FLASHBACK: Bill Clinton Defends George W. Bush on WMDs and Invasion of Iraq

There are liberals who scrutinize their (ridiculous) belief systems, but the majority willingly give themselves over their whims, feelings and whatever narrative the mainstream media spoon-feeds them.

To decipher which kind of liberal one is talking to, it’s good to have a few subjects in mind to serve as litmus tests. Ask them about gun control and hear if they reference what they would like to see happen. More often than not, however, their answers will be bereft of constitutional considerations and will not address how more gun laws will save anybody.

Another great test to decipher who is a “thinking liberal” is to ask them about George W. Bush’s assertions about WMDs in Iraq. If they regard it as a “mistake,” there is hope for them. If they rant and rave about a “war for oil” or Bush’s “lies,” you have yourself a bona fide liberal sheep.

Don’t misunderstand: both are equally dangerous. While the “brainwashed masses” constitute most of the left, those who scrutinize their belief systems but still maintain a leftward heading are smaller in numbers, but far less-easy to limit their influence than those who get their views fed to them by MSNBC.

Donald Trump is the latter. While still harboring some conservative economic leanings, Trump has endeared himself to the moronic left by slamming George W. Bush for his “lies” on WMDs.

Evidently, as president, Mr. Trump would have disregarded the deluge of intelligence reports that suggested Iraq had such WMDs and would have maintained a “wait and see” approach to seeing if millions would die or not…

One liberal who does not buy into the “Bush lied, people died” mantra of the lunatic left is none other than the husband of the 2016 Democratic frontrunner, former president Bill Clinton.

In a 2004 report from TIME Magazine, Clinton was adamant that he has defended Bush’s declaration that Iraq had WMDs.

“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,” Clinton said…

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be “reeling” in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush’s first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining “chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material.”

“That’s why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for,” Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

“So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, ‘Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.’ You couldn’t responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks,” Clinton said.

In truth, though his weak foreign policy had helped facilitate the rise of the Islamic dangers we now face, Clinton’s stance is spot-on. How could our nation’s leader, equipped with the most-sophisticated intelligence apparatus in the history of the world, feel compelled to ignore the mounting reports of WMDs? What would have been the cost incurred if we had waited and the intelligence reports were, in fact, right all along? How many would have died?

Bill Clinton is wrong about so, so many things, but he is absolutely right on this. The question now is: what does he believe now that his opinion is once again politically relevant?

About the Author

Greg Campbell
Greg Campbell
An unapologetic patriot and conservative, Greg emerged within the blossoming Tea Party Movement as a political analyst dedicated to educating and advocating for the preservation of our constitutional principles and a free-market solution to problems birthed by economic liberalism. From authoring scathing commentaries to conducting interviews with some of the biggest names in politics today including party leaders, activists and conservative media personalities, Greg has worked to counter the left’s media narratives with truthful discussions of the biggest issues affecting Americans today. Greg’s primary area of focus is Second Amendment issues and the advancement of honest discussion concerning the constitutional right that protects all others. He lives in the Northwest with his wife, Heather, and enjoys writing, marksmanship and the outdoors.

Send this to friend