Pat Dollard | Young Americans

Times Online:

November 29, 2007

Bill Clinton embarrasses wife over Iraq war

Hillary Clinton’s campaign was yesterday wriggling uncomfortably over charges that her husband, Bill, had tried to re-write history with a claim that he opposed the Iraq war “from the beginning”.

The former President’s speech in Iowa on Tuesday night may serve to re-focus attention on Mrs Clinton’s support for the invasion four years ago - an issue which she has successfully side-stepped over recent months.

“I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning,” he said in a wide-ranging speech on foreign policy in which he sought to promote the prospect of a Clinton restoration to the White House as bringing America “back to the future”.

But this comment appeared to be at odds with the position he had taken shortly after the invasion, when he said in May, 2003: “I supported the President when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” Other remarks Mr Clinton made at the time show he backed President Bush with some reservations. For instance, he called for the United Nations to be involved “not only for the military action - where we don’t really need their help - but for what comes after”, while also adding: “This has been in Saddam Hussein’s hands from the very beginning.” His spokesman, Jay Carson, later stressed that Mr Clinton had always made clear that the UN should have been given more time to deal with Saddam.

“As he said before the war and many times since, President Clinton disagreed with taking the country to war without allowing the weapons inspectors to finish their jobs,” said Mr Carson.

Mrs Clinton’s chief rival, Barack Obama, has made great play of his early opposition to the Iraq invasion which is hugely unpopular among Democratic voters. But she largely neutered attacks on her Senate vote authorising military action by promising to end the war - and sharply criticising the way it has been fought.

In recent weeks the salience of the issue, even among Democratic voters, has diminished along with the death-toll in Iraq. Both she and Mr Obama acknowledge they would keep US troops in the country for some time, with their clashes increasingly concentrating on domestic issues such as health care policy.

The renewed controversy was expected to provide fresh ammunition for Republican presidential candidates in their scheduled TV debate last night, as well as for Democratic rivals who have accused the Clintons of “double-talk” on key policy questions.

It is not the first time that Mr Clinton has embarrassed his wife’s tightly disciplined campaign.

Her aides were recently forced to say he had been speaking out of turn when he compared attacks on her to the “Swift Boat” smears levelled against the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry.

The former President is still regarded as an enormous asset for Mrs Clinton and he has been wheeled out as a counterweight to Mr Obama’s star recruit, talk show host Oprah Winfrey. Both of these “campaign surrogates” will feature prominently over the coming days in Iowa - which kicks off the nominating process on January 3 - where Mr Obama is now neck and neck with Mrs Clinton according to recent polls.

But the Clinton campaign has sometimes struggled to marry its twin themes of “change” and “experience”, with rivals reminding voters about the prospect of continuing the uninterrupted occupancy of the White House by the Bush and Clinton family dynasties.

And let’s not forget the AP’s new assessment which basically ascribed to him all the symptoms of a garden-variety naricissitic psychopath:

AP Describes Bill Clinton As “long-winded, misleading and self-absorbed”:

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - As only he can do, Bill Clinton packed campaign venues across eastern Iowa and awed Democratic voters with a compelling case for his wife’s candidacy. He was unscripted, in-depth and generous.

He also was long-winded, misleading and self-absorbed.

“Good Bill” and “Bad Bill” (his nickname among some aides) returned to the public arena Tuesday as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton brandished her double-edged sword of a husband to fend off rivals in the Jan. 3 caucus fight.

“Ladies and gentlemen,” Clinton told 400 Iowans at the start of his three-city swing, “I have had a great couple of days out working for Hillary.”

In the next 10 minutes, he used the word “I” a total of 94 times and mentioned “Hillary” just seven times in an address that was as much about his legacy as it was about his wife’s candidacy.

He told the crowd where he bought coffee that morning and where he ate breakfast.

He detailed his Thanksgiving Day guest list, and menu.

He defended his record as president, rewriting history along the way.

And he explained why his endorsement of a certain senator from New York should matter to people.

“I know what it takes to be president,” he said, “and because of the life I’ve led since I’ve left office.”

I, me and my. Oh, my.

Late in his 50-minute address, Clinton told the crowd that wealthy people like he and his wife should pay more taxes in times of war. “Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers,” he said.

In truth, Clinton did not oppose the Iraq war from the start — at least not publicly.

If the former president secretly opposed the war but did not want to speak against a sitting president (as some of his aides now claim), what moral authority does he have now? And did he share his objections with his wife? She started out as a hawkish Democrat but is now appealing to anti-war voters.

The former president also put his own spin on the history of free-trade agreements under his watch, blaming President Bush for turning the accords into job-drainers. “Say want you want about my trade deals,” he said, “but I enforced them.”

Sen. Clinton benefited from her husband’s verbal sleight of hand when he told a long story about a man who credited the former first lady for playing “an independent role in the Irish peace process.”

While that may technically be true (Hillary Clinton did travel to Ireland and played host to the region’s political players), an “independent role” is not the same as a “critical role,” and Clinton didn’t bother to explain the distinction.

You might be wondering — so what? Clinton won two presidential elections (and five terms as Arkansas governor) despite his “Slick Willy” reputation and habit of self-aggrandizement. He’s not on the ballot next year.

His wife is. And she benefits from his popularity and rhetorical skills.

Clinton’s stump speeches have always been remarkably accessible despite their length and complexity. One reason is that, while he talks without notes, Clinton’s remarks are organized like a neat classroom outline.

For example, on Tuesday he had four big reasons why Democrats should back her:

• She has the best policy plans;

• She works well with Republicans;

• She’s a problem solver;

• And she has the best range of experience.

For each of those reasons, he had a half dozen or so facts, anecdotes or arguments to support them — and each of those categories had several bullet points of their own.

Clinton navigated this mental outline with the same rhetorical crutches he used in Arkansas and Washington.

He would mention something in passing and promise to get back to it (”I’ll say more about that in a minute”), and he always did.

He would “show” people what he meant rather than just “tell” them (”I’ll give you just one example,” he said before giving two or three).

He gave any impatient crowd members hope that the speech would soon end (”And, finally, let me say … ,” he said at least twice before launching into another topic).

What he left the crowds with was the assurance that his wife understands their plight. For a man who convinced so many voters that he felt their pain, this may be his most powerful calling card Clinton can leave to Iowa crowds and his wife.

“You need somebody who is strong, competent and has good vision, and never forgets what it’s like to be you,” Clinton said.

And, no, he wasn’t talking about himself.