Suicidal glory is the luxury of the irresponsible.
We're not giving up. We're waiting for a better opportunity to win.

" I don't think I've ever met a Liberal whom I didn't like on a personal basis. That said, if your goal is to change minds and influence people, it's probably not a good idea to begin by asserting that virtually all elected Democrats are liars. But what the hell."
Probably not up to date bio
The Artist Studio
Power Reporting
Petals From Heaven

Convert long URL to 25 characters Free Dictionary
Piece of crap SMART VIDEO

Takes you to someplace
Prescription Machine Gun

Every dollar helps
Free Juke Box 1950-1980


Free South Park

Our Position on Obama's Election
The person you call President Obama ... ."

Friday, November 18, 2005

Today's Purloined Editorial

A Clinton Reprise

(aka ... Slick's Private Universe)
Wall Street Journal
November 18, 2005; Page A16

A man has a right to change his mind. So we guess Bill Clinton was within his rights when he told a student audience at the American University in Dubai that the Bush Administration had committed a "big mistake" by liberating Iraq. "Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done," said the former President.

This is not the Bill Clinton we remember. Back when he was running for President, in 1992, Mr. Clinton promised an Administration that would "not coddle tyrants, from Baghdad to Beijing." As President, he launched military strikes against Iraq in 1993, following Saddam's attempted assassination of former President Bush in Kuwait; in 1996, and in 1998, following Saddam's ouster of U.N. weapons inspectors.

In October 31, 1998, Mr. Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. "The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home," Mr. Clinton said in language later adopted by the Bush Administration. "I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian makeup. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else."

Two months later, while announcing a three-day bombing of Iraq, Mr. Clinton added: "Heavy as they are, the cost of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them. (Our emphasis.)

Nor is that all. In June 2004, over a year after the liberation of Iraq, Mr. Clinton had this to say to Time magazine: "You know, 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. . . . After 9/11, let's be fair here, if you had been President, you'd think, Well, this fellow bin Laden just turned these three airplanes full of fuel into weapons of mass destruction, right? Arguably they were super-powerful chemical weapons. Think about it that way.

"So, you're sitting there as President, you're reeling in the aftermath of this, 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. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for. ..."

As we said, a man can change his mind. It's unfortunate, however, that a former President couldn't leave policy differences at the water's edge. And Mr. Clinton would do well to consider that while it's one thing for Senators to grasp at poll numbers to win an election, it's quite another for a former President to give them political cover. Mr. Clinton's remarks will only make it harder for the next Democratic President -- maybe his own wife -- to lead the country during wartime.

  URL for this article:

| E-MAIL Real King of France at 11/18/2005 11:18:00 AM PERMLINK Back Link (3) | HOME


"I did not vote for Obama but he is remarkable. In less than three weeks in office he has collected more than $150,000 in back taxes."
Gayle Miller
What ever happened to the notion that ex-presidents held their critisisms? Seems quait now.

Lets take a look at Carter and Clinton. Both were miserable presidents. Both know it. Both are trying desperately to change history.


We just have to face the fact that as long as they want to go public with their mealy mouth crap, the MSM will be more than happy to give them face time. Imagine the evening news once, just once, putting this BS in context. I'd fall out of my chair faster than you Rog.

Well said...

Clinton and Carter were both horrid Presidents...

Clinton took every stance on the Iraq Liberation, never able to match popular opinion, and now he thinks he has it.

The 'oh it's a good thing, but...'

So weak...

But the article is laughable, because his wife, will not be President...

Hopefully it will be years, if ever, that a Democrat holds this office...

boy m

Yesterday, after hearing Kerry threaten to make another run in '08, it's going to be so much fun to watch HRC and Bill eviscerate him. I can't wait. Both of these asshats thinks they are predestined to be president.

Post a Comment

This page is powered by


People who excel at what they do
My Parallel Universe
Agent BedHead
Michele Malkin
Hot Air
Baron du Toit
Gateway Pundit
Jawa Report
The Crypt
Little Green Footballs
John Ray
Moon Battery
Real Clear Politics
Doug Ross
Wild Thing
Expose the Left
Grouchy Old Crip/a>
The Grapevine
The Bitch Girls
Beautiful Atrocities

Right Wing News
Cao's Blog
View From The Porch
Interested Participant
Rachel Lucas
Texas Darlin
Just Say No Deal

Congressional Vote Ratings
Discover the Networks


COOL BLOGS! Yesterday's Top Referrers