David Fiderer: Chris Matthews Rewrites History about the Clintons and the Origins of the Iraq War
[For his day job, David works at a global financial institution in New York. After his postmortem review of Enron, a company he had covered, he decided to moonlight as a freelance writer covering ethical lapses among high profile professionals in journalism and the law. He is trained as a lawyer.]
On last Wednesday's Hardball, Chris Matthews asked a rhetorical question that no one answered. So I will.
"I'm amazed now that Bill Clinton has come out and said he's Jerry Rubin. I mean, he's now become -- announced the fact that he's been against the war -- I love the phrase, "from the beginning." Within a few hours, by the way, the verb -- the verb tense changed from the past to the present. This is like the old "is" is question. He's now against the war, having promised the voters a few minutes before that that he was against it. Now he's just saying he is against it, a lesser claim. I don't remember him speaking out against the war back in 2001, 2002 and 2003, do you?"
I sure do. A few minutes on a fee-based search engine jogged my memory. Here are few clippings:
"Clinton Splits With Bush on Iraq," The Washington Post March 13, 2003
"Former president Bill Clinton, who has generally supported the Bush administration's Iraq policy in recent remarks, called on his successor yesterday to accept a more relaxed timeline in exchange for support from a majority of the United Nations Security Council members. ..[T]he former president has publicly espoused an approach substantially different from the administration's public stance."
"Deadline for war - Give the inspectors more time, urges Clinton" The Daily Telegraph March 13, 2003 "Bill Clinton yesterday urged the Bush administration to give Hans Blix as much time as he wants to complete weapons inspections in Iraq. The former president broke ranks with his successor...Mr Clinton said war might yet be avoided if Saddam Hussein were given more time to disarm. "
"Clinton recommends U.S. patience on Iraq," Reuters, February 11, 2003. "Former U.S. President Bill Clinton said in an interview broadcast on Tuesday the United States should exercise patience in its standoff with Iraq to help build allied support for a potential strike."
Hardball, February 12, 2003,when Chris Matthews asks "Christopher Hitchens, are you upset that President Clinton has emerged as a critic and perhaps a mild-mannered critic of the policy of this administration on the eve of war?"
Let me spell it out for anyone who doesn't get it. If you say the country should not go to war until certain conditions are met, or if you say there is insufficient basis for going to war, then you are against going to war. (Nobody is ever indifferent). This concept holds true if you're referring to war with Iraq, Iran or Mexico. Bill Clinton's position, which was identical to that of Hans Blix, was that we should exhaust all opportunities for inspections prior to any military action. And if, five days before the invasion, Clinton said that we should proceed with inspections and diplomacy instead of artillery fire, then he was against the war from "the beginning." It's the simplest type of syllogism.
Matthews was not the only one. Most of Bill Clinton's critics framed their accusations in ways that are very misleading. The headline in the Times said "Bill Clinton Flatly Asserts He Opposed War at Start." Yes, Clinton used the verb "opposed" instead of "was against" which have very different meanings. But to my knowledge, you cannot "flatly assert" something in a subordinate clause. The full sentence, which the Times quotes at the very end of the article, was,
"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."
Clinton's primary point was about his opportunity to support the soldiers, specifically about the adminsitration's unwillingness to work with him, not about Iraq. If Clinton substituted the word "opposed" with "was against" his sentence would have been 100% correct. But would the audience have been left with a materially different impression? Did Clinton "rewrite history" or make a bad choice of words? If the media chooses to make a big deal out of it, who's the one who's splitting hairs?
Which is why methinks Frank Rich doest protest too much. In Sunday's column, he writes that Clinton "revived unhappy memories of the truth-dodging nadirs of the Clinton White House," and that "history cannot be rewritten in any case, by Bill Clinton or anyone else." Rich revived my unhappy memories of pundits who relied on the flimsiest pretext to impugn the Clintons....
Read entire article at Huffington Post (Blog)
On last Wednesday's Hardball, Chris Matthews asked a rhetorical question that no one answered. So I will.
"I'm amazed now that Bill Clinton has come out and said he's Jerry Rubin. I mean, he's now become -- announced the fact that he's been against the war -- I love the phrase, "from the beginning." Within a few hours, by the way, the verb -- the verb tense changed from the past to the present. This is like the old "is" is question. He's now against the war, having promised the voters a few minutes before that that he was against it. Now he's just saying he is against it, a lesser claim. I don't remember him speaking out against the war back in 2001, 2002 and 2003, do you?"
I sure do. A few minutes on a fee-based search engine jogged my memory. Here are few clippings:
"Clinton Splits With Bush on Iraq," The Washington Post March 13, 2003
"Former president Bill Clinton, who has generally supported the Bush administration's Iraq policy in recent remarks, called on his successor yesterday to accept a more relaxed timeline in exchange for support from a majority of the United Nations Security Council members. ..[T]he former president has publicly espoused an approach substantially different from the administration's public stance."
"Deadline for war - Give the inspectors more time, urges Clinton" The Daily Telegraph March 13, 2003 "Bill Clinton yesterday urged the Bush administration to give Hans Blix as much time as he wants to complete weapons inspections in Iraq. The former president broke ranks with his successor...Mr Clinton said war might yet be avoided if Saddam Hussein were given more time to disarm. "
"Clinton recommends U.S. patience on Iraq," Reuters, February 11, 2003. "Former U.S. President Bill Clinton said in an interview broadcast on Tuesday the United States should exercise patience in its standoff with Iraq to help build allied support for a potential strike."
Hardball, February 12, 2003,when Chris Matthews asks "Christopher Hitchens, are you upset that President Clinton has emerged as a critic and perhaps a mild-mannered critic of the policy of this administration on the eve of war?"
Let me spell it out for anyone who doesn't get it. If you say the country should not go to war until certain conditions are met, or if you say there is insufficient basis for going to war, then you are against going to war. (Nobody is ever indifferent). This concept holds true if you're referring to war with Iraq, Iran or Mexico. Bill Clinton's position, which was identical to that of Hans Blix, was that we should exhaust all opportunities for inspections prior to any military action. And if, five days before the invasion, Clinton said that we should proceed with inspections and diplomacy instead of artillery fire, then he was against the war from "the beginning." It's the simplest type of syllogism.
Matthews was not the only one. Most of Bill Clinton's critics framed their accusations in ways that are very misleading. The headline in the Times said "Bill Clinton Flatly Asserts He Opposed War at Start." Yes, Clinton used the verb "opposed" instead of "was against" which have very different meanings. But to my knowledge, you cannot "flatly assert" something in a subordinate clause. The full sentence, which the Times quotes at the very end of the article, was,
"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."
Clinton's primary point was about his opportunity to support the soldiers, specifically about the adminsitration's unwillingness to work with him, not about Iraq. If Clinton substituted the word "opposed" with "was against" his sentence would have been 100% correct. But would the audience have been left with a materially different impression? Did Clinton "rewrite history" or make a bad choice of words? If the media chooses to make a big deal out of it, who's the one who's splitting hairs?
Which is why methinks Frank Rich doest protest too much. In Sunday's column, he writes that Clinton "revived unhappy memories of the truth-dodging nadirs of the Clinton White House," and that "history cannot be rewritten in any case, by Bill Clinton or anyone else." Rich revived my unhappy memories of pundits who relied on the flimsiest pretext to impugn the Clintons....