why is Clinton undercutting Dems right now?

[grasswire]

On Larry King Live:

KING: President, maybe I can get an area where you may disagree. Do you join, President Clinton, your fellow Democrats, in complaining about the portion of the State of the Union address that dealt with nuclear weaponry in Africa?

CLINTON: Well, I have a little different take on it, I think, than either side.

First of all, the White House said -- Mr. Fleischer said -- that on balance they probably shouldn't have put that comment in the speech. What happened, often happens. There was a disagreement between British intelligence and American intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence that said it. And then they said, well, maybe they shouldn't have put it in.

Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.

I mean, we're all more sensitive to any possible stocks of chemical and biological weapons. So there's a difference between British -- British intelligence still maintains that they think the nuclear story was true. I don't know what was true, what was false. I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying, Well, we probably shouldn't have said that. And I think we ought to focus on where we are and what the right thing to do for Iraq is now. That's what I think.

KING: So do you share that view, Senator Dole?

DOLE: Oh, he's exactly right. Let's put the focus where it belongs.

I never got to be president. I tried a couple of times. But President Clinton understands better than anybody that he gets piles and piles of classified, secret, top secret information, and I don't know how many, maybe the president can tell me. I don't know how much of this goes across your desk every day. It probably shouldn't have been in the message.

But that's history. It's passed. We can't change it. And we need to focus on the real problem.

KING: What do you do, Mr. President, with what's put in front of you?

CLINTON: Well, here's what happens: every day the president gets a daily brief from the CIA. And then, if it's some important issue -- and believe me, you know, anything having to do with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons became much more important to everybody in the White House after September the 11 -- then they probably told the president, certainly Condoleezza Rice, that this is what the British intelligence thought. They maybe have a difference of opinion, but on balance, they decided they should leave that line in the speech.

I think the main thing I want to say to you is, people can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks...

DOLE: That's right.

CLINTON: ... of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back in there.

KING: Yes.

CLINTON: And what I think -- again, I would say the most important thing is we should focus on what's the best way to build Iraq as a democracy? How is the president going to do that and deal with continuing problems in Afghanistan and North Korea?

We should be pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq. We can have honest disagreements about where we go from here, and we have space now to discuss that in what I hope will be a nonpartisan and open way. But this State of the Union deal they decided to use the British intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence. Then they said on balance they shouldn't have done it. You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president. I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now. That's what I think.

[are_we_united_yet]

1. Never thought I'd be

second guessing bubba. But I am now.

[GayboyBilly]

9. He wasn't President for eight years...

And battled An Impeachment for nothing! He is smart. And he is right, your just not reading between the lines. There are other things to get this Administrationon on. And the longer we are in Iraq, The longer the economy will tank & the longer the noose will get.

[salin]

47. Sadly

this argument is very reminiscent of ones we heard a year ago on this forum about the "plan"... not to worry the dems in congress had "a plan" and they would prevent the war - because the administration was playing chicken and wasn't going to go to war anyway... but the dems had a "plan"... we lowly observers/citizens just didn't have the same information that they did. So we were told repeatedly and cynically to be patient... because the dem leaders in congress "had a plan".

I didn't buy it then. They were naive and out maneuvered.

I don't buy Clinton doing this strategically and he knows what he is doing and if we knew what he did we could see that strategy.

He screwed up, or he screwed us. Don't know which it is.

But counting on some "other" plan or issue that hasn't yet emerged, because after all we know it is going to... is like counting on the clouds one is gazing at to suddenly transform from the form in the sky ("see it looks like a giant eagle") into that actual being ("wow... look at it fly!") It also leaves us passively waiting for that magical moment to occur. Passivity cedes a distinct advantage to the opposition.

[Khephra]

61. Exactly Salin

As the Who said "We won't be fooled again".

I was one of those people who thought they had a plan. Bill doesn't have a plan here, unless it's for the Clintons. It's sure not for the Democratic Party.

[barbaraann]

2. It's making me furious.

I heard that exchange and it made be feel more betrayed than I have words to express.

[mmm]

3. sad sad sad

I hope someone here can explain this.
I cannot.

[Freddie Stubbs]

60. Perhaps he believes the words that he said

[ChrisNYC]

4. I guess he's trying to be Presidential

Makes me a little less excited to be meeting him tomorrow night at a fundraiser for his library I'm going to...

[Cha]

5. I don't suppose there is any way you could relate to him what

many of us think of his travesty on Larry King?

:kick:

[robbedvoter]

28. Ask him! Please do! Why, just when the opposition got a juicy bone

(DNC has an add on it for goodness sake), just when W's numbers are coming down and the credibility thingy is shaking - why does he have to come and kick us down together with the BFEE? Voters were just getting excited, the truth is seeping out from the propaganda and here comes Clinton stepping on our fingers as we just scaled the citadel. (well, ask nicely)
You may remind him that in the summer of 2002 he had a speech at CFR where he said Saddam was a joke and not at all a threat. How later he kept saying w should get OBL first, rather that Saddam. as in this one (no link):
"
> AOL News Wires
>
> SANTA ANA, Calif. (Sept. 6) - Former President Clinton urged the Bush
> administration Thursday to finish the job with Osama bin Laden before
> taking on Iraq.
>
> ``Saddam Hussein didn't kill 3,100 people on Sept. 11,'' he said.
> ``Osama bin Laden did, and as far as we know he's still alive.''
>
> Clinton, speaking at a fund-raiser for Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif.,
> said he supported President Bush's efforts in Afghanistan, including
> military actions and support of the Afghan government.
>
>

[julka]

6. can't figure out why he's being so conciliatory?

makes no sense?

how bout this?

I smell $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

some sort of deal w/Supreme court to reverse the decision to pay his legal bills?

it always comes down to money, if no other motivation makes sense

look at this adminiSTRATION, for lord sakes

what do they do that DOESN't revolve around money, or power-resulting-in-money-for-somebody?

[Freddie Stubbs]

59. He doesn't need money

Hillary's book made millions, and his will too. Plus he could make tons of money through speaking engagements.

[Eloriel]

7. Heartbreaking

Makes me more right than I ever suspected when I said: He's the only Republican I ever voted for.

He has been falling in grace in my eyes in recent months anyway. This pretty much seals the deal. I, personally, am officially OVER the Clintons. (Never was a Hillary fan to start with, so that's not a shift.)

Eloriel

[seventhson]

11. Mena

Mena airport in Arkansas.

When Clintn was governor...

Bush was running drugs and guns to the contras and back on Clinton's watch


Google clinton and mena

That's why


Gore in 2004!!!!

[julka]

15. mena's a total crock

you can't be serious, can you?

this took as long as it took to type in clinton mena debunked:

L.D. Brown also accused Clinton of collaborating with a cocaine-smuggling ring in Mena, Ark. Brown was the mainstay in several anti-Clinton books, including Roger Morris's Partners in Power. American Spectator editor R. Emmett Tyrrell also published a series of articles about Mena based on Brown's assertions.

According to Brown's testimony, he was recruited for a CIA-connected drug-smuggling operation in Mena with Clinton's blessings in 1984. Brown claimed that he then accompanied notorious drug smuggler Barry Seal on an arms-for-drugs flight from Mena to Central America.

After this alleged Mena drug flight, Brown claimed that Clinton asked, "You having any fun yet?" Brown concluded that meant Clinton knew all about the drug operation. "He knew before I said anything," Brown stated. "He knew."

Though the anti-Clinton authors embraced Brown's assertions as fact, federal investigators doubted Brown's word about both Whitewater and Mena, according to Waas's article.

"There was money that was being passed around and there were apparently other financial incentives to be had as well," one federal law-enforcement official told Waas. "And the better your story, the more attention you're going to attract and publicity that you are going to draw. That's the kind of thing that would prove irresistible to someone like an L.D. Brown."

Waas cited another contradiction of Brown's Mena story: Brown’s date of the Seal drug flight as Oct. 23, 1984. Waas interviewed CNN correspondent John Camp who said he was with Seal that day, filming a documentary, and that Seal "was nowhere near Central America."

The Republican-controlled House Banking Committee also investigated the Mena allegations, drawing, in part, on the evidence compiled by Morris for his book. Although the committee has yet to release its final report, the panel announced that no evidence was found linking then-Gov. Clinton to the Mena operation.

I'll take Robert Parry every time

http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/c021099a.html

[robbedvoter]

30. And Conason too.

Let's not become freepers just because Clintom made this mindblowingly wrong statement.

[Eloriel]

29. Yes, I've been thinking to myself lately

That I ought to go back and actually look at some of the stuff on that issue. I will. Someday.

Eloriel

[julka]

32. why bother? crackpot theories aside........q

they looked into it carefully under the aegis of Whitewater.

you KNOW if anything had been there, it would have come out.

Unless there was a tie in with Hutchinson, who was the prosecutor there, and then the CIA connections, Barry Seal, the dead kids......wait a minute, here

[seventhson]

72. clinton knew and this is why he still helps Bush

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:7gqxOmP9GMEJ:www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MENA/walsh_gets_evidence.html+Hutchinson+Mena+Clinton&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

This was a mutual coverup by Clinton and Bush.

This is far left political knowledge NIOT frepperville (altho they love it too)

Uninformed is ignorance

I BELIEVE that Clinton screwed Gore intentionally in 2000 to help Bush/

I BELIEVE that Kerry is the backup BFEE candidate

I BELIEVE that Clinton covered for Bush and vice-versa.

And so this kind of bullshit is just typical.

Clinton a sellout?

I think so - despite how much I think he helped america.

His idealism is always tempered by practicality. You can't get into power unless you play the games with the big boys. In this case its the BFEE and they want Hillary to keep the coverup in place down the road.

It has been thus since JFK was murdered. The coverup is the primary motivator of everything the BFEE does. Coverup of their crimes and continued dominance in global criminality and evil.

[BurtWorm]

74. Sure you're not a sucker?

Most of your information is from constipiracy (sic) theorists on the right.

I was listening to a program about the grand overarching conspiracy on WBAI (NYC's Pacifica Radio) yesterday. A lot of dots were connected between Jackson Stephens and high-ranking Dems and Republicans, but it was not easy to read what image the connected dots made. The implication is that the US presidency is owned by corporate gangsters who drop whomever they like into the position, that the executive branch is totally out of control and unchecked, ready to implement an authoritarian regime when the big bosses behind the scenes call for it, that they're tracking our every move, ready to clamp down and enslave us just so they can get richer and richer and richer.

I personally do believe some of the biggest names in US politics are gangsters, but they seem mostly to be on the right: the Bushes, DeLay, the Rpeublican party in general. The fact that so many Dems are connected financially to them gives me pause. But I note that many of these Dems--Robert Strauss, Bert Lance, Clinton, Gore--are Southern Democrats, and the big money behind them is the promiscuous Jackson Stephens who gets in bed with anyone it seems who'll pleasure him.

[Cocoa]

78. his John Kerry stuff is from the right, too

Skull and Bones, thrown medals, both smack big-time of a right wing smear campaign against John Kerry that started a long time ago.

Very creepy to see it proliferate on DU.

[MoonGod]

8. Actually, we might wind up thanking Clinton...

... I've been saying all along that we need to be VERY clear that the deception/misuse of intelligence issue is bigger than just the "16 words". If it becomes JUST about those 16 words, there a dozen ways they can spin it, and we might even wind up with egg on our faces.

Also, he's right about the fact that we need to be thinking about the larger issues of domestic security (are we safer?), global security (is the world safer/more stable?), rebuilding Iraq, addressing Korea, etc.

The "16 words" have provided a great wedge issue to get people asking questions again. I'm not saying everybody should drop that issue, but as long as people are asking questions, let's start asking the ones that REALLY count.

[tomp]

76. your argument assumes that the 16 words...

...is the only thing we go after bush about. it's not ONLY about the 16 words but it's partly about them, among MANY other things. why take the heat off bush for any "mistake", when he never gets called on anything? this is one "mistake" that seems to be taking hold and clinton goes and cuts us off at the knees.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. He's making them look like an ass for blaming him

and note he said chemical and biological, he never said anything about nuclear. Besides, they have used his targetted bombings so I imagine saving his own reputation is more important to him. Plus, Hillary voted FOR the war and we all know she aspires to one day be president.

[salin]

48. forgive me

but what.. you suggest that Clinton is perhaps attending a little more to protecting (fixing) his image than to the bigger cause? Nah... that would never happen. (I like Clinton, but this does tend to be one of his quirks, as it is with many, many politicians).

[sandnsea]

12. He pretty much gave Bush another 4 years

That's what I think. I don't know what's going on in the world anymore.

[aquart]

52. Ridiculous.

Get some sleep and a sense of proportion.

[imhotep]

13. clinton has always

stabbed the left in the back at every chance.
He has never done anything for progress or the working class.

[GayboyBilly]

18. GET A GRIP ON REALITY!

eom

[jonnyblitz]

73. you need to get a grip on reality. DEMS like CLinton are why

people vote Green. Clinton was the best republican president we ever had!

[Sean Reynolds]

22. I agree.

Sadly this might not be the place to air your thoughts on Clinton.

Though I didn't hate Clinton, I for one thought he was too conservative, though I'd take him over Shrub any day of the week.

[liberalmuse]

14. There is NO excuse...

Finally...finally I've had it with Clinton. I voted for him twice and thought he did an excellent job--supported him all the way, as a matter of fact, but I wish he would get his narcissistic ass out of the spotlight already. Why has he become a mealy-mouthed apologist for the very bastards who wanted (and pretty much got) his head on a platter? I guess it was good to have read Lewis Lapham's 'Theater of War' over the weekend. He spares no punches for either side, and he's right. Brilliant man. This is effing pathetic. We have the worst criminal to have ever squatted in the White House teetering on the brink of disaster, and good 'ol Clinton is going to try and ride in and save his ass.

[jbm]

16. I have always thought...

that despite his not being the best husband in the world,Clintons greatest strength is that he really does strive to travel the highest plain. It doesn't mean he always got there,and sometimes that is a somewhat naive and vulnerable path to follow,but my guess is there was nothing sinister or intentionally betraying in his words tonight.

The weakness that exists in the most liberal souls among us,is that sometimes in our efforts to give the other guy every possible credible doubt,we wind up doing harm in another area.

Or..he could be a genious. I think when the average american compares the right wing hate to the tolerance Clinton exhibited when he had an opportunity to strike back,we win. Course..I'm one of those people that always assumes people will come through in the end and admire integrity..unfortunately,I've finally learned it doesn't always work out that way.

[Sweetpea]

17. Do you think his appearance on Larry King

is going to make people forget the economy, unemployment, the troops dying everday, the 4 billion a month we are spending in Iraq, this upcoming 9/11 report....on and on and on?

[Exultant Democracy]

19. I'm holding off comment for a while

Some weird wacky stuff has been going on with these “Elder Statesmen” both Carter and Dole criticized the Chimp, and now Clinton is supporting him, but only on this one issue. I am going to say that perhaps this is a little more complicated then we know right now. From the start of this whole situation I have been waiting for the other shoe to drop. Maybe just maybe Clinton didn’t sell us out; maybe he knows what he is doing?????

[Kenneth ken]

20. because he's a media-monger

he can't give up the spotlight. He doesn't care what he says, though, apparently the more controversial the better; he just wants someone to record what he says, so he can keep his sorry ass in the public a little longer.

He is a stupid prick of an ego-consumed jackass.

[aquart]

21. I have no clue why you're upset.

They threw everything at him and he never once said a mean thing. He never attacked. He never accused. He simply got back to what had to be done.

He's doing the exact same thing now. He's trying to save lives. He's focussed on making something positive of that hellish mess even if George gets the credit because LIVES ARE AT STAKE.

You want him to be a politician but he's not. He's a statesman. He is looking at the large picture of keeping people alive. And he doesn't think it can be done by him calling George names.

It isn't up to Clinton to lead the charge against George. It's up to the candidates and congressmen. It's up to us. If Clinton started attacking George, nobody would notice the candidates and he knows that and so do they. He's staying out of it.

I have no idea why you're leaping to the attack. None. He stuck to the literal facts of what his job was and what he knew. Does anybody think George reads the tons of material Clinton did?

Do you think he was defending Bush? What would happen to Bush if he started quoting Clinton for his defense?

My opinion of Clinton has not changed. Because HE has not changed. Maybe you keep wanting him to be something else.

[Cocoa]

33. I agree with all of that

Clinton is giving his opinion of the situation. And it's obviously a valuable opinion, since he dealt with Saddam Hussein and Iraq through his entire term.

Next, look for Clinton to call for a major role for NATO and the UN. Something that the Bushies are doing everything in their power to avoid, and something that the Dems are loudly calling for.

[jfxgillis]

39. What do you mean "next"?

What do you think he was saying here:

"I think the main thing I want to say to you is, people can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever ...."

[Cocoa]

45. I'm not sure...

it sounds like he's minimizing it, but he could also mean that the issues shouldn't be tied together. There's not enough there to really tell what he thinks, but based on how he handled the Balkans I would think he'd be a big proponent of internationalization.

What do you think?

[jfxgillis]

51. But he did sort of tie them

together.

He said, in effect, let's drop this "16 words" junk and tackle the real issues: How to fix the two messes Bush made.

We need more troops in Afghanistan, and we need a multi-lateral approach in Iraq. Just about the whole gaggle of current Dem candidates have been saying some version of one or the other or both.

INTERNATIONALIZING IRAQ IS A WINNING ISSUE FOR THE DEMOCRATS.

Go over to pollingreport.com and examine their Iraq numbers carefully. Up until just before the shooting started, MAJORITIES supported U.N. involvment, measured in a variety of ways. Then, immediately and for while after, the public thought we didn't need the U.N. Now they're back to supporting the U.N. And this time the numbers won't change much because, well, Bush can't unilaterally invade the place again.

[Against ME]

38. But, he is defending the whole administration,

by saying that presidents make mistakes, no big deal, British intell told us it was correct.

That is bullshit, the Niger documents were obvious forges, and for him to justify it by saying Britain told us it was correct is insane. Not to mention that he never once condemned Bush for going to war over false information, and speculation.

[aquart]

50. Well, he sounds like he's defending it. Is he?

He says anyone can make a mistake. George never makes mistakes. Other people make mistakes.

Of course he never condemned Bush. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD HIM CONDEMN ANYONE????????????????????????????????

How useful is it to George Bush to have Bill Clinton saying he could have made a mistake?

Clinton NEVER PLAYS BY THEIR RULES. He never attacks, condemns, throws out accusations, ANY OF IT. NEVER!

Have you ever heard Bush say anything that was NOT mean spirited?

Have you ever heard Clinton say anything that WAS?

That's the condemnation you're looking for. Clinton treats others as HE would like to be treated. As he SHOULD have been treated for that horrific 8 years. He practices the Christian behavior Bush and his cohorts only preach. HE NEVER TAKES THE BAIT.

I'm sorry you want him to.

[haymaker]

23. Bill's nothing if not thoughtful of his legacy.

Aren't the bombings he is refering to the ones he was accused of "wagging the dog" for? I might be wrong on that. But nonetheless, revisionists have for a while been beating his brains out about how he did nothing about Sadam, and he is pointing out, repeatedly, that "we may have destroyed them" in the airstrikes. The airstrikes that he ordered.

I think he is so experienced at politics in Washington that he is trying to rise above it and look to the future. He might just want things to get better for the entire world, and stability in Iraq is a step in that direction. Plus the Hillary/president thing cannot be far from his mind.

I have an answer:

DEAN in 2004

[leftyandproud]

24. I'll tell you why...

He wants Hillary to run in 08', and she won't be running if any of the current crop gets in office.

[robbedvoter]

36. Thanks, Newsmax! I don't get to read you, so posting here

will get the vomit in our face. Limpballs on it too?

[jfxgillis]

25. Sigh ...

There are a handful of good reasons.

First and foremost, perhaps Clinton sincerely believes that the future of the world is better for US military forces having been deployed to depose Saddam than if they hadn't. I know many folks disagree with that, but that does not mean that that belief cannot be held in good faith.

Second. Maybe he knows more than you about the little things of being President. If you look at what Clinton said, you'll note that what he was actually commenting on was the structural/institutional/bureacratic imperatives at play.

Third. Ex-president's are generally very circumspect in their criticism of current presidents. That's the way it is.

Fourth. Maybe he knows more about public sentiment than you. Maybe he thinks it's possible than when the opposition goes too far making a huge issue out of the something most of the public does not consider a huge issue (notwithstanding that they may recognize that it IS an issue, just not a huge issue) the danger of a backlash grows by the minute. I wonder if there's anything in Clinton's past that could POSSIBLY have driven that point home to him?

Fifth. Maybe he recognizes that such criticism as you say is "undercutting" has to come from currently-engaged Democrats. If it comes from him, HE becomes the story, not the candidate trying to join a debate on the issue.

Sixth. Maybe he's hoping that by shifting the debate FORWARD--which is exactly what he did by mentioning "internationalizing Iraq" and alluding to the mess in Afghanistan--onto the issues that are looming, he could frame the debate in a manner that serves the DEmocrats well NEXT YEAR, not today.

[OrdinaryTa]

46. He's Playing the Carom

Maybe he's hoping that by shifting the debate FORWARD ... onto the issues that are looming, he could frame the debate in a manner that serves the DEmocrats well NEXT YEAR, not today

Clinton's moving in a counter-intuitive direction, like an outfielder who moves in on a fly ball that's certainly going to be over his head. When the ball caroms off the wall, the outfielder is in a good position to throw the runner out.

It's a judgement call. Saying Give the kid a break sounds like high contempt for Bush, especially in the presence of Bob Dole. Clinton is a major shrewdie, one of the best. There's stuff that won't surface for a year, and when it does, Clinton will have established his bona fides as a defender of the presidency, not as a partisan. Clinton's apparent magnanimity will also take some of the steam out of ongoing Republican attacks on him.

[jfxgillis]

53. What won't surface for a year ...

.... is the almost subconscious disquiet of MAINSTREAM voters, a disquiet that is 90-something percent sure to grow, tumorlike and undetected, in the popular imagination. The only way it doesn't grow is if George Bush's PNAC worldview turns out to lead to happy new world of peace, freedom and prosperity.

Now, I realize that the disquiet is hardly subconscious here on DU, and it's hardly disquiet, more like undisguised fury, but DU voters aren't going to defeat Bush, swing voters are.

A Democrat who can give voice to that mainstream disquiet in a rational and respectful way can DESTROY Bush.

[JVS]

69. Goddamnit every vote is important

If my vote isn't going to be one that defeats Bush then maybe it doesn't matter whom I vote for. This is the typical bullshit in our party: we shit on our base constantly! Do you hear right-wing fundies being told that their votes are not the winners it is the votes by centrists who lean slightly right? No. The Fundies get their proper respect (Bob Jones visit, Biblical references in speeches, Pro-life rhetoric).

[jfxgillis]

71. No it is not

If I were the Democratic nominee and my going after your vote would cost me 10 swing votes, I would be a blithering idiot to care about your vote.

Actually, if you go over to freerepublic and read perceptively, you'll see MANY similar arguments.

Candidates do not care about votes that cannot even in theory be persuaded. Since there's no way you can be persuaded to vote for Bush, your vote is not "in play."

[JVS]

75. If my vote is so unimportant maybe the Greens would like it

How do you like that kind of swing voting?

[jfxgillis]

77. Go for it

But no whining when Bush gets re-elected. You helped.

[JVS]

79. No, you helped

By not voting for the Greens. The true opposition.

[jfxgillis]

81. Yeah ...

... when you go over the 5% thteshold, get back to me about "true opposition."

In the meantime, helping Bush is your perogative.

Last reply--have the last word if you want.

[oustemnow]

26. Kee-rist, some of you people really need to get a grip

and maybe brush up on your reading skills.

I'd almost think I was on FR, with all of the standard-issue Clinton-bashing talking points going on here--"He's a spotlight hog!" "He's taking graft!" "He's a drug-runner!"

No, he did not call for the people of America to charge 1600 Penn and decapitate Shrub; he also didn't say the following things:

That Bush was justified in going to war with Iraq over this, or that Iraq for sure had WMDs left, or that the Bush Administration was correct in the long run to go with the British intelligence.

[Armstead]

64. Yes he did

That's exactly what most people will take away from what he said.

"Nothing to see here. Move on."

[w4rma]

27. President Clinton took the DLC position while President Carter opposed it

Read Carter's Nobel Lecture, delivered in Oslo on Dec. 10, 2002.
Carter warns against 'catastrophic' war (December 10, 2002)
A Statement By President Carter: An Alternative To War (January 31, 2003)
Carter: Iraq threat does not justify war (January 31, 2003)
Carter Says Bush Has 'Not Made a Case' for War (February 1, 2003)
Carter Urges More Diplomacy on Iraq - Ex-President Blames Neglect of Mideast for Anti-American Mood (Feburary 25, 2003)
Just War — or a Just War? (March 9, 2003)

[robbedvoter]

34. Jimmy? The guy who stamped the stolen election as valid?

Kissed W in the Rose Garden as stamp of legitimacy? Jumed on the Pardongate on Clinton? Yeah, that's the guy I love - that's the ticket! Sorry, statement of tonight or not, I take Bill over sanctimonious Jimmy every day!

[w4rma]

44. What did Clinton do differently on those specific issues?

I don't remember Clinton taking an opposing position.

Anyway, IMHO, President Carter is the best and most ethical president that the United States has had in 30 years.

Clinton is still taking the DLC leadership's position it appears. Also, note that Clinton was advising Blair (who is now political toast) during the build up to the Iraq invasion.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair sought advice during the buildup to the war in Iraq from President Bill Clinton, according to published reports.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-irq26.html
http://newsblaster.cs.columbia.edu/archives/2003-04-29-01-08-10/web/summaries/2003-04-29-01-11-12-050.html

[Jim Sagle]

31. Just remember this about Bill, folks:

He was the best Republican president ever.

[aquart]

56. Oh, Jim, Jim, Jim.

[Against ME]

35. IF what he is saying is true,

then for him not to say it would be lying. I feel betrayed to, but if I think he has a point.

There were unnaccounted for stocks.
The president can be right all the time.
Britian told us it was true, so we put it in the speach.
Condaleeza was under the impression it was true.

Fuck it, I can't continue this is bullshit, those documents were obviously false, if I had the resources they have, I could have figured that out. And the worst part of it all, is that after saying all this he completely removes all blaim from Bush and Condi and the rest of he shit pack.

Why does he talk about unaccounted for Iraq stock, as if it justifies believing insane documents, and an insane war.

[whirlygigspin]

40. keep em coming

Clinton wants to make sure the repubs are stuck with Shrub
in the next election.

yihaw!

[jpgray]

37. People don't want politicians

They want a magic genie that grants them wishes.

[madrchsod]

41. this guy is so smooth

yes..how is bush going to deal with it....george you just got called out by the guy you blame everything on..we can have honest, meaning "honor" when dealing with other people who disagree with you...
i started reading some of these posts..dam i thought i was in freeper land..people! read his words and realize what those words mean in context to george the c student..

[OrdinaryTa]

42. Clinton Knows There's More Shit Coming

This is a very good time for Clinton to appear very grand and forgiving. There's more shit coming, and Clinton knows it. Bush can't go on forever escaping the consequences of his mis-administration. Sometimes outfielders realize they have no chance at a fly ball so they play the carom. Lots of times politicians appear to be headed in the wrong direction, but they have a sense of the way issues move.

As political shrewdies go, Clinton is way up there. He and Nixon must have had marvelous chats. And they both have a certain amorality that enabled them to do the kind of nasty things politicians do. Bush is amoral too, but he's a jerk. Clinton does him no favors when he argues, Give the kid a break ...

[Clete]

43. There is something bigger here.

I am not defending Clinton for backing Bush. I think he is trying to salvage the office of the Presidency and the nation by default. One can never accuse him of not being an American. I can accuse Bush of that. Bush has already shown that he doesn't respect the Constitution except when he can benefit from it. (Yes, I know Clinton lied under oath about a sleazy affair. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't have except Jimmy Carter.) Clinton's words have always had many levels of meaning and yet are very specific.

So he said that they tried to take out the WMD's by bombing but they couldn't prove it. I think he believes they did but it would be very inflammatory for him to say so. So he leaves it to us to read between the lines. It does not get Bush off the hook for invading Iraq. It is what is left unsaid. IMHO.

[Spirochete]

49. That'll confuse the freepers...

"hey, Clinton stuck up for Bush"

"but Clinton's full of shit..."

"that's right - so it must have been Bush's fault"

"but nothing is Bush's fault"

"the demoRATS try to blame everything on Bush"

"Clinton is a demoRAT. Clinton stuck up for Bush"

"but Clinton's full of shit"

and so on....

[Robin Hood]

54. Cause he's a dumb fuck.

No matter what his IQ may be, he still is one dumb fucker. Can we all agree on that?

[thinkahead]

55. Two Words: Tony Blair

That's what this is about

[MadashellLynn]

57. You took the words right out'a my mouth!

Tony Blair and Bill Clinton are still close friends and allies. I think that part of the reason Clinton took that tone was to defend Blair.

[NJCher]

58. the words of a big picture person

Clinton is the quintessential "big picture" person. When you're a "big picture" person you don't think of how some of what is said sounds to "little picture" people (bush would be a good example of a "little picture" person, focusing on revenge for every disparaging remark thrown his way).

Notice how the overall direction of what Clinton said tends to be about solving the problem and how it can best be resolved for all involved.

I really think that when a mind is so oriented toward a particular framework (the big picture), that one doesn't consider the detail and certanly not the fallout that might come about as a result of such remarks. Think back to the end of Clinton's presidency and his extremely unfortunate decision to pardon Marc Rich. This is a classic case of a big picture person taking an action and failing to account for how it would be construed my "little picture" people.

Therefore I do not believe Clinton's remarks had any immediate political payout. I think he is so oriented to the big picture that he overlooked the impact the details had.

It is unfortunate but as pointed out above, what's bush going to do with this? He can't use it for anything.



Cher

[drdigi420]

62. Clinton was the best

republican president ever.

Dont believe the labels.

[StandWatie]

he killed half a million Iraqi's with sanctions..

if there was never anything going on over there, he's a senseless mass murderer, if I was him and wanted to sleep at night I'd tell myself the same fairy tales.

[Armstead]

63. Clintonism blurring the differences between parties

"Go away all you pesky war critics. We must let Bush off the hook on this one, Find a better issue to make a contrast, like,like....uh, uh."

Clinton could have been gracious and covered his own butt without letting Bush off the hook. But noooooooo.

The only way to deal with the GOP is with their own medicine. What the Clintonites keep glossing over is that even if Clinton were to say George Bush is the greatest president we've had," the GOP and their "moranic" followers would not see Clinton as being gracious or anything else -- they will continue to see him a demonic, and they will continue to see the Democrats as partisan spoilsports.

The only way to fight back is to BE partisan.

[StandWatie]

65. attacking the legend of Saddam is attacking him..

he pulled out the Saddam doll when Blowjobgate was raging, he'd look foolish now to say Saddam wasn't Hitler in Mesopotamia.

[Sweetpea]

66. Maybe its an attempt to take a higher road

except the difference with his lie and theirs is "people died".

[robbedvoter]

67. Higher than...preemptive war based on lies is bad?

Believe me, I would be the first to try and find a justification if I could, and it infuriates me that the Dems/Clinton's enemies are gloating all over this board. But, much that I still appreciate Clinton's presidency, there's no excuse for propping up the war criminal. Clinton said last summer at the CFR: Saddam is a joke - no threat whatsoever". later he said: "OBL is the one to take down - not Saddam". Now: "oh, well, he made a boo-boo"



I have to admit, it doesn't make W look any better thab before, but trivializing the issue is offensive to me. People died for nothing!

[jos]

68. He's been undercutting the Democratic party for over 10 years

Why should he stop now?

Good example of "Mr. Triangulation" in action.

[CWebster]

70. Probably

to protect his past and his wife's and fellow DLCer's bad decisions from reflecting negatively in future political contests. Oh yeah, and Tony Blair who had to bridge the Clinton-Bush gap on the issue.

So why is it that Blair is pelted and Clinton's hands are lily-white?

[tomp]

80. i'll tell you exaclty why.

it's because the democrats (for the most part) are behind the annexation of iraq to control the oil and to claim strategic geopolitical space.

u.s. imperialist foreign policy is bipartisan. the dems' stock in trade is to LOOK like they oppose the repubs, but support the fundamental policy behind the politics.

sure, let's stick to the tasks at hand, we have to build democracy in iraq, now that we have illegally conquered it (maybe), through lies and deceptions and false justifications (and murder) (does anyone else realize it is IMPOSSIBLE to build real democracy under the current conditions?). and by all means, let's NOT look at 9/11, the grand justification for all this. that's old stuff. where do we go from here, now that we know osama (read: sadaam) is responsible for all evil in the world. and that election aberration back in 2000--old stuff, not relevant, move on.

we will never, ever get to the nation we want if we keep allowing the denial of reality to hold sway. and the first step out of denial is to say: fuck you, clinton!

[Corgigal]

82. If say my older brother was in this "war"

and was killed in Iraq and heard Clinton saying, hey give Bush a break we all make mistakes I would be angry at Clinton but I could only hurt Bush in the next election.