I read the article you linked, and it sounds like to me that Bill is playing fantastically in Iowa. I read the things he orated on, and they are pretty much what Iowans can relate to and want to hear. He spoke for 50 minutes in an organized, specific manner, with no notes, and left the listeners with a good feeling about a Hillary presidency, and let people know he was going to be a part of the scene.
I think most politicians rewrite history to their own bidding...that's nothing new. Sounds like to me he did a great job - as he always does - in speaking to prospective voters.
That would depend Chad on if anyone is aware what he said earlier and compares it to what he is saying now--the pic should have been your clue
interview with Time 2004-
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,994507-8,00.html
"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for. 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. I never really thought he'd [use them]. What I was far more worried about was that he'd sell this stuff or give it away. Same thing I've always been worried about North Korea's nuclear and missile capacity. I don't expect North Korea to bomb South Korea, because they know it would be the end of their country. But if you can't feed yourself, the temptation to sell this stuff is overwhelming. So that's why I thought Bush did the right thing to go back. When you're the President, and your country has just been through what we had, you want everything to be accounted for.
On whether the Iraq war was worth the costs
It's a judgment that no one can make definitively yet. I would not have done it until after Hans Blix finished his job. Having said that, over 600 of our people have died since the conflict was over. We've got a big stake now in making it work. I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn't agree with the timing of the attack. I think if you have a pluralistic, secure, stable Iraq, the people of Iraq will be better off, and it might help the process of internal reform in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. I think right now, getting rid of Saddam's tyranny, ironically, has made Iraq more vulnerable to terrorism coming in from the outside. But any open society is going to be more vulnerable than any tyranny to that. "
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ya get what I mean--its one to give advice after the fact especially if you can do a 360 flop everytime public opinion warrents it.--but quite another to have to make the decisions prior-and that goes for both parties.
You agree?
