Did Bill Clinton always oppose the Iraq war? Well...
Bill Clinton has been under scrutiny in the US for his claim that he opposed the Iraq war:
From the beginning
Is this true?
Allow me to help.
One of Bill Clinton's fullest early statements on the war was made here in the UK on the morning of the Commons debate that immediately preceded the conflict itself.
His argument twists and turns, before eventually asking the left to trust Blair.
But in the end it is pretty clear that he did not oppose the war from the beginning.
He blames the French and the Russians for failing to support Blair's second resolution and says that this let the diplomatic effort down. He then calls for Blair to be trusted, knowing that this was advising Labour MPs to support the war.
It is just about possible for Mr Clinton to sustain the claim that he did not support the war from the beginning but impossible on the basis of this text to maintain that he opposed it.

Fish gotta swim;
Birds gotta fly;
William Jefferson Clinton has gotta lie.
Posted by: Peter | 30 Nov 2007 19:42:27
"Did Bill Clinton EVER tell the truth?" would be the correct question. The answer would be; not knowlingly.
Posted by: JL Ronish | 30 Nov 2007 23:05:04
Uh, remember, folks, we are talking about Bill Clinton here. You know, that Great Stranger to the Truth, better known as Slick Willy (not referring to his sexcapades)!
Posted by: Bob Evans | 1 Dec 2007 03:10:44
Of course he didn't tell the truth...the question doesn't make sense: http://enewsreference.wordpress.com/2007/11/30/bill-clinton-and-the-credibility-factor/
Posted by: eNews Reference | 1 Dec 2007 04:39:25
I read the original transcript and I find your interpretation simply bizarre.
Posted by: Tom | 1 Dec 2007 05:20:56
Well i seem to remember clinton saying in front of the whole world ,I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH MONICA ,Well as we all know now that was a huge lie ,and a discrace to clinton and usa, as far as credibility goes ,he has none ,ask monica ,CIGAR ANYONE ???
Posted by: jack | 1 Dec 2007 16:27:14
Although he was a great president and has a very valued opinion it's not really important whether he supported the war or not because he wasn't in office and therefore could not do anything about the outcome.
Posted by: Kieran | 2 Dec 2007 00:21:32
As with most US politicians former or current Clinton takes his cue from Israeli inspired pressure.
Clinton may genuinly have been against the war indeed as Blair was but eventually all would fall into line with what they percieve Israel wants.
The Iraq war was never about oil or weapons of mass destruction it was all about the desires of a group of Israeli's and their supporters.
Posted by: Peter Morris | 2 Dec 2007 08:17:49
So Bill Clinton tells lies. Gosh, that's news.
Posted by: Clothilde Simon | 2 Dec 2007 13:46:19
The World's most famous pathological liar speaks and people question his veracity.? Bill does not know the differenc between truth and a lie. We must feel his pain.
Posted by: Desmond Taylor | 2 Dec 2007 15:17:10
Lets not forget, he smoked but he didn't inhale.
Posted by: Jeff Lotton | 2 Dec 2007 17:52:01
You won't get anywhere going down this road. Clinton is the absolute epitome of the modern politician - never say or do anything that ties you to a position you can't wriggle away from, should the need arise.
You can be absolutely certain, at the time of the Iraq invasion, that what would be going through Clinton's mind would be:-
1. The present need is for me to appear to be supporting this war - because that's what current majority opinion wants.
2. The chances are that at some stage in the future majority opinion will turn away from supporting the war.
3. I need therefore to construct for myself a position that will be taken now as being supportive of the war, but which I will always be able to claim in the future was actually that I opposed it.
It's the use of this technique in every circumstance that has made Clinton so successful at electoral politics. To an extent it's not his fault - we have huge swathes of the electorate whose understanding of politics is zero, and who equate capability with non-association with "bad" things. Well as just about anything can turn bad, it didn't take long for politicians to work out that their best chance of being elected was to position themselves in such a way as never to be associated with anything.
Third way politics, in a nutshell. As performed at the highest level by W. Clinton and A. Blair, and adopted by every political wannabe since. It's deeply cynical, of course, but it's the ONLY way to power, as long as we have a society that thinks it OK for 95% of its members to pay no attention whatsoever to how it is governed.
Posted by: Simon Stephenson | 2 Dec 2007 18:24:20
Kieran said, "Although he was a great president" for doing what? "it's not really important whether he supported the war or not because he wasn't in office and therefore could not do anything about the outcome." ummm, his wife voted for it, authorized the president to do it, and, they're running for office again so honesty on this issue might be just a tad bit more relevant than your post acknowledges. the way some of you clowns continue to excuse this criminal family is mind blowing.
Posted by: May Glapsie | 2 Dec 2007 18:51:54
In September 2002 Bill Clinton turned up to the Labour Party Conference in Blackpool, told a few jokes like "Bill Clinton, Arkansas CLP. Oh, good. Alasdair Campbell said that'd make you laugh!" and then asked the Labour Party to support Bliar all the way on Iraq because there were definitely WMD, Saddam was definitely planning to attack everybody and besides Saddam was such an evil SOB he just had to go. They lapped it up and -in what was probably the last real decision any Labour Party Conference will ever have made, voted for war with Iraq.
If that wasn't being all the way on the war, I don't know what was.
Oh and then he told another lie. He went to a late night Macdonald's in Blackpool and said that their hamburgers were as good as in America.
I've always wondered how much his disciple Bliar arranged for him to be paid for that trip ....
Posted by: Gerard Mulholland | 2 Dec 2007 19:37:03
Congratulations Daniel Finkelstein for allowing Peter Morris' comment (2 Dec 2007 08:17:49) to be published. It is exceedingly rare that the truth gets past the censor. Well done.
Posted by: Gerard Mulholland | 2 Dec 2007 19:43:57
We know that Bill Clinton does not always tell the truth, just as his wife doesn't always tell the truth. If I knew now what I knew then would be great if OTHER people didn't know then either, but they did. It's all garbage anymore.
Posted by: j.johnson | 2 Dec 2007 19:47:03
We're talking about Clinton here.
If his mouth is moving he is lying!
Posted by: Darrell | 3 Dec 2007 00:18:33
I suppose that this last legitimately elected president who left the US with a record surplus and eight years of peace and prosperity is not to be trusted, whereas Bush, the worst disaster in US history and a complete fraud, is your trusted man. Talk about LIARS! How about lying about a war. How about misleading the nation and the world into a multi-trillion dollar disaster costing hundreds of thousands of lives and destroying a nation as well as the trust of the world? Who do you believe?
Posted by: Michael Rectenwald | 3 Dec 2007 05:04:16
Bill Clinton...never tells the truth. But he's an amazing speaker. I love listening to him even if he's full of cheese.
Posted by: Dave | 3 Dec 2007 05:13:46
Peter Morris. Better bone up on your Protocols of Zion. I'll bet you'll discover in there that the Jews (oops ...Israelis) are even responsible for for your grandmothers arthritis.
Posted by: Dave | 3 Dec 2007 05:18:47
lets get one things straight..Clinton is one of the BEST presidents that the US had. he is definately better than the bag of S@*! thats is president now!!!!!
Posted by: Kiran | 3 Dec 2007 15:18:48
The great economic expansion which you talk about begn under Bush I. And as for the "surplus", Clinton financed it primarily through tax hikes and overseas borrowing. As for "peace", tell that to the people of Serbia, Sudan, and Iraq. Clinton was,and is, a megalomaniacal opportunist concerned only with enhancing his own power and influence.
Posted by: Will Jolly | 3 Dec 2007 16:26:25
Did he tell the truth about this ? No, and neither has his wife. Both have been -- until 20 minutes ago -- enthusiastic supporters of the war in Iraq. People who call this "Bush's War" are just ignorant . . . nearly all Republicans and the vast majority of Democrats in the Congress have been in complete support of the war -- until 20 minutes ago.
Posted by: Mr. Justice | 3 Dec 2007 18:29:38