Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Do You Honestly Believe Bill Clinton's Story That He Opposed the Iraqi War?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:44 PM
Original message
Poll question: Do You Honestly Believe Bill Clinton's Story That He Opposed the Iraqi War?
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 05:01 PM by David Zephyr
This is a painful question for me to pose, but I gotta get it off my chest and ask for a moment of honest reflection by the DU Community.

I just can't swallow Bill's story. I'm sorry, but I can't. It diminshes the activism of the millions here in the U.S. who marched in the streets and were vocal in their opposition to this wicked war. It also cheapens the courageous role of may in Congress who spoke out against the war and who proved it with their vote against the Iraqi War Resolution.

This one is just too much for me to let fly by. Too much.

If truth matters anymore, I ask you:

Do you believe Bill Clinton's recent headline grabbing announcement that he was opposed to the Iraqi War?

This is a question that should be asked. It didn't need to be asked before, but it does now since he brought it up.

And it's a very simple question.

Do you believe Bill Clinton's story?

I'd like to hear your comments, too.

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. No because many times publicly both before and after the invasion he stated he supported the
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 04:49 PM by saracat
attack. He was also part of the "team" that advised his wife as well as John Edwards to vote for IWAR. This is opportunistic BS because the polls that the Clintons live and die by are not boding well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
48. I remember being somewhat shattered the first time
I read that he did not oppose the War in Iraq. It was truly disappointing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. Of course he supported it, he laid the groundwork for it!
The man who spent much of his administration carpet bombing Iraq, who tightened embargoes to the point where tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, died for want of warm clothing, clean water and basic medicines and who seemed at every turn ready to humiliate the sovereignty of the nation did not support the logical conclusion of his own policies? Yeah, right. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
3. Who cares. It's history. Can't change it now. Get on with life man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. It does beg the question why he'd lie about this. I'd like to know. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Only people
who continually obsess over things they can't change dredge up the past. It begs no question for me. At all. Just more slamming of the Clintons, who, may I remind you, just so happen to have had the BEST ecomomic times I have lived through in all of MY 50 years. And, ther most peaceful. Take that on for a change.

I'm really getting sick of the Hillary/Bill bashing. It's as if people think they will sway the voters by posting this tripe. You're swaying this voter alright. Right to Hillary, should Biden not be the nominee. And, I'll vote for her just for this reason alone. Deal with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Or possibly...only people who think that being truthful is important anymore.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Hard to argue with that. If Bill had been truthful, none of this would
have happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Perhaps I wasn't clear...
I DON'T FUCKING CARE. IT'S HISTORY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. Using the "F" word in caps tells me that you do care...a lot, too.
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 05:37 PM by David Zephyr
In any event, you made your point. You don't care about untruths because they are "history".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
22. The problem is that Bill Clinton is trying to change history by
claiming he opposed the war before it started.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #22
32. SO WHAT
Bush is trying to rewrite history too, him and Rove, by suggesting that it was the DEMOCRATS fault that we rushed to war!! That, was the lost story on Hardball tonight, and it should have been the MOST important. This is what people should be outraged over, not Bill Clinton's remarks.

God, why in the hell do people hang on every word someone says, when it's no longer relevant?? WHO cares what BC says.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rageneau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #22
33. It is the media and sufferers of CDS who are trying to change the facts.
Clinton NEVER supported the invasion. There is not a single quote anyone can cite that shows he did. Instead, people are quoting things Clinton said about weapons inspections and are falsely claiming the two are the same thing.

Lots of eople dislike Clinton.

And nearly every one of them justifies that dislike by lying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #33
41. Show me a quote where he "opposed the war" at the time.
Some opposition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #41
62. As of March 18, 2003 he was actively working to avoid invasion
Edited on Thu Nov-29-07 07:15 PM by Kurt_and_Hunter
One can debate what constitutes opposition. Bill Clinton certainly did not do all he could to oppose the war, and did many things that ended up enabling the war. I very much disagree with Bill Clinton's actions regarding Iraq in 2002. There is no doubt he supported the IWR, but he seems to have sincerely felt it would help force Iraq to accept inspectors, which it did.

He was an Iraq hawk insofar as he was a strong advocate of acheiving Iraqi disarmament by some method. He believed in the WMD 100%, having himself bombed Iraq on that basis in 1998, and couldn't immagine there was nothing there to disarm.

I disagree with his statement of opposition "from the start," but in his mind he supported paths that would not end in war, so that's probably what he means by that odd statement.

In any event, for all his enabling of Bush on Iraq, I wouldn't say he supported the war... constituting unilateral American invasion and occupation of Iraq. Unlike the Republicans, he did not favor the invasion scenario or the neo-con vision of invasion for the simple sake of throwing our weight around and was, in his understanding of things, working to prevent war in early 2003:
In the face of the foot dragging, hawks in America have been pushing for an immediate attack on Iraq. Some of them want regime change for reasons other than disarmament, and, therefore, they have discredited the inspection process from the beginning; they did not want it to succeed. Because military action probably will require only a few days, they believe the world community will quickly unite on rebuilding Iraq as soon as Saddam is deposed.

On the other side, France, Germany and Russia are adamantly opposed to the use of force or imposing any ultimatum on Saddam as long as the inspectors are working. They believe that, at least as long as the inspectors are there, Iraq will not use or give away its chemical and biological stocks, and therefore, no matter how unhelpful Saddam is, he does not pose a threat sufficient to justify invasion. After 150,000 US forces were deployed to the Gulf, they concluded the US was not willing to give inspections a chance anyway. The problem with their position is that only the threat of force from the US and the UK got inspectors back into Iraq in the first place. Without a credible threat of force, Saddam will not disarm.

Once again, Blair stepped into the breach, with a last-ditch proposal to restore unity to the UN and disarm Saddam without military action. He secured US support for a new UN resolution that would require Saddam to meet dead lines, within a reasonable time, in four important areas, including accounting for his biological and chemical weapons and allowing Iraqi scientists to leave the country for interviews. Under the proposed resolution, failure to comply with this deadline would justify the use of force to depose Saddam.

Russia and France opposed this resolution and said they would veto it, because inspections are proceeding, weapons are being destroyed and there is therefore no need for a force ultimatum. Essentially they have decided Iraq presents no threat even if it never disarms, at least as long as inspectors are there.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916233,0...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
4. I Believe, I Believe. I Believe he didn't inhale. I Believe he didn't have sex with
That Woman, Monica Lewinsky.

But I don't believe he opposed the Iraq war. There are limits to credulity, after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
6. I believe Bill thinks we're all dumb suckers...
who dont have access to the internets. What a joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elizm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. He AND Hillary think we are all dumb suckers. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 01:36 AM
Response to Reply #6
53. Bill's lost his touch.
And his mind - if he thought he could get away with bald-faced lying in the age of Google.

I hope Iowans have taken note.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
7. Of course not.
It's one of a series of lies he has told. Another recent one was when he tried to take the "blame" for the earlier health care business. Anyone familiar with human behavior recognized that he had a difficult time completing that whooper without laughing at his audience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elizm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
8. No. He is digging the hole even deeper. I hope he keeps it up. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
9. He didn't inhale that war!
He did not have political relations with that war!

No, no no!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
11. Who in the hell cares...Lets go ask Obama's wife is she opposed
why she did, did she come out against it in 2003. How about Elizabeth Edwards or Kucnich's wife and all the other democrats wives, because after all they make a difference, they are going to tell their husbands what to do. AND DOES ANY PERSON TRUTHFULLY BELIEVE THAT BILL CLINTON IS GOING TO TELL HIS WIFE WHAT TO DO...HELL DAMN NO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. He advised Tony Blair to join Bush and he advised every Dem lawmaker in DC
to support Bush on his terrorism and Iraq war decisions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #11
64. HE obviously cares...which is why he SAID what he said, while campaigning for his wife!
How can you compare the other candidates' spouses to HILLARY'S spouse? Duh-he was a PRESIDENT and Hillary claimed she consulted with him before voting FOR the IWR! How can you people who think it's no big deal not see that???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
13. The evidence indicates he was for it and against it.
I have no clue why politicians don't seem to get that every utterance of theirs is recorded somewhere by someone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
16. I'll answer the question I asked a while back...
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 05:17 PM by polichick
YES, Hillary needs to reel her man in ~ maybe he could carry her bags or something (quietly).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
19. Neither Clinton would side with Kerry's opposition to Bush's decision to invade and
during Bill's June2004 book tour, he made SURE to support Bush on his terrorism and Iraq war decisions REPEATEDLY.

He forgot that Kerry even had an extensive background in tracking terror networks, it seems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #19
46. I remember that
So no, I'm not buying any back-peddling now.

Just like his wife needs to do, just come clean. No waffling, no hedging, none of it -- "I MADE A MISTAKE" Why the heck is that simple idea so hard for either of them to act on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
20. he prolonged the suffering of the iraqi people
by using those stupid sanctions against the people of iraq. there`s a lot of blood on everyones hands from reagan to bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ilovesunshine Donating Member (289 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Does Saddam factor into the blood on everyone's hands factor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
23. Here's what's really important: when did Senator Clinton start opposing the war
and why? I went nuts posting here the summer of 2006 because she refused to debate the anti-war candidate, Jonathan Tasini, before the NYS Primary. Smart campaigning, because debating him would have given him a huge boost because most people weren't even aware he existed. She couldn't afford to be against the war as most New Yorkers were then because she had her eye on the national stage. My guess is that she turned against the war November 8, 2006.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
24. No, I don't and I believe this D.U poll is a microcosm as to what motivated him
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 05:39 PM by Uncle Joe
to come out and say he opposed the war with Iraq.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Poll result (44 votes)
Her Vice President (6 votes, 14%) Vote
Her Husband (38 votes, 86%)




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
26. I'd love to know what Hillary is thinking right now...?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
27. No, I don't believe it for a second.
And the sooner other folks here figure it out and lose their infatuation with the man, the better. And we think the freeps are idiots for falling for Bush's shit all these years abnd making excuses for his actions. :eyes: I, thankfully, have freed myself from being the Clinton enabler I was for his two terms.

Bill Clinton has shown himself to be a liar. It's cold, it's harsh, but it is a fact.

We need to deal with that straight ahead and stop pretending it isn't the truth, and learn that everything he says must be seen through that prism.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
28. This poll is too similar to TeamJordan23's poll. Please vote there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peace13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
29. It all depends on what your definition of is, is. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inspired Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
30. No and I'm not sure why it matters. Or is HE running for president by proxy? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
31. No, I don't believe it n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
34. No wonder the Democrats lose all the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
35. I stopped believing the Clintons sometime after NAFTA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
36. Tweety called it Clinton's "flim-flam," and Olbermann debunked Big Dog
Tweety even showed 2002 quotes from Hillary and Bill supporting the war, and enthusiastically at that.

Tweety also showed that in the space of 10 minutes, Bill Clinton used the pronoun "I" 95 times in the space of 10 minutes in a speech supporting Hillary.

Nominate Hillary, and the Clintons will become the number #1 campaign issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #36
42. Pretty sad. This will cost Hillary with those that were trying to overlook her IWR vote.
He "opposed" the war before it began...in a parallel universe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
37. I voted yes and here's why....
Here are WJC's remarks delivered in New York on March 14, 2003, just days before the war:


"Do you believe this matters? If you believe it matters -- as I do -- then you have to decide if it matters whether we bend over backwards to try to disarm him in a way that strengthens rather than divides the world community. If you don't think it matters, then you're with a lot of the people in the current administration who think that we'll just go over there and this will take a few days, after we win -- victors always get to write history -- everybody will get over this and we'll get everybody back together and they'll be glad he's gone because he's a thug and a murderer. That's what they think. If you believe it matters to keep them together, then you've got to support some version of what Prime Minister Blair's doing now, which is to say, okay, he's finally destroying his missiles. And the administration, to be fair, is nominally in favor of what Blair's trying to do.

He's finally destroying his missiles, so let's give him a certain date in which, in this time, he has to destroy the missiles, reconcile the discrepancies in what we believe is the truth on chemical weapons, reconcile the discrepancies on biological weapons, reconcile the issue of the Drones, and offer up 150 scientists who can travel outside of Iraq with their families for interviews. If you do that, then we'll say this is really good-faith disarmament, and we'll go on without a conflict. Now if that passes, however, then you have to be willing to take yes for an answer. You see what I mean? I'm for regime change too, but there's more than one way to do it. We don't invade everybody whose regime we want to change. There's more than one way to do this, but if that passes and he actually disarms, then we have to be willing to take it, and then work for regime change by supporting the opposition to Saddam Hussein within and outside Iraq, and doing other things."



Seems pretty clear to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
_Wayne_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
38. What a ridiculously stupid poll
What's painful isn't your question, but the fact that you decide to ask, especially without citing one quote that justifies your line "I just can't swallow Bill's story." Why not? Cite one thing. ANYTHING. A quote? Video clip? Show me something that Bill said that leads you to believe that he was against the Iraq War from the beginning.

Can't do that. Take a page from Rush's playbook. Throw shit against a wall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
39. Of course. He never would have invaded. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
40. The reason I said "Yes" is because the PNAC were trying to get Bill to attack Iraq ....
after the first WTC "terrorist" attack ---

He said "No" ---

So --- I have to give him the benefit of the doubt ---

PLUS, we don't know what Gore might have done if pressured by the PNAC . . .

After all --- this is about OIL .... and Gore has OIL in his background --


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. Bill wanted to attack in 98 but the allies wouldn't go with him and he was wise enough
to not do it on his own. But he did WANT to.

And who the eff do people think Tony Blair was listening to the entire time? Bush didn't convince Blair - Bill did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #45
56. Where do you get that impression from---? Clinton was BOMBING Iraq for 4 years ----
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. Did we see Clinton going to the UN to invade Iraq --- ???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. I mean a full on attack - not the targeted bombing.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. Again --- Did Clinton go to the UN requesting permission to attack Iraq --- ???? Bush did ---
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. No - he spoke to the allies to see if he could get them on board. It never went to UN
Edited on Thu Nov-29-07 06:59 PM by blm
because they were operating under the UN resolution from 1991 that was still operable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #61
65. Guess he didn't want it as much as Bush . . . who simply gave us an "illegal" war --- !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #65
69. WEll, Bill should have thought of that throughout 2003-4 when he was supporting
Bush's decision consistently and PUBLICALLY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. While I think it would be disgusting for anyone to support the "illegal" war on Iraq ....
Bill Clinton, himself, did not take us to an illegal war on Iraq ---

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nye Bevan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
43. No, and here is why...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
44. Know one knows for sure. As an x-president
it wouldn't be appropriate for him to disagree with the president...
"In a time of war" was already on the table and anyone who disagreed was a TRAITOR! Remember? If his wife was going to run for president...he wouldn't have her treated the way Kerry was for not wanting to go to war...or was it Gore? I forget.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
47. Yes, I do. He may have wanted to kill Saddam Hussein or Bin Laden
but he definitely did not support what people are calling the Iraq War. He never would have sent in troops to Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. He wanted to in 98 but the allies wouldn't join him, and he wouldn't do it without
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 09:10 PM by blm
them.

After 9-11, the allies were more willing to be persuaded.

BTW - who do you THINK had been advising Tony Blair to join Bush's efforts?

Who do you think was advising Dem lawmakers on Iraq before the vote based on what he 'knew' from his privileged info as president?

You think if Bill was against it he would have told other Dem lawmakers privately that he was against it and they should consider that when they voted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. I think you are wrong, wallowing in hindsight, and just anti-Clinton.
When Clinton left the neo-pukes kept those people who would perpetuate the struggle between the FBI and the CIA, so they could produce their own special intelligence that would "justify" a war on terrorism. Those that once had access to current info about actual threats were just shut out. Condi and Cheney and Wolfowitz created convincing propaganda that most people believed - or polls really are just fabricated tools of deception for whoever pays for them for whatever reason - that there were WMDs and that it would take one maybe two $600,000 bunker busters to take out Hussein and disarm the threat. That sounded reasonable to most people at the time. If Clinton was advising anyone on anything, it was to not let anyone go nuclear. Let's not forget who was controlling the country - politicians and religious pimps who actually believed that getting head from a consenting adult in the White House was the most heinous disgrace ever perpetuated upon this country or the world.

No one needed advising to attack Afghanistan and you're confusing that with Iraq. Iraq was just a bad excuse for an oil grab that has made every country who participated in it wealthier, especially the ruling corporate classes and the Carlyle group. The US people got fooled by the lies of the Bush administration. They appealed to the base security and survival instincts of the populace and made them think that not doing anything would produce a nuclear cloud in Des Moines, or Dallas or Seattle. Even then, support for actually starting a war with ground troops was slight, although many people were deceived into thinking that the whole let's just drop a few bombs and have our incredible special ops Marines get the WMDs and Saddam and the oil while we're at it didn't sound so insane to a country of people accustomed to being fed packaged crap by the media, whose sole purpose was to portray a strong, vigilant and peaceful but we'll do what we have to do to protect ourselves with our own lives and bare hands if necessary image to not disturb ongoing ad sales.

The idea that Clinton actively supported the Iraq war is just so simple-minded of an analysis that it merely demonstrates the brilliance of Rove and Fleischer and others to control the mindless, overweight and intellectually challenged tube surfers who have always believed that some one would take care of their messes and the next day the TV news would end the same way that every crime show and drama and comedy show does. I think you're mistaking corporate complicity in "justified" violations of the Constitution with any influence that Clinton could have ever had on anyone at that time. The Christian and Jewish right was all too happy to support the depiction of out of control muslims raping or beating women as a sign that the country was being told that we either accept this horrendous evil or reject it and blindly follow the President, who had all the accurate information and the best interests of the kids in mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #50
55. Your post is based on what you WISH Clinton did. He ADVISED Dem senators to vote for IWR
and to support Bush on his decision to invade.

He was also Blair's top adviser and we know what Blair chose to do.

Clinton also spoke publicly MANY times, especially during his June 2004 book tour, of his support for Bush's decisions on Iraq and even said that Bush had no choice -



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


I believe that supporting Bush on these decisions was a key aspect to protecting his term.

There were definitely other moves to protect 2004, too.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dave29 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 01:16 AM
Response to Original message
51. I'm beginning to believe he does not want his wife to be President.
He's way too shrewd to believe people will fall for this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #51
52. Well, he did say "I" 95 times in 10 minutes while mentioning Hillary only 7 times.
I think HE wants to be President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 06:30 AM
Response to Original message
54. Yes - I never remember anything about this repuke crap...
And I pay very close attention...always have...

I would have gone ballistic if he had said what the repukes are trying to spread...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
58. no. I don't believe him. too much evidence he was not against it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConfidentialStatus Donating Member (245 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
63. Bill would never lie
"How dare you" "How dare you" ask this question? Bill Clinton will be coming on DU and put you in your place. :) If you don't have any self control we can live with it. :)

I can see the headlines now Bill gives it to truther who disrupts message boards

And the zombies are jumping for joy how Bill shot you down.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
66. the real question should be - do you think Clinton would have
invaded once the arms inspectors were in place?

I don't.

I think that Clinton felt Bush was doing the right thing up until the point where arms inspectors went in - something that he had been unable to do for four years. Talking tough is part of the diplomatic game, which is what his "support" was about. I don't think he felt that an invasion was necessary once that goal had been accomplished, and I don'[t believe in a million years that Clinton would have invaded if he had been in the Oval office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
67. Those "30 Somethings" who "Believe in Hillary" really DO BELIEVE!
Always the DU Polls show lack of support for Hillary yet it's the same 29% who always vote on polls to do with Clintons who seem to be the BRAVADO here. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
youthere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
68. nope
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 30th 2014, 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC