Did anyone here actually READ what Clinton said?

[diplomats]

Here's his quote from the CNN story:

"I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying 'we probably shouldn't have said that,'" Clinton told CNN's Larry King in a phone interview Tuesday evening.

What's the big friggin' deal? If the WH had done that in the beginning there would've been no controversy. He's right. People here should know better than to read a headline to get the full story. Of course the media would twist his remarks. They always do.

[diplomats]

1. Hey, I just saw Don's thread on this

his comments make a point I didn't think of.

[ninkasi]

9. Well, that was my take on it...

sounded like he was giving the Bush administration credit for admitting a mistake, but I agree he could have used different language. I still don't think this lets Bush off the hook, but maybe that's wishful thinking on my part.

The point is that the information was wrong, they knew it was wrong, and hoped to get away with a lie. I don't know if any of them even know how to tell the truth. Telling the truth with this gang is like a vampire exposing himself to light. They shrivel up and are gone.

[Creamed Corn]

2. So many people here are freaking out.

His comments put partisan Republicans in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with the hated Bill Clinton and undercuts the "playing politics" meme.

DU is becoming as predictable as FR.

[blm]

3. true

*sigh*

[Cocoa]

10. knee-jerk reactions

what's the point of Clinton, or anyone else saying anything, if we've all decided what he MUST say? Not only do some people demand WHAT all dems say, they demand they say it in the right tone.

[gandalf]

4. If that is all the WH should have said...

... in the opinion of Clinton, then he is quite sympathetic.
One (and Clinton) could have expected more from the WH after having been exposed as a liar, e.g. "we will investigate how this incredible thing could happen, we are deeply sorry", etc.

[charlie]

5. Try reading the transcript

He said more than that, he characterized Bush's lying as a mere "mistake":

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.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/22/lkl.00.html

That's what everyone's hot about. For the umpteenth time, Bush may get his nuts pulled out of the fire, and Clinton made it more likely to happen.

[Creamed Corn]

6. What would you have preferred

and what good would come of it?

[charlie]

8. He could've stopped before

the "everyone makes mistakes" bit. The good would have been not having the weight of a former president's opinion likening shrubbo's lying to get us into war as just a goof.

[diplomats]

13. Clinton said they shouldn't have put the Niger bit in the SOTU

I'm not worried about his comments killing this. This controversy is no longer in its infancy; it has a life of its own. I also don't think this will have any effect on the Senate Inteligence Committee investigation. Rockefeller, Durbin, et al are still hot on this, and even a few GOPers, like Hagel, aren't willing to let it rest. It ain't over.

[charlie]

17. If he did, he didn't say it in the Larry King transcript

In any case, I certainly hope you're right. But I still wish Clinton hadn't ventured his opinion on Bush's culpability. Dubya is the luckiest sumbitch I've ever seen and any help, no matter how small, can be just the break he needs.

[Nederland]

11. Clinton is right in one respect

I think Clinton's remarks are directed more to people that believe that the whole State of the Union thing can be turned into grounds for impeachment. As he correctly points out, while Bush made a mistake in judgment, he didn't lie in the SOTU. You can impeach a President for lying to Congress, but you can't impeach him for making a mistake. I think Clinton is simply recognizing that there are certain simularities between this and what happened to him. The Democrats can push this issue as hard as they like, but just like the Republicans before them, it ultimately will fail.

[Khephra]

15. And that's the part they're playing on CNN

Right now.

[charlie]

18. Ohhhh mannnn.....

:(

[DemBones DemBones]

7. I did. Clinton didn't exonerate Bush. eom

*

[Zero Gravitas]

12. Honor and Dignity

the funny thing is that if "president Botch*" had just taken responibility right off the bat this whole thing might have blown over. But he is, as we all know, a dishonorable, undignified parasite who has never taken responibility in his life, so instead we get more lies and finger pointing which made everything worse for him.

[diplomats]

14. Yes

the buck never stops with George W. Bush.

[GreenArrow]

16. The only goddamn "mistake" Bush made

was getting caught.

[enough]

19. Clinton hit the right note here.

The "playing politics" card is the strongest one the Reps have right now. Clinton plays that down.

The fact, is he knows that what he says doesn't matter much right now, except as a lightening rod, and he hasn't given them any ammunition to come after him on this one.

He's not the right champion for this battle, and he knows it. The battle will need a lot of champions and a lot of time.

I also like the subtext of "we all make mistakes," which is "and look at what they made me go through for mine." The contrast between Bush's "mistake" and Clinton's couldn't be clearer.

[tomp]

20. read it and didn't make a bit of difference to me.

imagine for a moment that bush took respnsibility for an "error" right away. and assume that the press said, "ok, move on."

are you actually telling us that you think we should not have said anything about it?

first of all, it's not an "error", even if that's what they're choosing to call it now. it's only one part of an ongoing plan of deception to justify an unjust war, that had been in the making as far back as 1998. do you realize that the repubs (if not the dems too) were planning to invade iraq BEFORE bush even stole the office, and didn't say one word to the american people about having such plans? and you still think we should let ANYTHING go? you still think it was an "error"?

second, the headline is the thing. the headline IS the story, and clinton knew that, or should have if he's the great politician people make him out to be. he knew or should have known that that would be the headline and it would provide a mass incentive to let the story go. that means that he intentionally was cutting the legs out from under the people who were directly attacking bush on the first thing that had managed to stick to him in the press.

yeah, i read what he said, and i puked.