Too many deaths in Iraq. If Pete Stark has to apologize, then so should Bill...

[madfloridian]

Clinton for saying it is better to be "strong and wrong" if the people don't feel secure.

What the hell kind of foreign policy is that? To say it is ok to be wrong if you are appearing strong??

How much that statement has hurt our party will probably never be known.

What if we had not been "wrong and strong" about Iraq?

The last point I want to make is we've got to be strong. When we look weak in a time where people feel insecure, we lose. When people feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right. When I went into Bosnia or Kosovo, and some Republican leader criticized me, if I had run ads in his state against him, the Republicans would have shut down the operations of the Senate until we stopped. What was done to Tom Daschle was unconscionable, but our refusal to stand up and defend him in a disciplined way was worse. We should not demonize them. That's not who we are. But we should defend ourselves. You just remember that when people are insecure, they'd rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right.

http://www.dlc.org/print.cfm?contentid=251085

That is directly from his speech to the DLC in December 2002. He said a lot of good things, but unfortunately our party was very vulnerable in October 2002 when they voted to go to war with Iraq. Unfortunately that is just exactly why so many Democrats voted yes, instead of speaking up honestly.

Why has not that statement been questioned more? Most of us feel we are in Iraq because so many did not want to appear weak in a time of crisis.

The truth was known then, that Iraq had not attacked us. But Bush got his way because our Democratic leaders did not speak out.

I was so very upset when Jonathan Alter criticized Stark on Countdown last night. It was like my anger boiled to the surface. I thought about this statement again, that it is ok to be wrong if you are looking strong to the public.

Time for Bill to apologize for that remark, especially if Pete Stark has to apologize.

To make it clear: If I must I will probably vote for the nominee in the general election. But until then I will speak up about going to Iraq knowing it was wrong.

And maybe we should go to the window, open it wide, and stick our heads out. Then we should yell out an apology to the people of Iraq on behalf of our leaders who did not want to appear to be weak.

[MADem]

1. Well, if you read what he said, he did NOT SAY it was "BETTER."

Jesus H. Christ, he was talking about how people FEEL, not his personal PREFERENCE. He was offering up a fact:

When people feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right.

Now how in hell you get from that sentence that he says it's "BETTER" is fucking beyond me.

Time for YOU to apologize for not comprehending what the man said.

[madfloridian]

2. No apology.

He even said he defended Bush against "the left" about Iraq.

I think this apologizing thingy is out of control.

Bill said it, the DLC has made looking tough on national security its mantra.

No apology.

[MADem]

27. Fine. Be wrong and happy about it. Because that's what you are. NT

[madfloridian]

32. No, I am far from happy. It is a tragic time in our history.

But I think the best way to stop the same thing from happening all over again in Iran is to keep pointing out that we did not fight hard enough to avoid war.

If that makes me unpopular, so be it.

Here is conversation from Matt Bai's book. There are many levels to it, there is underlying tragedy and sadness and anger.

There is no satisfaction in any of it. There has never been a time in my life where there was no opposition party, and it quite frankly scares the hell out of me.

The same issue had arisen the day before, during a roundtable of foreign policy experts, when a group of partners had lectured the panelists on the ways in with Washington Democrats should have apologized for leading the nation into war. Now Saperstein rose and challenged Clinton directly. He pointed out that John Edwards, Kerry's running mate and a certain candidate for president in 2008, had already apologized for his vote on Iraq. Why shouldn't every Democrat who had voted for the war — including, presumably, Hillary Clinton — do the same thing? How were Democrats supposed to have any credibility if they wouldn't admit when they had been so calamitously wrong?

Clinton's face reddened. He leaned forward belligerently and pointed a finger at Saperstein. "You're just wrong," he said. "Every thing you just said is totally wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong." While the donors sat, stunned by his tone, Clinton then went on to explain why the vote on Iraq had not, in fact, been a vote for war. It had been a vote to authorize the president to use the threat of force — as a means, in fact, of avoiding war. Bush had said that such a vote was the only way to get the weapons inspectors back into Iraq, thus defusing the confrontation. This was a fair point — Hillary Clinton had, in fact, said this very thing when she cast her vote back in 2002 — but her husband wasn't finished. Just as he appeared to be winding down his argument, Clinton's voice started to rise again, and he turned remarkably personal.

"Look, if that vote was a mistake, then it's a mistake I would have made," he said. "But you're just wrong." He stared directly at Saperstein and lost any semblance of restraint. "This is not productive! You're asking people to flagellate themselves! What you do tomorrow is all that matters. Only in this party do we eat our own. You can go on misrepresenting and bashing our own people, but I am sick and tired of it. Stop looking back and finger pointing, and ask what we should do now.

"Let's get real here," Clinton went on. "Go ahead and give Edwards a gold star because his mea culpa is better than Hillary's. Do it," he said, "and lose."

The ballroom was dead silent. No one said a word. Spent from his tirade, Clinton tried to lighten the mood. "As you can tell, I don't have any strong feelings about this," he said. The partners exhaled again and laughed. No one applauded, however. A sense of hurt and fury lingered on both sides of the room.

http://www.npr.org:80/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15265292

As I say, many levels, but the bottom line is that our Democrats went along, helped in part with advice from Clinton's former advisors.

Here are the ones who said they were advised by Clinton advisors that the war was necessary. Of course they believed them. The Clinton administration though has been bombing Iraq for what...11 years or so? How could we not know what was there?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1041

I am sorry you are angry with me, but I am not happy at all.

[MADem]

34. I'm not "angry with you." I simply pointed out that you made stuff up. You based this

entire, excessively dramatic, The Sky Is Falling thread on an essential falsehood.

You said Clinton averred something he didn't say.

And you haven't retracted it.

[madfloridian]

36. I posted his own words.

I will not retract. He was in favor of the war and defended Bush against those in his own party.

That is true.

We had a good 8 years with him as president, and I will vote for who wins the primary.

However, I will point out our weaknesses. We are just about to attack Iran if we haven't already.

Our country can not keep on doing these things.

[MADem]

38. You CHARACTERIZED his words with your use of the word BETTER. You changed his meaning.

Your opening post took his statement of fact and tried to twist it to suggest that he endorsed a concept. That wasn't true.

You were disingenuous.

See, when you make stuff up and don't acknowledge it, it's impossible to engage you, or believe you, when you go on. Even if you aren't making stuff up subsequently.

You've discredited yourself with that opening salvo.

[madfloridian]

16. You know what? He said it twice in the same paragraph.

"You just remember that when people are insecure, they'd rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right."

He was phrasing it as something for them to remember.

This fear of looking weak on national security is getting out of control now.

We need to be honest, we need to stop Bush's attack on Iran by speaking out. It is too late for the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. It is not too late to stop the next war.

I just called Pelosi's office and reminded them of that statement, and I said there are so many people who need to apologize. I said we could go back for years, and I mentioned the strong and wrong statement.

We are really where we have never been as a nation. We have a president with no scruples manipulating us all into another war in the middle east.

Bill Clinton also said he often defended Bush against "the left" on Iraq. That worried me.

He said he wanted Iraq to have been worth it, he defended Bush against "the left"

[MADem]

26. Yeah? SO? He didn't say it was "BETTER." You made that up.

He told you how some people actually FEEL...and you, without any thought or ability to see NUANCE, ASS-umed that he was a "supporter" of the sentiment, just because HE POINTED IT OUT.

It's like someone saying "GEE, that building over there is on fire" and you assert that the speaker is a champion of arson.

Stop changing the subject. You screwed up. You didn't read for comprehension.

[madfloridian]

30. I feel sad he supported the war. It is hard for me to comprehend that he did.

Just like it was hard to comprehend those who voted to go there.

""I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998"

""I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn't agree with the timing of the attack," Clinton said."
.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

[MADem]

31. You've based this entire thread on a falsehood. You play fast and loose with context

as well, to suit your own purposes.

I don't find your posts credible, frankly.

And that's as polite as I can get.

[madfloridian]

33. If you don't find me credible....put me on ignore.

I used his own words.

[MADem]

35. You did NOT use his own words. You TWISTED them, and you inserted the word "BETTER" when

that is not what he said, and it isn't what he meant. This entire, excessively dramatic point you are attempting to make is based on a false interpretation of what the man said. You've been told that, by me and others, and yet, you persist down this false track for reasons only you can fathom.

Why should I put you on IGNORE? Because you're making stuff up? BFD.

Lots of people do that. It's an unattractive habit, but it's YOUR problem, not mine.

[Hippo_Tron]

3. Seems to me he was saying that we should've shut down the senate to get the GOP to pull attack ads

[madfloridian]

5. Not a single Democrat should demand Stark apologize.

We have been remiss in speaking up because of this "strong" mantra.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. I'm sure the republicans would be happy to demand an apology from Clinton as well.

Just sayin'

[madfloridian]

6. He was a good president, but that is a dangerous policy.

And I fear we will end up in Iran, or at least bombing them to sound tough.

We will never out tough Bush, the cowboy.

[hijinx87]

7. my only problem with stark's comment

was that he stepped on the message, which, before he opened
his mouth, was the fact that the rethuglicans are trying to
take health care away from kids. that's the sort of thing
that can resonate for weeks.

but the MSM loves a controversy, and unfortunately he gave
them one. he should have known better.

[madfloridian]

8. So you are for the "bipartisanship" mantra

that means we never offend the other side no matter what outrageous things they do and say.

Okay.

[hijinx87]

11. no. not at all.

I just think stark screwed up a wonderful opportunity to
expose the rethugs for the fascists that they are by failing
to keep his mouth shut. nothing more, nothing less.

we had them by the nuts right up until his comments.

[madfloridian]

9. Why isn't that remark by Bill Clinton considered controversial?

That is my point. He told the group to "remember" that when people felt insecure they preferred strong and wrong.

I think that is very controversial.

[hijinx87]

13. I'm not sure I understand your point. n/t

[DURHAM D]

14. I would say this original post is more than a little "graspy". n/t

[madfloridian]

15. Actually...

It is just brutally honest at a time when we are trying to avoid it.

It is true. Pete Stark showed his anger...so good for him. We should be so angry at what our government has done that we can not sleep well at night at what has been done in our name.

BC reminded the group twice in one paragraph that when people were afraid and insecure they needed someone to be strong even if they were wrong. He was wrong. I think if the truth had come out in 2002 that it was not Iraq that was a danger, we could have stopped this horrible war.

This is a former president whom I defended and whose wife I will vote for.....but he should not have said that. It sets the tone for standing back and looking tough and letting Bush have his way.

It is more truth than some like. But it is truth. I used his own words. Famous words.

[Bitwit1234]

10. Good Lord trying to get at Hillary thru Bill STOP IT.

[madfloridian]

12. I put the last name in the body of the post instead of the subject line.

This is not an attack on Hillary, it is an attack on the policies pushed by a wing of the party that thinks appearing strong on national security is the main issue.

I question that.

I apologize to the people of Iraq for the hundreds of thousands of them who died.

[Totally Committed]

17. Why is everyone under the sun being asked to apologize for this war,

when the POTUS that started it has NEVER apologized for ANYTHING to do with it at all?

Not the civilian deaths,

not the service deaths,

not for the pre-emptive strike on a sovereign nation,

not for the continuing occupation,

not for the resultant price of oil,

not for the resultant deficit in the economy,

not for the falling dollar,

not for every child left behind ............

AND

not for lying about all of it in the first place???


Why is ANYONE condemning and/or apologizing for ANYTHING connected to this mess if Bush isn't expected to?

TC

[MODemocrat]

18. No apology necessary from either of them

The right wing gets away with so many things they say against the Democrats, every day. They never
apologize regardless; Pete Stark should not have to apologize for telling the truth, period.

[madfloridian]

19. I agree.

In fact that is a lot of my point.

[LoZoccolo]

20. No he shouldn't.

You just remember that when people are insecure, they'd rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right.

This is simply an observation of the way things are, and the way they've been for thousands of years, not a prescription for what should be, or how one should lead.

Or do you deny that 70% of the people supported the Iraq War which you felt was wrong?

[madfloridian]

21. But it is not ok to give in to that philosophy...

which seems to be that because people may be insecure we can be excused for being wrong if we are appearing to be strong.

I guess some people don't see the way that philosophy has played into the Democratic think tank scenario. I do. I see it. I know that in 2003 those of us who opposed the war were called "fringe."

I was no fringe, not ever. Never in my life was I the type who stood outside the system. I was raised Southern Baptist and conservative.

If I find the support of the war offensive, then they better start tending to business.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1220

[LoZoccolo]

37. For the second time, he's not advocating that. n/t

[LWolf]

22. Pete Stark doesn't have to apologize, and I hope he won't. n/t

[sampsonblk]

23. What Clinton said was absolutely right

In fact, I have said it a million times myself. I think you have misinterpreted it.

[jmp]

24. So Bush is right too?

:eyes:

[sampsonblk]

25. About what?

[MADem]

28. How dare he note how some people actually FEEL....and of course, just because

he made note of it, does not mean he endorses the sentiment. The OP has definitely misinterpreted it.

[madfloridian]

29. I think people want honesty as well as strength.

And I think they are owed that honesty when going to war...they are owed it from both parties.

[sampsonblk]

40. He wasn't suggesting dishonesty, he was suggesting strength

He was pointing out that we have to grow some balls and stand up for what we believe in, or we'll risk getting our asses kicked. We are right on virtually all the issues, but if we don't stand up and be strong for them (and unapologetic) we will get creamed. No matter how right we are, people won't have any faith in our party unless we show the strength to match our convictions.

I stand with President Clinton and firmly against those who counsel weakness for our party. That's at least half the reason we lose. No one wants to vote for a weak coward, even if he is 100% right on the issues.

[madfloridian]

41. I want strong Democrats as well.

I think it sounded too much like giving permission or allowing the party to, if necessary to win, appear strong rather that take the side of being weak and right.

I don't think he was saying be dishonest. I did not say that. I think that group's main philosophy from the beginning was freeing the party from liberal constituents who made it hard to win.

They zeroed in on National Security as our ticket to winning.

They have made it their god.

[sampsonblk]

49. I am with you on all that stuff

They appear purposely stuck on the idea of taking liberals for granted and focusing on swing voters. Bad business if ya ask me. And not very smart for the health of the party either.

[madfloridian]

39. Al From lectured Kerry in 2004 using the words "strong and wrong"

That's a two year gap. How very odd. He really manages to be more insulting than usual as well.

He like Bill Clinton is not coming out and saying it is preferable to be wrong to be strong....but if you read the OP and this article carefully there is the thought that to win we may have to choose strong and wrong. This group used the words other times.

Strong and Wrong

They are lecturing a real war hero, and I doubt either of them served a day.

Elsewhere in this magazine Bruce Reed and I lay out a compelling case for firing Bush and hiring a New Democrat in his place. But whether John Kerry wins will depend on whether the Democratic nominee convinces enough voters that he has the "toughness to govern."

In simple terms, as we enter the homestretch of the election, Americans need to believe Kerry is strong enough and tough enough to be commander in chief and to act in the national interest, even when that requires going against an orthodoxy imposed by a powerful or friendly constituency.

"Toughness" or "strength" is, in my view, the most important characteristic that voters seek in a president. Crossing that toughness threshold is the prerequisite for a challenger to have his arguments heard during the campaign. That's particularly true this year, with the country at war and terrorists seeking to attack Americans at any opportunity.

In the post-9/11 world, security has become the overriding issue in national politics -- and a candidate's toughness is determined by how he handles that issue.

And just one more insulting paragraph, calls Bush the strong and wrong candidate. But they keep using the term to warn that we must be strong on national security above all.

"Strong and wrong" might as well be Bush's campaign slogan. In the period following this year's party conventions, he led by nearly 30 percentage-points on the question of which candidate is a "strong and decisive" leader -- even though most voters do not like the direction that Bush is leading the country. Kerry's problem is not unique. That toughness-to-govern issue has tormented Democratic candidates for nearly half a century. That's a burden we must bear, because we are, in essence, a constituency- based party. The stereotypes our candidates must dispel every day are that we care too little about national security and values and too much about government and taxes.

Correction, Al, we USED to be a constituency based party. But you guys took care of that. Now we are corporate based, sadly.

There are honest ways to be tough. We don't have to stand back and let a cowboy take us to war. And especially now, we must stop him from going to Iran.

[incapsulated]

42. Jesus christ, way to completely miss the point

Dems should be strong and stand for something because otherwise people will choose the idiot who acts strong even if he is completely wrong.

Get it?

[madfloridian]

43. Exactly...we should be strong about the things that matter..

not try to be tough and go to war to look that way.

Strong and right is the way to be.

[incapsulated]

46. But mad, that *is* what he was saying

"Be strong and right or people will vote for strong and wrong."

[Rhythm and Blue]

48. Well condensed. nt

[Rhythm and Blue]

44. You're not this dense, are you?

"You just remember that when people are insecure, they'd rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right."

He's saying that Democrats held the right positions, but they lost the '02 midterms because people were scared and valued strength above everything else (which is completely correct, btw)--and that the way to the future was to be strong and right.

He didn't say it was "better."

[madfloridian]

45. I'm pretty dense.

But I know when I have just been insulted.

:shrug:

And just watch, we will be going to Iran because we don't want to appear weak.

I really don't think most people want politicians to be strong if they are wrong.

I don't know where that came from. I sure am being blasted it for posting it.

It is like he gave permission to be that way to win.

[Rhythm and Blue]

47. To address the points:

Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.
Yes.
No.