Daily Blog Buzz: Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies…

Does Hillary Clinton have a new campaign theme song? If she continues to let her husband campaign for her, she just might. Despite the slew of reports of progress and increased security in Iraq, Bill Clinton thinks it is wise to insist (at Hillary’s campaign events) that he opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. But the New York Times reports:

During a campaign swing for his wife, former President Bill Clinton said flatly yesterday that he opposed the war in Iraq “from the beginning” — a statement that is more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003. Before the invasion, Mr. Clinton did not precisely declare that he opposed the war. A week before military action began, however, he did say that he preferred to give weapons inspections more time and that an invasion was not necessary to topple Saddam Hussein. At the same time, he also spoke supportively about the 2002 Senate resolution that authorized military action against Iraq. Advisers to Mr. Clinton said yesterday that he did oppose the war, but that 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.

Bloggers on both ends of the spectrum have found (by simple web searches) that Clinton is lying about both opposing the war and openly opposing Bush. Not only does this reflect badly on Clinton, bloggers say, but it is also bad news for the now-floundering Hillary Clinton campaign. Captain Ed explains the truth about Mr. Clinton’s stand on the war:

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.

And what does this mean for the campaign? Mary Katharine Ham explains: “She’s worked so hard to get voters who haven’t been paying a lot of attention to the point where they can pick literally any Iraq position out of a hat and convince themselves she’s had it at some point and may still. And, Bill comes along, grabs the political tightrope she’s walking and just shakes the ever-lovin’ hell out of it, fueling a day or two of negative coverage.” Marc Ambinder chimes in: “Remember: The last two times Mr. Clinton campaigned for his wife, well, there were messaging issues. He used the word ‘Swift Boat’ in conjunction with opponents’ attacks and then, in South Carolina, fueled a few days worth of coverage by noting how those boys were getting tough on her.” Allahpundit outlines Mr. Clinton’s various stances over time and asks, “True or not? The beauty of the Clintons, my friends, is that the answer to that question can be, and usually is, “both.'” Jules Crittenden gets a little snarky!: “Bill now wants us to believe he opposed it back when his wife was supporting it. Of course, Hillary would also like people to believe she opposed it back when she was supporting it, so I suppose that’s OK.” Don Surber notes, “My point is not about Hillary trying to renege on her authorization of this war. My point is merely that under another President Clinton we will get more lies by any administration since Josef Stalin passed away.” Even the left finds Clinton’s claims to be ludicrous. With primaries looming in the near future, Hillary had better rein-in her husband (ha!). Macsmind says it best: “The question for Hillary is, ‘Do you really want this guy stumping for ya?’ Don’t answer, it too will be a lie.”

Related Content