One definition of a pathological liar is someone who lies when the truth would do at least as nicely. This article from the Washington Post suggests that former President Clinton did not tell the truth when he said in Iowa this week that he opposed our military action in Iraq “from the beginning.”
For Clinton, there are advantages associated with being seen as having opposed to our action in Iraq — an action that most Americans continue to regard as a mistake. However, Clinton’s wife, who happens to be running for president, voted in favor of taking military action to remove Saddam Hussein. Thus, as the Post observes, Bill Clinton’s claim that he was opposed to the war from the beginning seems to place the soundness of Hillary’s judgment on this key matter in doubt, at least in the minds of many voters whose support she covets.
Thus, while the truth (assuming that he did not oppose taking miiltary action in Iraq) might not serve Bill Clinton’s purposes, neither does a false statement. Silence would have been the best option — assuming that Bill wants Hillary’s campaign to succeed.
Most Read on Power Line
- Should We Feel Sorry for Obama?
- The Democrats Try To Shut Their Opponents Up (Cont.)
- Breaking: Obamacare Takes Torpedo Below the Water Line
- The Nutroots Are Worried, And We Have the Answer
- What's next after Obamacare's defeat in Halbig v. Burwell? [updated]
- Pro bono law morphs into left-wing lawfare
Subscribe to Power Line by Email
Find us on Facebook
“Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” Winston Churchill
“Proclaim Liberty throughout All the land unto All the Inhabitants Thereof.” Inscription on the Liberty Bell