Bill Stumps For Hill, Claims He Was Always Against the Iraq War. Huh?

That’s what he said yesterday while campaigning for his wife in Iowa. But other people’s memories aren’t quite so fuzzy, and they’re saying "Not so fast!"

From ABC News via Ed Morrissey at Captain’s Quarters come the following:

"So, you're sitting there as President, you're reeling in the aftermath of [September 11], so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that. That's why I supported the Iraq thing." ("His Side Of The Story," Time, 6/28/04)


"'Saddam is gone and good riddance,' former President Bill Clinton said yesterday. Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found. 'I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. ... That is what I was always told.'" (Joel Siegel, "W Fought A Good Fight, Clinton Says," [New York] Daily News, 4/16/03)


"I supported the president when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." (Former President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Tougaloo College Commencement, Jackson, MS, 5/18/03)


And then this comment from Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters blog:

Those who profess an undefinable discomfort with a Clinton return to power may find more definition for that discomfort after this display. It's not the equivocation that has people squirming; it's the ease with which Bill Clinton can issue flat-out lies. In fact, the fact that he issues such researchable and exposable lies and still has the chutzpah to use them on the stump that may worry people most of all. Does he really think that the media will allow those statements to go unchallenged?

The pattern here is really unmistakable. In the early days of the war, Bill had no problem climbing onto the Bush bandwagon, claiming support for the war. Now that it has proven as unpopular as it is, Bill wants to rewrite history and claim that he always opposed it, despite his record of public support. He will say anything to match up with the public sentiment of the moment, showing himself as a man completely without reliable principles.

That's the problem for Hillary, who almost completely lacks his campaigning skills and needs his assistance in connecting to voters. Her reliance on his campaigning winds up associating herself with his lack of honesty and credibility. When his slickness combines with her high negatives, Democrats should consider the likely result -- a general-election disaster.