Bill Clinton was known as one of the most charismatic Presidents this country has ever known.  Not since John F. Kennedy Jr. have we had a President who was so well liked by the general public, not so much for his policy decisions, but for his persona and charm.  It was for this reason many political analysts believed Bill would be an asset to Hillary's campaign, possessing as his greatest virtue, her greatest fault.  Up until recently, Bill has been largely absent from the Hillary campaign trail, leaving many to believe that Hillary wanted to go it alone as opposed to giving Americans the perception she was planning on riding her husband coattails into the White House.  After Bill's recent comments, I am sure she will wish there was even more distance between herself and the former President.

Bill Clinton recently spoke out on the war in Iraq, stating that although he approved of invading Afghanistan, he was opposed to invading Iraq from the very beginning.  This statement shines a negative light on Hillary for many reasons, not the least of which being the statement is completely untrue.  In typical Clinton fashion, Bill has spoken in a manner which suggests his belief that the American people not only have short term memories, but lack the know-how to "Google" his history on Iraq.  Most alarming was the attack Clinton himself ordered in 1998, and his reasoning for doing so:

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish . . . The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

He then goes on to talk about how Iraq has "abused its final chance", and how "the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction".  Of course 1998 is not 2003, and times do change.  So the question is what was Bill Clintons initial reaction to the possibility of military action in Iraq at the time President Bush was considering it?  According to Hillary Mann Leverett, he not only supported it, he offered to support it publicly if necessary:

Leverett, a former career foreign service officer who said she is not involved in any presidential campaign, said the incident affected her because of her own doubts about the wisdom of an attack. "To hear President Clinton was supportive really silenced whatever questions I had," she recalled. Leverett, who worked in the same office as Abrams at the time, said Rice and Abrams "made it a high priority" to get Clinton's support, meeting with him at least twice. Abrams was tasked to answer Clinton's questions and "took the responsibility very seriously," Leverett said. "Elliott was then very focused on making sure that we followed up on Clinton's questions to keep Clinton happy and on board."

One of the specific questions Clinton asked, Leverett recalled hearing, is what the United States would do if Iraq's "military used chemical weapons against our Gulf allies."

She recalled being told that Clinton made it clear to Rice and Abrams that they could count on his public support for the war if it was necessary.  

Bill has now brought the Iraq war back into the public spotlight for the Hillary campaign which is by far the weakest issue among her base. He has yet to learn one of the most basic concepts of marriage, and that is agree with your wife in order to avoid all controversies. Had he said much as Hillary did, that he was ‘duped’ by a deceitful Bush administration when he offered his support, he may have gotten away with it. The fact remains however, not only did he say that he had opposed invading Iraq at the same time his wife agreed it was the right thing to do, he needed to lie in order to make that assertion.

For the last several weeks Hillary has been avoiding the question of Iraq, even when asked direct questions on the issue, focusing her attention on free health care, and free pre school, and free….. well basically anything she could offer at the expense of the taxpayers. In the coming weeks she will now be face with questions on not only her position on Iraq (which we are still unsure of), but her husbands position as well. One of the disadvantages of riding your husbands coattails, is that when he makes a drastic U-turn, he brings you with him.

Only time will tell how much Bill’s false statements will damage the already hobbled Hillary campaign, but my guess is the Democratic nomination will be a much closer race than originally anticipated. Many analysts assumed Bill’s virtues would be an asset to the Hillary campaign as a means of offsetting her faults, as it turns out, Bill may only be a reminder to the American people that we do not need another Clinton in the White House.

Sphere: Related Content

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Election 2008, Features, Hillary Clinton, Liberals, Politics