The Anchoress has a long and well thought-out vaguely Freudian analysis of President Clinton's latest utterances, which lambast his successor, who's relied on Clinton (along with Pappa Bush) to help spearhead disaster recovery efforts after both Hurricane Katrina, and the Indian Ocean tsunami last December:

Actually, [in the past] President Clinton has tiptoed around the tactic of lambasting, sharply criticising or launching a “withering” attack against President Bush, several times. He has simply had the sense to do so tentatively, and discreetly - inserting a sly dig at Davos, a mild remark in Rio. This weekend, bouyed by campaign-trailish coverage and the sort of wonky gasbag-fest we know always energizes him, Clinton simply decided to get off his tippy-toes and step lively.

Some of this was predictable. The extreme left of the Democrat Party has grown into a fuming beast that needs constant feeding as it stomps around its cage, waiting to be unleashed. Because Mrs. Clinton is planning a run at the White House, she and her husband are simply shoveling at them the same Triangulation Kibble they used to feed the left (and the center) in 1991 and 1992 - except that this time the ingredients are reversed: this time Bill Clinton is the Hard Left Outside while Hillary is the Deeply Moderate Center. Same food, different packaging; it is a particularly useful recipe for both Clintons because his “centrist” credentials, and her “leftist” credentials are so firmly in place, that no matter how the ingredients are mixed, the same multitudes are fed, and things even taste the same.

All of that is so predictable, it’s almost boring. Bill and Hill are smothering us again, gearing up for another leg of their endless campaign. What’s on Channel 38?

In another way, yesterday’s unloading was simply Bill Clinton doing what he has always done. He serves not God, nor country, nor the simple dignity of an Office quite worthy of respect. What he does serve is his own towering ambition, and his other, sadly insatiable (and ultimately destructive) need - his need to be loved.

Does this mean Bill Clinton is admitting he bombed Iraq to deflect attention away from his personal legal troubles? Because if the danger in Iraq presented “no real urgency” then how should these quotes be interpreted?

Or is it simply Clinton's renowned postmodernism, which would make Oceania proud?

Update: Chris Lynch has a large round-up of Blogospheric reaction. He's been linked to by InstaPundit, thus ensuring that, as Chris says, "more people will see Clinton's comments in context now".

Indeed.