In today's Washington Post, former President Bill Clinton is quoted as saying he "opposed Iraq from the beginning." Is that true? Check out these quotes from Clinton:
June 23, 2004 (CNN)
"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over."
"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for."
May 18, 2003 (Speech: Remarks at Tougaloo College Commencement)
"I supported the President when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
March 18, 2003 (Guardian)
"...if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam."
"...Blair is in a position not of his own making, because Iraq and other nations were unwilling to follow the logic of 1441."
September 12, 2002 (David Letterman Show)
Letterman asked, "Are we going into Iraq? Should we go into Iraq? I'd like to go in. I'd like to get the guy. I don't like the way the guy looks.""He is a threat. He's a murderer and a thug," said Mr. Clinton. "There's no doubt we can do this. We're stronger; he's weaker. You're looking at a couple weeks of bombing and then I'd be astonished if this campaign took more than a week. Astonished."
February 17, 1998 (CNN)
"There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us."
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
[UPDATE: John McCain is into "revisionist history" as well, apparently.
So, now we have former President Bill Clinton and Sen Hillary Clinton recast into principled opponents of the Iraq war.
When public statements by a former president and determined opposition in Congress by a seated U.S. senator might have altered the rush to war, neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton expressed any opposition to the war.
In fact, they BOTH supported the rush to war.
Now, of course, as on so many issues, the Clintons engage in a cynical revisionism. (This isn't unique to the Iraq War; Hillary is doing this revisionist dance on offshore outsourcing/free trade too.)
Those of us who remember the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq remember the visious attacks on war opponents and how many elected Democrats voted. And, we well remember that over time, there have been many opportunities to speak out against the war and occupation. Yet, we are somehow expected to believe the Clintons have long been opponents of the war?
I think NOT!
To pretend that they never supported a position show either a high level of self delusion or contempt for people. Perhaps a little bit of both.
On the other hand, the flip flopping attack on Kerry has made it difficult for politicians to openly change positions.
Your wider point is well taken but I just don't believe the Clintons have any integrity. I think they are through and through cynics -- "Machiavellian" is the term I'd use.
In terms of political leaders who seem willing to admit to their humanity -- to admit that they make mistakes, we do have some people like this in government. Sen.Webb and Sen. Tester, whom I saw on TV this morning seem like excellent examples of this.
They can claim that they made an honest mistake. We may or may not believe it is honest, but assume this allows people to save face while admitting to an error. Better than to pretend that they were against the war all along.