Is Bill Clinton Being Consistent?

He now says: “I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning” On May 18, 2003, at Tougaloo College in Mississippi, he said, “I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,”

But his advisers make a good argument when they point out

it would have been inappropriate at the time for him, a former president, to oppose — in a direct, full-throated manner — the sitting president’s military decision.

And you can be sure, given the post-9/11 atmosphere, that had President Clinton been critical of his successor, something former presidents rarely are, the right wing would have attacked him mercilessly.

As the Times story asserts:

Mr. Clinton has said several times since the war began that he would not have attacked Iraq in the manner that President Bush had done. As early as June 2004, he said, “I would not have done it until after Hans Blix finished the job,” referring to the weapons inspections there before the war.

In fact, Clinton is on record as having said that as early as 2004 in an interview with Joe Conason at salon.com.

If Blix had said this guy won’t cooperate, he’s bad, and we ought to take him out, then I would have favored military action. But had that happened, then whether the Security Council voted for it or not, we would have had many more allies and far fewer enemies, and no one would have thought we had a different agenda.

By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.