Hillary Clinton’s campaign was yesterday wriggling uncomfortably over charges that her husband, Bill, had tried to re-write history with a claim that he opposed the Iraq war “from the beginning”.

The former President’s speech in Iowa on Tuesday night may serve to re-focus attention on Mrs Clinton’s support for the invasion four years ago - an issue which she has successfully side-stepped over recent months.

“I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning,” he said in a wide-ranging speech on foreign policy in which he sought to promote the prospect of a Clinton restoration to the White House as bringing America “back to the future”.

But this comment appeared to be at odds with the position he had taken shortly after the invasion, when he said in May, 2003: “I supported the President when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” Other remarks Mr Clinton made at the time show he backed President Bush with some reservations. For instance, he called for the United Nations to be involved “not only for the military action - where we don’t really need their help - but for what comes after”, while also adding: “This has been in Saddam Hussein’s hands from the very beginning.” His spokesman, Jay Carson, later stressed that Mr Clinton had always made clear that the UN should have been given more time to deal with Saddam.

Iraq timeline: five years of conflict

From accusations that the weapons of mass destruction dossier had been sexed-up to withdrawal of British troops from Basra

Multimedia

• Poll: Was Iraq war worth the sacrifice?

• Audio slideshow: Iraq conflict explained

• Pictures: Iraq, war and aftermath

Related Internet Links

• Read the Inside Iraq blog from our team in Baghdad

“As he said before the war and many times since, President Clinton disagreed with taking the country to war without allowing the weapons inspectors to finish their jobs,” said Mr Carson.

Mrs Clinton’s chief rival, Barack Obama, has made great play of his early opposition to the Iraq invasion which is hugely unpopular among Democratic voters. But she largely neutered attacks on her Senate vote authorising military action by promising to end the war - and sharply criticising the way it has been fought.

In recent weeks the salience of the issue, even among Democratic voters, has diminished along with the death-toll in Iraq. Both she and Mr Obama acknowledge they would keep US troops in the country for some time, with their clashes increasingly concentrating on domestic issues such as health care policy.

The renewed controversy was expected to provide fresh ammunition for Republican presidential candidates in their scheduled TV debate last night, as well as for Democratic rivals who have accused the Clintons of “double-talk” on key policy questions.

It is not the first time that Mr Clinton has embarrassed his wife’s tightly disciplined campaign.

Her aides were recently forced to say he had been speaking out of turn when he compared attacks on her to the “Swift Boat” smears levelled against the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry.

The former President is still regarded as an enormous asset for Mrs Clinton and he has been wheeled out as a counterweight to Mr Obama’s star recruit, talk show host Oprah Winfrey. Both of these “campaign surrogates” will feature prominently over the coming days in Iowa - which kicks off the nominating process on January 3 - where Mr Obama is now neck and neck with Mrs Clinton according to recent polls.

But the Clinton campaign has sometimes struggled to marry its twin themes of “change” and “experience”, with rivals reminding voters about the prospect of continuing the uninterrupted occupancy of the White House by the Bush and Clinton family dynasties.

Times Recommends

• Both sides blame US for worsening relations
• Stieg Larsson: losing the plot over his cash
• Odd creature paralysed by incompatible parts