Interesting article: Why did Clinton say that?

[chaska]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/944207.asp

[whoYaCallinAlib]

1. Who knows . . . but I never second guess the greatest president ever.

He has better political instincts than all 9 candidates put together. I'm can't explain why he's leting Bush off the hook, but I'm sure he has a good reason. Even if the reason is Hillary.

[2fatt]

2. I think he knows...

...that harping on one issue for too long can backfire. Look what it did to the Repubs trying to impeach him. The 16 words have already sunk into the national consciousness and embarassed the White House. If you keep up the assault past a certain point, you risk drawing too much negative attention to yourself.

[wuushew]

3. But repukes control all three branches of government....

So did their plan truly fail?

[LiberalLibra]

6. 2fatt: I think the backfire issue is certainly something Dems need to.....

....consider but I also think Clinton was diplomatically and tactfully ripping Bush a new one. Notice how the media is opening up now to asking questions? Could it be that they caught on to the digs Clinton was leveling at Bush?? Evidently though, for too many liberals, unless a person is jumping up and down making a scene then they are not speaking out against an issue.

[newyawker99]

19. Hi 2fatt!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[JJ]

4. The Howler gets it, I think

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072403.shtml

As an aside, a real funny part in that story by Cliff, she says the press corps "has been shaken out of its lapdog state," then proceeds to pant, sit-up, and roll-over for the Resident with this line "The core of Bush’s appeal as a political figure is that he’s a straight talker, the un-Clinton."

That image was ceated and perpetuated by the "lapdogs." Eleanor Cliff needs to count herself among the litter.

[Neoplatonist]

9. I've meditated on his reasoning

and I've come to the conclusion that he actually believes what he said. Hillary wants an investigation, so it isn't because of her he said it. Why would she want something that goes against her own political well being, if Bill has interpreted that it would benefit her best well being?

Bill tried, I believe, to put the long-term political interests of the Democrats at the forefront. We got Bush on the ropes. If we keep hammering him on the 16 words, he'll begin to look like a victim, when it is he who is the victimizer. The economy sucks royal, our troops are getting murdered left and right in Iraq, the national debt has wiped out all the gains of the lower and middle class after Clinton's eight glorious years in office. I think President Clinton knows that Bush if vulnerable on the issues on the homefront--as in the pocket book. It still is "It's the economy, stupid!"

Bush's lies are now well known in the mainstream: not only the war lies and the reasons for getting us into the war in the first place, but also his lies on the economy, his ill-beggoten tax cuts (which benefit only the rich, who will never spend it to stimulate the economy), the national debt, etc.

Why did Clinton say that, then? Experience. The emperical evidence of his own experience showed him that you can't be beat if people sympathize with you after you've been viciously attacked time and time again. You can be beat however, if you lack ideals and your lies effect your policies. Remember who Clinton beat to become president--he, too, has a last name Bush. What did both Bushes have in common? Iraq and a bad economy.

[tomp]

20. bill clinton knows, better than most,

that bush is thoroughly corrupt and attackable on any number of issues. there is no reason to say stop attacking on niger. he need only bring up all the other areas where bush is weak and say niger is just one among many. the fact that it was not necessary to say it is part of what makes it so suspicious.

i'm betting that clinton is in the lies about middle east politics up to his ears and is protecting himself. hopefully one day we will know, if any future adminsitration decides to ever let us have any information again.

it reminds me of kerry's "get over it" statement on the bush coup. totally unnecessary. these are birds of a feather with a decidedly different agenda from me, at least.

[CWebster]

5. Ridiculous

Democrats lose by cowering, accomodating or even apologizing. Standing shoulder to shoulder in cheering smirk on, they are little more than enablers and provide no good reason for anyone to support them. Dems do not define who they are by modeling themselves after the opposition.

Clinton was pursuing his own self interests.

[Pallas180]

8. "Clinton was pursuing his own self interests" - I have to agree - he's

still hoping the republithugs will be kind to him and
stop destroying his legacy and reputation....he was always
a person who turned the other cheek..even before his Monica
episode and the ministers....he doesnt have it in him to be the
viscious Gingrich's and DeLays'.

And there's one other reason....move on.. because if they dont
his friend Tony Blair is coming down with the mess and he's trying
to protect Tony.

In case you didnt notice when Blair gave his very good speech to
Congress and it was, Hillary was looking disgust at him...if looks
could shrivel testicles, his were.

[chaska]

11. I disagree

Clinton is in touch with all the serious dem candidates. He cares very much about not only the party but this country as well. He wouldn't do anything to intentionally hurt the party. We dems are the keepers of his legacy after all, not the gop. That's all he has now. He's looking out for us. I trust him.

[chaska]

10. I agree to a point

I don't think it does us much good to be all crazy. We need to come off as the sane ones in comparison to the insanity that is becoming apparent even to the dumbest John Q Public. We need always to be presenting an alternative. We can't say 'bush is bad' without saying also that 'we are good because....' The 'because' part is very important.

[CWebster]

12. Wanting the truth is not limited to saying "Bush is bad"

For crying out loud, we attacked another country---which hadn't attacked us, based on an manufactured and unsubstantiated threat which is costing us billions and killing our young people--not to mention how the rest of the world views us.

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE SIMPLY OVERLOOKED AS IF IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

For crying out loud.

[Pallas180]

7. Couldn't by any chance by evangelist Ralph Reed?

From you article above:


“This is proof that God looks after George W. Bush,” said a Republican strategist, who dubbed the timely deaths of Saddam’s sons, “Bush’s Magoo moment.” Bush is like the hapless cartoon figure Mr. Magoo who stumbles unaware through mishap after mishap but somehow manages to emerge unscathed.

[JJ]

13. Something else just occured to me,

maybe the Big Dog knows something we don't in re: uranium from Africa. He was the President just 2 1/2 years ago. (God, it seems like so much longer)

[tomp]

21. unless he's willing to tell us what he knows....

...he's not helping.

i won't give him a pass on presidential secrecy issues. i believe there are very few true national security issues that have to remain secret. the goings on of african uranium is not one of them. 99% of the time "national security" means "protect the president politically".

i want to know what they know. if i don't know it, how can i make a reasonable judgement on what's going on? i can't. therefore, i make judgements based on the information at hand. based on that info, clinton is letting bush off the hook, and that sucks bigtime!

[tlb]

24. Clinton may know clasified uranium information ?

In all honesty that idea had not occurred to me at all. It's speculative but an interesting explanation.

Still unless further information comes out, I must remain with my original belief this was a tactic to undercut the non-DNC/DLC approved candidates.

[farmbo]

14. My guess: Clinton's still intimidated by Bush's DOJ investigations"

The US Attorney's office in NYC is still "investigating" the Marc Rich pardon. They don't have a leg to stand on, but Rove will see to it that the investigators keep things percolating through at least 2004.

Clinton needs to curry favor with Ashbrook; thus, the olive branch to Bush.

[TacticalPeek]

16. olive branch?

I think the course of events is showing it hides nasty thorns.

Clinton is the planet's expert on the intersection of media, politics, public consciousness and the swirl of controversy and confrontation, like we see unfolding now.

His remarks are likely multi-purpose, but one effect becoming clearer is that it helps this movement keep flowing without snags toward the early retirement of aWol's gang. Which I think is intentional, and I hope I'm right to feel grateful.

[w4rma]

15. U&Q, killed and perhaps refused to capture, interesting

...
The war in Iraq was fought to disarm Saddam, but the way the commanders on the ground went in after Uday and Qusay shows the administration is not serious about finding weapons of mass destruction. These were the two best intelligence assets, short of Saddam, that the administration could capture. U.S. troops offered them a chance to surrender, and then called in a barrage from helicopter gunships. By killing the brothers, the administration saved itself the headache of a trial but lost the opportunity to prove a link with Al Qaeda or solve the mystery of the missing WMD.
...

[NNN0LHI]

17. "Democrats have to be careful about events they cannot control"

That is exactly what Clinton was saying. Can the Dem's call for an independent investigation. Of course they can. Can they get an independent investigation if the majority of Republicans won't let them? No.

Can the Dems call for Bush to be impeached? Yes again. But can they begin the impeachment proceedings with out the Republicans support? No.

Got to win the election next year. That is what we need to concentrate on.

Don

[tomp]

22. and why is attacking bush not helping?

maybe we can't get impeachment or investigations. so what? we can expose bush to whatever extent possible. that can only help, as far as i can see. if the repubs won't allow investigations, use it against them. i really don't see the point of not attacking bush on everything.

[Kat45]

18. It was funny hearing Buchanan quoting Clinton last night

on Buchanan and Press. A right winger having to quote the man they have despised for years--I just coundn't help laughing.

[tomp]

23. glad you got a laugh.

but believe that bush is laughing too, at you (us).

they don't care HOW bush gets off the hook, as long as he gets off. and he may have, thanks to clinton.

all this foolish pro-clinton spin is incredibly dangerous to the nation. anything that helps bush slide (look like mr. magoo) is exceedingly dangerous.

tell me, does a president's oath to defend the constituion end when he leaves office?