends He Opposed Bush's Iraq Invasion, Media Go Along for the Ride

FAIR. Posted December 1, 2007.


The New York Times and the Washington Post let Bill Clinton's dishonesty about his support for the Iraq war slide.
Advertisement

The following is an action item from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.

The New York Times and Washington Post (11/28/07) both failed to adequately challenge the dishonesty of former President Bill Clinton's declaration that he had been opposed to the Iraq War "from the beginning." Clinton, in fact, was a supporter of the war, both before the invasion and in the first year or so of the fighting.

In the Times' words, though, Clinton's new stance was just "more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003." The Times went on to claim that around the time of the invasion, "Clinton did not precisely declare that he opposed the war," though he "has said several times since the war began that he would not have attacked Iraq in the manner that President Bush had done."

The Post's account was similarly muddled, with the paper noting that Clinton was "glossing over the more nuanced views of the war he has expressed over time," though "past remarks made by the former president do leave open a question about how fervently Clinton opposed the war at the outset." The Post returned to the story the next day (11/29/07), repeating that Clinton "went far beyond more nuanced remarks he made about the conflict in 2003." The Post did try to challenge Clinton's position by noting that he had participated in briefings with key Bush administration officials, and had allegedly expressed support for the invasion plan.

But Clinton's public support for the war is a matter of record. Just before George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair invaded Iraq, Clinton published an op-ed in the London Guardian (3/18/03) urging Britons to "Trust Tony's Judgment":

As Blair has said, in war there will be civilian was well as military casualties. ... But if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam.


Clinton's column included the less-than-prescient prediction that "military action probably will require only a few days."

Soon after the invasion (3/30/03), Clinton appeared on CBS's 60 Minutes with former Senator Robert Dole and endorsed the war, saying, "Senator, unlike some of your Republican friends during Kosovo, I support our troops in Iraq and the president." (Note that while one can support the troops but not the war, supporting the president in Iraq means supporting the war.)

In a 2004 interview with Time magazine (6/28/04), Clinton reiterated this before-the-fact support for the invasion: "You know, 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 went on to claim that Iraq's chemical and biological weapons were of concern, especially after the September 11 attacks:


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: bill clinton, iraq, new york times, washington post

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Clinton flashbacks give me the shakes (or is it 'sheiks'?)
Posted by: vox persona on Dec 1, 2007 1:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clinton lovers, go ahead and give me your 1's, but I get queasy when I compare Slick's words to observable reality. I don't even refer to "I did not have sex with that woman....Ms Lewinski", he just handled that all wrong anyway. There are better ways to handle a purgery trap, like 'That's none of yer frikken' business.' Look at Bush, he doesn't answer to anybody, never tells the truth......has he ever paid any price? Bill's bj never got anybody killed, not to mention destabilizing an entire region, fueling a centuries old latent 'civil' war, or threatening to bring on WWIII. But for Slick to stand there and claim to be against the 'war', don't these guys realize everything they've ever said on tape is still on tape? He may have been the master triangulator, but what did he do in his 8 years to lessen our addiction to fossil fuels. 8 years was plenty of time to launch a full scale Apollo-type project to develop alternative energy sources, so his words today fall flat against my ears. We finally got a Democratic president after Reagan then Bush I, and opportunity after opportunity was 'blown'. The bully pulpit was the perfect place to push for the right causes, but instead we got NAFTA, CAFTA, millions more across the border while they looked the other way, and of course Repug-contrived scandals like Whitewater, File-gate and purgery traps. And if we elect Billary, we can look forward to more of the same....same as it ever was....same as it ever was....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I beg your pardon... Posted by: jimidee
» Loved the first two sentences Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Thank You... Posted by: CatDad
» Yep, just like Hillary, Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» The Evidence: Posted by: WhuThe?!?
History is what you make it.
Posted by: rocketman on Dec 1, 2007 3:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clinton, and the rest of the DEMONCRATS went right along with the war and supported it. So they turn their back and cry when it seems to be going bad..now that it may have a chance of success on some level, will they tout their pro war stance as they have been for it all along!

Clinton, dispite is hight popularity rating when he left office has his share of skeletons hidden. We don't need another Clinton Presidency

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not Good Germans.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Dec 1, 2007 5:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Note that while one can support the troops but not the war, supporting the president in Iraq means supporting the war."

Logically, one cannot support the troop and at the same time be against the war.

The troops are the instrument of the political policy. Without the troops there would be no war in Iraq with USA troops.

One can feel empathy for the troops' predicament. They are victims of this administration more than the general population. They have no good choice. If they serve, they do so against the international laws of war in that the invasion was illegal and criminal-a supreme war crime. If they refuse to follow illegal orders to serve they go to jail and then are marked with legal bias the rest of their lives.

To bad the media journalist cannot think reasonably or honestly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Main Stream Media Fails Us Again
Posted by: jimidee on Dec 1, 2007 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The supposed left-wing press has become a joke...and it is on us. I can't figure out if it is orchestrated (I am not much into conspiracy theories) or just plain incompetance. When these politicos make their revisionists statements, are they really letting them slide with a nod and a wink, or are they just too ignorant to remember what the real story was? I have to wonder, but I am betting that it is more of the latter. But with consolidation of the media into the multinational corporations, it gives me pause.

What would we do without the blogs and Alternet, or The Daily Show on Comedy Central?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

27 years of conservative crimes
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Dec 1, 2007 6:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have said it before, I will say it again and one day perhaps enough Americans will listen and get the message. Since Reagan's emergence in 1980, we have endured Reagan/Bush, Bush/Quayle, Clinton/Gore and Bush/Cheney. That is an irrefutable 27 years of right-wing leaning morons that have given us unprecedented crime, lowered living standards, virtual bankruptcy and imminent WWIII. What looms is a Hillary v. Giuliani face-off, or worse, and any notion of progressive governance will be left for the annals of history. Bill Clinton never had a clue but whether it was Viet Nam protest as a student or Kosovo or Iraq, he was consistently equivocal and the media rolled over and determined that it was far more important to see if his fly was at full or half-mast. He's boring but dangerous, particularly if he elevates his half-assed spouse to the White House. We cannot afford 31 years of right-wing nutcases in power, or can we?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So much for pillowtalk
Posted by: Urstrly on Dec 1, 2007 6:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even if I believed Bill was against the war all along—which I don't—it's odd that he seems not to have influenced Hillary's vote to support Bush in Iraq and the Patriot Act to boot.

As her constituent, I can report that they put up a wall around her office, and the first people who emailed her not to support the resolution heard nothing. If you wanted to communicate by phone, they kept you on hold forever, then "thanked" you cooly for calling. Meanwhile, she discouraged people from writing paper letters (the anthrax thing, you know). I once tried to fax the office at 3 a.m., and the line was "busy." One of the most puzzling things about Hillary, in particular, is that she actively repels anti-war Democrats. Then she sends out these excruciating rationalizations of her actions. She knows the right wing hates her, so why is she so resistant to progressive input?

The center may have elected Bill, but Bush has pushed people to the extremes so that the votes just aren't there any more. I suspect Bill has figured this out, so he's trying to cover both their tracks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stewart and Colbert are dark at the moment
Posted by: Urstrly on Dec 1, 2007 6:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Haven't you noticed? I wish the Writer's Guild could get a decent settlement, which they deserve, and Jon Stewart could once again give us his shrugs and grimaces in response to this lunacy.

Elizabeth Bumiller ought to have her press card lifted; of course she could call the president on his lies. But then, she'd loose her access and those fat book contracts...or maybe not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Newsflash
Posted by: spatula on Dec 1, 2007 7:44 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bill Clinton hasn't been in office for nearly 8 years.

I know the rabid right-wing was madly in love with him (why else would they be so obsessed?), but at some point you have to let your lover go when the relationship ends.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Haven't you heard? Posted by: 2dogarage
A few quick observations
Posted by: willymack on Dec 1, 2007 7:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clinton was OUT OF POWER when the decision was made to launch the phony war in Iraq, so his observations didn't mean doodley-squat. Bill Clinton can be bamboozled like anyone else, even though he's a genius. Bill Clinton is not a saint, and he never claimed to be, but he was a hell of a good president, or does anyone think eight years of peace and prosperity are a bad thing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Had you fooled Posted by: 2dogarage
Like it or not ...
Posted by: TarryFaster on Dec 1, 2007 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the Clintons have become part of the cabal that has taken over this country. Think not? Click here to read more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Like it or not ... Posted by: Melvin
The real issue is NOT whether the media went along with Clinton...
Posted by: jimidee on Dec 1, 2007 9:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in his fudging on his pre-war opinions, but that the media went along with Bush in the run-up to the actual war! Don't be lead away from this fact by those who would divert your attention.

All the rest of this stuff is a diversion tactic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bill Clinton, mass murderer.
Posted by: James W. Harris on Dec 1, 2007 9:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, sure, Clinton opposed the war. Why shouldn't we believe him, given his long record of straightforward, honest talk?

This great humanitarian and statesman only supported the genocidal sanctions against Iraq, which murdered a half-million or so Iraqi children, ruined the lives of many more utterly innocent civilians, and wrecked the entire society.

And his wonderful wife, on the fast track to be our next ruler, really opposes the war too, and was only misled into supporting it by the diabolical George Bush (even though she won't apologize for her vote).

No doubt, if elected, she will work hard to end the war in Iraq, bring all the troops home, and restore liberty and justice in America. Amen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Quan
Posted by: QCao009 on Dec 1, 2007 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't ask, don't tell. Don't even look now. We are all against the war, and we are all going back to shopping this morning as innocent people are bombed and shot here and elsewhere in the world.

The biggest terrorists of them all inhabit the House of the people and he and his VP will be transported behind shades and walls to protect their own bubble to a location where they can get in front of their own cronies and base and continue to make speches about their Mission accomplished. In the meantime, on our own mean streets, families break up, kids get tested out of a meaningful education, soldiers get sent off to a war not of their own doing, elders get denied of their own pension and quality health care, and we continue to shop at Wal-Mart. Faith is continuing to believe we are the best country in the world. Faith is believing guns don't kill. Faith is thinking that politicians feel our pain when they need our vote. By God, faith is wearing our label, conservative and liberal, so proudly, that we no longer recognize our own monstrosity in the cracked mirror.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Flawed Syllogism
Posted by: apophenia_monkey on Dec 1, 2007 1:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"while one can support the troops but not the war, supporting the president in Iraq means supporting the war"

the middle doesn't distribute.

the author might as well have said:

nothing is better than divine happiness
a ham sandwich is better than nothing
ergo, a ham sandwich is better than divine happines

tsk tsk see what happens when we keep our dogma blinders on and ignore informal logic?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Flawed Syllogism Posted by: rhbee
» RE: Flawed Syllogism Posted by: vox persona
» RE: Flawed Syllogism--Kosher? Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» RE: Flawed Syllogism--No, I'm stating Posted by: apophenia_monkey
Some Choice We Will All Have Soon: Giulliani or Hillary
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 1, 2007 5:26 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have to be pragmatic now, unfortunately. Yes, Hillary supported the war. And, the only thing you can say for Bill is that he wasn't dumb enough to actually invade Iraq. He left that for GW. So, here we are with a lousy choice coming. Giulliani is a man who already makes no bones about wanting America to go after Iran and Syria. He sees terrorists everywhere. Terrorists saved his ass in New York and they are going to save his ass when he becomes Americas President. Or, so he things so until everything goes down hill. Giulliani is also going to increase GW's super sized tax cuts for the rich. The US economy is going to go down hill big time to fund these tax cuts, more wars and the bigger military. At least with Hillary, if she acts like Bill, she won't be foolish enough to do the super deficit spending that is killing America's economy now. Otherwise, get ready for more tax breaks for the uber rich and more wars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So what is so new about this?
Posted by: Pirate1 on Dec 1, 2007 9:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With the exception of maybe one or two people, they're all a bunch of liars and crooks, both Dems and Reps... They'll be on whatever side of an issue that their poll watching handlers tell them will bring in the most votes or the best press. Am I sopposed to be shocked by this "revelation" or something? I, for one, clearly remember Clinton (and Kerry and all those other cephalopods) supporting the invasion and no spin doctor is going to change that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How could I be for what I'm against now?
Posted by: monkeywrench on Dec 1, 2007 9:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To wit:

"I'm against the war now, so that means I must have been against the war all along, today's decision being the only thing that counts; and if, IF, I was for the war before, I was for the war I saw in my mind, not the one we have now, so that means I really wasn't for the war, because it wasn't the RIGHT war, just the war that Bush f***ked up, and I couldn't have been for THAT war, so I must have been against the war."

Is that about right, Bill?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please leave Hillary alone!
Posted by: Ky Lake Dave on Dec 2, 2007 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is as much CNN's fault for the planted questions as much as it is Hillary’s. CNN had four or five planted questions. Many from Edwards people. CNN advertised questions from undecided REPUBLICANS trying to make a decision from the Republican Presidential Candidates. Having these plants were completely dishonest and unfair to the Republicans. These questions were to be from regular Joes not Hillary and Edwards conduits. Democrats should stay out of Republican Debates and visa versa.
I am a Republican and I wish you guys would just leave poor old Hillary alone. I, and most other Republicans are counting on Hillary to win the Democratic nomination. We feel sure we can beat Hillary without much trouble. Barack Hussein Obama talks alot and says nothing. He is a worm and reminds me of Hillary’s Hubby, SLICK WILLIE. I think Hussein Obama may fool the gullible into voting for him. But Hillary will be a cake walk for the Republicans. A Republican candidate only has to string together 18 yrs of sound bites from that woman and few would vote for her. So please leave Hillary alone. Leave her for the Republicans to tear apart after the Democrats nominate her.

Thank You

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just along for the ride
Posted by: ray burchard on Dec 2, 2007 10:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If America’s past and present political governance has taught the populace anything, it is that corporate greed owns all of America’s political options and therefore the populace is only afforded the placebo of picking their own governance poison from this corporate (media) preordained list of acceptable.

This attempted corporate (media) mind control can also be seen when network owned meteorologist forecasts exaggerate the possibility of approaching snowy and frosty wintry conditions in conjunction with earlier and earlier Christmas advertising and programming, designed just to promote consumer spending. “ It‘s a Wonderful Life “, and here is a surprise, corporate America promotes Santa Claus and present giving . No corporate greed isn’t corrupting science, just Academia’s representation of science.

Just how long are the American people going to allow this growing and growing corporate greed to dictate America’s direction and world standing.

We, America, like it or not have become the Jew of nations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why do we fall for bias manipulative adds
Posted by: niliadis on Dec 2, 2007 3:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't we know that the media does not finish the sentences and just use partial comments to put the candidates down. Lets just face it are we better off today than we were with the Clintons-No No NO we are not. Are be going to be better off if Barrack Hussein Obama if he wins, no no no-this would be disasterus. It may even be dangerous for our country if this man gets elected. He has no experience and he talks about change. Lets not fall for this so call change..what can he change but change for the worse. lets not put our country in more of a risk. I feel that Hillary Clinton has the compasion, dirve and experience and BILL!
Did he cheat..yes, so did Kennedy, Eisenhower, Roosevelt etcetera, etcetera etcetera. Obama having Oprah come down, all I can say Oprah has not voted in 20years, she backed the Clinton always, but now becasue Barrack Hussein Obama is Black she backs him, this is irresponsible and all I can say (Whatch out Michelle) and we the American People can not vote for Barrack Hussein Obama becuase you all know he is inexperienced and a BIG RISK WE CAN NOT AFFORD TO TAKE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Like Mencken said, Posted by: hurricane hugo
The Bush/Clinton Gang strikes again
Posted by: bryanth798 on Dec 3, 2007 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clinton's raison d'etre is to play the straight man to all of the neocons' gags. This is like Charlie McCarthy and Edgar Bergen redux. Welcome to Mena, Arkansas. Who falls for these antics?

Hillary is the number one recipient of AIPAC blood money. She will be the the new Hammer of the Arabs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]