You would think that after becoming a national embarrassment for lying, you would make sure to never do it again.
Apparently, Bill Clinton didn’t get that memo.
Just nine years after being impeached, Clinton relapsed into his former habits, and the only thing missing is a stained dress.
Last week during a campaign stop for Hilary in Iowa, Clinton unleashed one of his worst lies since his presidency.
During a speech to a crowd of Democratic supporters, the former president said, “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 [the] soldiers.”
Maybe he accidentally said Iraq when he really meant to say the Hamburglar, because he clearly supported the war in Iraq from the beginning.
On April 16, 2003, Clinton told the New York Daily News “I don’t think that you can criticize the president for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. That’s what I was always told.”
He made this statement less than one month into the war.
Unfortunately, Bill isn’t the only Clinton who has dishonestly changed his position on the war.
In February, Hillary Clinton spoke on the senate floor, saying “If I had been president in October of 2002, I would have never asked for authority to divert our attention from Afghanistan to Iraq, and I certainly would never have started this war.” She forgot to mention that she in fact voted to give President Bush those powers.
On the same Senate floor in October 2002, Clinton said, “it is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
In a Sept. 15, 2002 appearance on Meet the Press, Tim Russert asked Senator Clinton if the disarmament of Iraq could happen without regime change. She responded, “I can support the president. I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it’s in the long-term interests of our national security.”
Thus far, Hillary has run her campaign along the same lines of dishonesty. Earlier this month, college student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff came forth to the media to acknowledge the fact that the Clinton campaign used her as a plant in a town hall meeting appearance in Iowa.
Of course, Clinton denied any knowledge of the planted questions.
Then there were the $850,000 in campaign contributions from Chinese fugitive Norman Hsu. Only after the alternative media sources found out about Hsu’s criminal record did the Clinton campaign refund the donations.
Last month, Clinton supported New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s plan to grant illegal immigrants driver’s licenses.
When questioned at a debate in Philadelphia, Clinton contested that “what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform.”
I almost expected her to throw global warming in there.
Mysteriously, Governor Spitzer dropped his proposal November 14th, the day before the next Democratic debate, in which Clinton would have certainly faced additional criticism concerning her support for the measure.
The examples of deceit and hypocrisy could fill this entire newspaper.
Is this really who we want to lead our country? According to a new poll, we shouldn’t have to worry about that happening.
Last week, a Zogby poll was released that details Hillary’s chances of winning next year’s general election. The poll found that Hillary would lose to every one of the five Republican frontrunners in a head-to-head vote by a margin of 3-5 percent. The future still looks bright.
Merry Christmas everyone.
Nick Hemenway is a senior mechanical engineering major. His column appears Wednesdays in the Collegian. Letters and feedback can be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org.