Does "even the liberal" Bill Clinton support George's war?

This column in The Guardian, written by the Big Dog, seems to suggest he does. Certainly some are interpreting it that way. I think it's more complicated than that. If Clinton really did support this war and George Bush's handling of it then he wouldn't hesitate to come out and say so explicitly. Clinton, unlike many of his enemies, can put partisanship aside in matters of war and peace. Yet he never explicitly endorses the coming action. I think that Clinton is trying to make the best of a bad situation. He feels no need to attack Bush openly on his handling of Iraq since, to do so, would just aggravate the situation (after all, this administration is dominated by people who seem to think that what is right is defined to be the opposite of whatever Clinton thinks is right). Besides, there are plenty out there who are already raking Bush over the coals for his bungling. But Clinton does seem to think that Blair is getting a bum rap for what is happening. Thus his column is an attempt to support a friend in a time of trouble. It's called stickin'. I personally think that Blair is getting a perfectly fair rap and thus does not deserve support. But then I am not his friend and feel no need to stick up for him.