Clinton Revisionist History

Bill Clinton will say or do what ever is politically expedient. This is the same MO his spouse uses. A lot of attention was given to Clinton when he was going against the current administration’s claims about WMD. As Adam and his ilk would say, there were no WMD and it was a lie concocted to get us into a war. Well here is what News Max has to say about Clinton Revisionist History:

Either Bill Clinton is not telling the truth now about the terrorist threat posed by Iraq during his administration – or he fibbed to the American people while he was in the White House.

Clinton recently told his former staffer-turned TV commentator George Stephanopoulos that the U.S. government had “no evidence that there were any weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq.

But a recent report in the The Weekly Standard headlined “Clinton Revisionism” unmasks Clinton’s flip-flops over the Iraq weapons of mass destruction issue.

For example, during an appearance on “Larry King Live” back in July 2003, the former president said:

“When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for.”

In October of that year, six months after the war ended, Clinton discussed Iraq with Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso.

Barroso said: “When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime.”

Last month Clinton discussed the Iraq war with Wolf Blitzer and told him: “I never thought it had much to do with the war on terror.”

But in a February 1998 speech warning of an “unholy axis” of terrorists and rogue states, Clinton stated: “There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.”

That summer six senior Clinton officials accused Iraq of providing chemical weapons expertise to al-Qaida in Sudan.

The Clinton administration cited this link to justify the destruction of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan supposedly involved in the production of chemical weapons.

The Standard concludes: “Clinton’s revisionism is hardly surprising. He has his wife’s future in an increasingly anti-war Democratic Party to worry about.”

I guess it does show that Clinton does not know how to tell the truth and that his legacy will be whatever he tells America that it is, so long as people will believe him.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

2 Responses to “Clinton Revisionist History”

  1. Adam says:

    So, when a “moonbat” boils somebody’s words down to a single quote, it’s out of context, but when New Max boils a dozen of Clinton’s statements down to single quotes, that’s just Clinton flip-flopping? Get real. Is that a parrot I hear? I can’t tell…

  2. Big Dog says:

    This is not a matter of boiling anything down. It is a matter of Clinton changing the circumstances. Hillary is great for that. They just tell America what they want us to believe. There is a reason they have been tagged as revisionists when it comes to their legacies.

    Truth is, Clinton saw WMD and a threat when he was President. Now that he is out and anti-war is popular, he can change his tune. The problem with most folks like you is that you are so blinded by your biases that you can not see it for what it is.