Clinton defends successor's push for war

[maggrwaggr]

(CNN) -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"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.

(snip)

Gee. Thanks, Bill.

What party do you belong to again?

[kiahzero]

1. If you're posting in LBN, theoretically you should post the news

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.


That'd be pretty much accurate... it's just that Bush's genuine belief has little basis in reality.

[Bill Wade]

2. I'm still having a hard time understandingwhy some "leftists" like Clinton

I'm only 19, so I haven't been around as much as some here, but I'm starting to see Chomsky's point when he says that the U.S. is basically a one-party state, and that Dem's and Repub's are just different fractions of the "business party"..

[Tinoire]

11. For a 19 year old, you're very astute

Welcome to DU :toast:

[Voltaire99]

25. Exactly. It's self-flattery for them to think of themselves as leftists

. . .let alone as moderates. They're really right wing; "moderate" does not fit as a title for people who endorse unprovoked war on impoverished nations. "Immoral swine," on the other hand, has a nice ring.

Clinton's support for invading Iraq is, in any case, no surprise. He and his henchwoman Albright brought us half a million dead Iraqi children through the cruel sanctions. Compared to Clinton's numbers, Bush has not even begun to kill Iraqis.

Welcome to DU. We need more Chomsky readers here. :-)

[xxqqqzme]

27. agree - this is the

primary reason, more and more, why I think of myself as a progressive and not a democrat. I'm looking for a political party.

[drfemoe]

105. ditto

a people's party .. is that a crime .. yet?

[Cheswick2.0]

41. That's one of the most assinine statements I have read on DU in a while

"Exactly. It's self-flattery for them to think of themselves as leftists"

I seem to remember a lot of people on this board excusing some really bizzare and disturbing votes by DK, and less than leftist statments by Nader. The so called "leftists" define what "left" is even when their heros don't fit the mold and then chastise others for thinking Clinton was okay despite his non perfection?
Yikes is about all that can be said about that.

[psychopomp]

57. No, asinine is

Bill saying that he has to defend Dumbya's stupid war "from the left!"

Bill Clinton, ever the Player. Another disappointment.

[Darranar]

102. Opposition to imperial policy and corporate power...

are the two most important issues now; when politicians fail to live up to either of the two, they are not properly called leftists.

Kucinich and Nader, though they both have done rather questionable things, are a rarity in that they have a consistent record in oppposition to those two matters.

[Dr Fate]

84. Who is calling themsleves "Leftists?"

Politicians? People who voted for Kerry in the primaries?

Can one be a "right winger" based on a single issue?

And who are you to judge just how progressive any one person is?

I've been speaking out and organizing against Bush's execution of this "war" from the very beginning- but I am also supporting Democrats in 2004...

I think we all need to get off the high horses about who is more Liberal than thou and focus on the issues where we agree...

[dudeness]

31. chomsky is absolutely correct Bill..

if a true alternative were presented to the people in the US, UK and australia..we would then see the true extent of corporate power..

[Dr Fate]

79. Well, you just bought "the big lie" then...

Because Chomsky or anyone else cant honestly say that Al Gore, John Kerry, Horward Dean, Barbara Boxer and Ted kennedy are "the same" as bush, Ashcroft, Tom Delay, Bill Frist, etc...

Dont buy "the big lie"- and dont vote on single issues.

Philosophy is a grand exercise, but nuts & bolts politics are what gets things done...

[Darranar]

100. They DO differ...

Chomsky acknoledges this.

The question is how much they differ, and how important those differences are.

[TacticalPeek]

96. And then what?

?

[Darranar]

99. Chomsky is completely correct...

one is more reactionary than the other, but both pursue "pro-business" policies aiming to maintain the current economic and social inequalities of the world and also to advance them further.

At this time, the potential for real reform lies in neither the DLC-infested Democratic Party nor the neocon/fundamentalist-dominated Republican Party. Major changes in both the US two-party system and the major reform of at least one of the major US political parties are both probably necessary for such reform to occur.

[scared]

3. Ok, I don't know what is going on but..........

He is covering up what is going on. He is not stupid. He knows the people in this administration had plans to attack Iraq regardless of Saddam or WMD's. Why is he going along with this madness? It makes me very frightened.

[Voltaire99]

26. Remain calm, dear. You've merely romanticized Clinton.

Clinton is hardly covering up anything. There's nothing mad about the Iraq invasion from his point of view. He's articulating the same imperial foreign policy that saw him starve and bomb Iraq (even deliberately targeting the nation's water system) for eight years.

You didn't expect Bill suddenly to end his allegiance to the establishment just because the other party's in office right now, did you?

[sasquatch]

4. Where's the link

If it's true, then what I have to say is=Hey Bill, thanks for sticking your knife in the American people's back you inbred scumbag!!!

[Aidoneus]

6. it's on CNN's front page

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

[maggrwaggr]

19. oops. I'm very tired and forgot the link.

Sorry

[Aidoneus]

5. No surprise

His adminstration spent much of the 90s bombing & starving Iraq, or making the appearance of preparing to invade it. It only baffles me that he retains a fan club.

[venus]

8. Too true. Those sanctions were barbaric and the

indiscriminate bombing was inexcusable.

[DesolationRow]

7. My opinion.

I think he is just removing himself from the debate. There are things he said in the past and laws that were passed. He wants to stay consistent. If he doesn't then the Bush campaign can bring him in to an issue that doesn't involve him and try to deflect from themselves. Also, he wants to back the position of Kerry. That it was the right thing done the wrong way. He goes on to criticize how the administration went in and the abuses at the prison. Finally, he calls for some accountability on those issues.


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

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.

Pressed on whether the Iraq war was worth the cost to the United States, Clinton said he would not have undertaken the war until after U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix "finished his job."

(snip)

Implying that the United States should lead by example, Clinton said of the abuses, "No. 1, we can't pull stunts like that, and No. 2, when we do, whoever is responsible has to pay."

[Piperay]

17. I totally agree and..

WELCOME to the DU! :hi:

[hang a left]

42. Not coming to Clinton's rescue because I agree with

the sentiments expressed in this thread.

snip>
Pressed on whether the Iraq war was worth the cost to the United States, Clinton said he would not have undertaken the war until after U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix "finished his job."
snip>

There WERE no WMD, so had Mr. Blix "finished his job" it would not have been necessary to invade Iraq. No. I think that is what he is saying.

[DesolationRow]

101. I don't necessarily agree with what Clinton said.

I do think that is what he is trying to accomplish though. I should have probably added that he may actually believe every word of it. I am more willing to cut him slack though because he isn't running for anything and there are such strong emotions about him in a segment of Republicans.

[Blue_Roses]

63. WELL SAID!

and I agree. It's not always as black and white as some may think. There's more going on here than meets the eye.

[janx]

66. Yep. It's amazing what happens when things are examined

in their original contexts, isn't it?

Frankly, I think there's a strong possibility that when Clinton bombed Iraq, he wiped out a lot of the WMDs.

People in the Bush* administration always cry out that "WMDs were there, everyone knew they were there," but they never mention when. That's a damned convenient way to argue.

[Hornito]

9. Whenever I hear Bill, or his wife, or Joe Lieberman, or any of

the rest of the DLC'ers mouth off like this, I become more convinced that the whole bloody bunch are in cahoots with the neocon/corporatist fascists.

And interesting, to a one, they all support the Sharon/Likud cabal in Israel, who, vis a vis their vassals in the administration (Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams, Bolton, Libby, et al,...all PNAC'ers) pushed like hell for the war.

Exactly what side, and what party, are the Clintons and the rest of the DLC'ers on?

Time for them ALL to go. This nation either needs vastly reformed political parties, or brand new ones with some morals.

[scared]

13. As much as I hate to admit it.........

I think you are right. That is the only explanation for the support this complete abomination is receiving. This country is in deep shit.

[nolabels]

14. Started many moons before this, but we are glad you could join us here

:toast:

[demoman123]

15. Relax. Who cares what Clinton says?

He is about as relevant as tits on a mule.

[Elidor]

16. bravo!

:toast:
Brand new ones with morals.

[IndianaGreen]

18. Don't you know? PPI is the flip side of the PNAC coin!

There is no difference between the raw imperialism advocated by the PNAC neocons and the sugar-coated imperialism advocated by the PPI neolibs.

Having the word "progressive" as part of the name for the Progressive Policy Institute makes PPI no more progressive than Hitler's National Socialist Party was socialist.

[mazzarro]

52. Right on - IG

eom

[maggrwaggr]

20. I'm with you!

Fuck the whole lot of 'em.

With leadership like this, we have a one party state.

[Eloriel]

72. You betcha

The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves. -- Lenin


LINKS - What every DUer and every Dem needs to know about the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4443&forum=DCForumID22&archive=

Let's be REALLY honest about the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23262&forum=DCForumID60&archive=


Outing the "New Democrats" -- Pukes in Progressive Clothing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=1435&forum=DCForumID34

Everyone who is a fan of the DLC, needs to read this post,
(Devils Advocate NZ's post is included)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=11323&forum=DCForumID60#114

Kerry, the New Democrats, and American Military Hegemony
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=326015#326061

[Gyre]

10. Clinton a "leftist"?

Don't think so. The furthest left Clinton ever got was when he smoked pot that one time. The DNC whom he is the poster boy for is an inherently conservative wing of the democratic party; never left of center and often competing with the republicans for the most conservative right wing stance on an issue. Do not confuse "the left" with any portion of "the democratic party"; they are not the same and there is no left in Clinton. Never has been.

Considering how much coercion it took to get Clinton to pull the trigger on the Serbs it's probably a bloody lie that he would've attacked Iraq. Why he would bolster aWol is anybody's guess unless he thinks to say otherwise would undermine Kerry who voted for the funds to do it. Though I doubt whether he gives a bush about Kerry's chances. Probably, he wants another 4 years of bush so Hillary can lose to whoever bush's successor is but in his delusional state he thinks she can win. They're pols, hence whores statistically and by definition. Trying to figure out why they're saying what they're saying is like trying to think like a rapist (most people can't even fathom it).

Gyre

Gyre

[MikeG]

12. This is not Clinton's battle. This is Kerry's battle.

Let Clinton have his moment in the sun. He has bills to pay.
We all know where he stands.

[mazzarro]

54. No Clinton has already had his moment in the sun

And now he and his DLC cahoot should just retreat to their hovel which IMO is the camp of the neo-imperialists.

[struggle4progress]

21. READ WHAT HE SAID! QUOTE THE IMPORTANT PART!

<snip>
Clinton blamed the abuses on the higher echelons of the Bush administration.

"The more we learn about it, the more it seems that some people fairly high up, at least, thought that this was the way it ought to be done," he said.

Implying that the United States should lead by example, Clinton said of the abuses, "No. 1, we can't pull stunts like that, and No. 2, when we do, whoever is responsible has to pay."
<snip>

IT GOES RIGHT TO THE TOP!

[Moderator]

22. Sorry, I can't let this stay in Latest Breaking News

There is no link provided. There is no date/time for the article, in case someone wishes to read more context.

[TeeYiYi]

23. The link is in post #7.

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

TYY

[Moderator]

24. OK, link works, it can go back

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

[Swamp Rat]

28. Boo... hiss!

What the HELL is wrong with Clinton? Oh, that's right, he only pretended to be a Democrat... though, he would have made a decent Republican by today's standards.

Hey Bill Wade, you're one bright kid! Now, if you can engage your friends in some meaningful dialogue, and get them to vote the Bush cabal out of office along with the rest of us, I'd be eternally greatful.

[FlemingsGhost]

29. I'm just about certain Bush et al will walk away scot-free.

With all our money, I might add.

The DLC has to go ...

[leftchick]

30. Al-J: Clinton: Al-Qaida was worse threat than Iraq

For a different perspective....


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B98A53BB-68D5-48E3-8BC6-1D03724CD4BF.htm

<snip>
'Terrorism festering' in Iraq could make the lives of Iraqis worse than they had been under Saddam Hussein, says former President Bill Clinton.

In an interview with the CBS programme "60 Minutes" to be broadcast on Sunday, Clinton commented on the situation in Iraq.

When asked whether he agrees with President George Bush that removing Saddam from power has made the world safer from terrorism, Clinton responded: "I think the Iraqis are better off with Saddam gone, if they can have a stable government.

"There have been more terrorists moving into Iraq in the aftermath of the conflict. I still believe, as I always have, that the biggest terrorist threat by far is al-Qaida and the al-Qaida network," Clinton said in the CBS interview.

[Malva Zebrina]

32. No wonder Bush behaves the way he does--a Clinton can say anything

so he will too.

I am disappointed, even almost shocked by Clinton's view.

Why is that? Why did I expect something else?

It is time to stop the magical thinking, second guessing and attempts to hold on to some impossible dream.

There are

No heroes to be seen here

[dudeness]

33. clinton..what a joke..

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.

one word.. bullshit..

years of clinton and blair supported sanctions and non-stop bombing of Iraq..

one word..criminals

[Tellurian]

34. All Clinton is doing; is putting the focus where it belongs...

on the Abu Ghraib torture and abuse scandal-

I'm amazed, so few people can see that..

The final graph in the article is this:

"Implying that the United States should lead by example, Clinton said of the abuses,"No. 1, we can't pull stunts like that, and No. 2, when we do, whoever is responsible has to pay."

Those few lines "ARE" the bottom line.
Someone HAS TO PAY!

Who do you think those someone's ARE?

[dudeness]

35. so if the abuses were not exposed

an illegal invasion and occupation leading to the deaths of thousands would be acceptable ?

[Tellurian]

36. No, thats not what I mean at all...

Clinton himself would have gone after Saddam. However, he was cognizant of the fact, the intel he had been receiving at the time was deemed unreliable..wrt: the mistaken bombing of the Chinese embassey?...

Plus the fact he was being persecuted unrelentlessly by the VRW, so much so, the House Mgrs were seeking his Impeachment. It wouldn't have been prudent of him to attempt to have wars going on two fronts. He would have lost both of them. And he couldn't depend on the CIA at the time to extricate Saddam from Iraq without going into a full scale invasion.

What Clinton is saying is, The Abuse and Torture of the Prisoners is a criminal offense and whoever is ultimately responsible for ordering such to be done, has to held accountable. (and isn't the end result what is most important? Removing Bush?)

for example?

IOW..a criminal and his accomplice steal a car. They are speeding down a street. A high speed chase ensues by the police. The criminals hit a pedestrian crossing the street. The pedestrian is killed instantly.

Now, of all the crimes the criminals have committed, which crime is the most grievous? The theft? The speeding violations? Resisting arrest? Or the cold blooded murder of an innocent victim?

Which of the two people in the car would be held accountable by a court? The driver would be held liable for vehicular homicide, and the court would have to determine the extent of liability to be assigned to his passenger.

Now, connect all these dots and you end up here:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/06/20/2003175832

[Malva Zebrina]

38. --since when do we consider invading and going to war to extricate

a leader of a sovereign country?

This is exactly what Bush has spun his illegal invasion into.

We are now supposed to be all happy and glowing becasue Bush got Saddam out--he "extricated" him.

You know--there has to be something behind the Bush propaganda--apparently even Democrats now believe it was the right thing to do.

All the lies told in the beginning have now gone down the memory hole and the meme that we made Iraq a better place by invading it, bombing tens of thousands of people into pieces, and extricating Saddam Hussein who used torture has settled in :eyes:

[Tellurian]

40. I don't know where you've been...

since that has been a primary function of the CIA..
Toppling governments!

Yeah, we all could have been happy once Saddam was out..
IF Bush had had a plan after his removal and an exit strategy.

Bush has no plan and apparently never did.

He's played his cards and came up empty.
The long and the short of it is, he has to GO!

[Malva Zebrina]

68. I agree to disagree with you

a country, under no threat from the perceived enemy, that just goes about giving blank checks to ignorant people who are way in over their head as leaders, that wages war on flimsy lies and false pretenses, that sacrifices more than 800 of it's young, that murders tens of thousands because we have sunk so low on the ladder of humanity that we have regressed as human beings back into the primodial slimey soup is indeed so morally corrupt that they only way for us is down . I want nothing to do with it and can never say it was the right thing to do. It was wrong. We have, essentiallyh, murdered our own people because Bush sent them there on lies. He now scrambles the lies and you believe it was necessary to sacrifice those lives when there was NO threat to us at all.

I have heard so many freeps on the talk shows say the same.

[Tellurian]

74. You haven't disagreed with me because, you haven't addressed my post

The broad prospects of war and the morality involved in getting there and the related ramifications thereof are not what the topic of discussion is about.

The topic is about the "timing" of the War...justification of it is not on the table... Clinton's point is the TIMING...thats it!

[2cents]

45. The Abu Ghraib "stunt" pales in significance...

to the "example" set by the invasion-for-oil-killing-thousands "stunt".

Clinton's an ass.

[Tellurian]

48. Where is your source of information?

"The Abu Ghraib "stunt" pales in significance..."
to the "example" set by the invasion-for-oil-killing-thousands "stunt".

How so?

The invasion was sanctioned by a Declaration of War by Congress.


The Abu Ghraib atrocities are Crimes Against Humanity
may be subject to a Criminal Court.

[2cents]

53. My source of information?

Where have you been?

In Sept02 Iraq was smilingly referred to as a "new product" being "rolled out".

"The invasion was sanctioned by a Declaration of War by Congress."

It was sanctioned based on false information. What was the threat?

The fact that they had to constantly change their reason for the invasion testifies to its illegitimacy.

On balance, any sane person would consider an unfounded "shock and awe" invasion to be significantly worse than prison atrocities.


(edit)

[mazzarro]

58. "The invasion was sanctioned by a Declaration of War by Congress."

Oh yea! Since that is the case and the sanction was based on several premises that have now been proven ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Doesn't that render Congress's sanction of the war at best Null-and-Void and at worst ILLEGAL?

[mazzarro]

56. I beg to disagree

Clinton in justifying the war is providing *'s and poodle administrations some cover for the total collapse of their ever moving rationale(s)for the war. BTW if there had been no war, Abu Ghraib would not have happened!

[Tellurian]

75. Disagree all you want. Congress declared war on Iraq...

If you can't at least recognize empirical facts, your wasting everyone's time.

[scared]

70. I am sorry.......

But stunts? He calls the torture of prisoners stunts? I hope that is not what he really thinks. He should call it what it is, torture.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

37. Here is a link to the CNN story.

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

Actually, its a pretty good realpolitik justification, and Clintons remarks are not without critisicsm.

[2cents]

39. Hey Bill,

When is Chelsea reporting for duty in Iraq? She's not? I thought so.

Either Cliton is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome and is now a VRWC sycophant or he's just a run-of-the-mill, lying, back-stabbing, conscienceless prick.

[Dogmudgeon]

43. Don't you Clinton-haters ever read the news?

Ah, I almost forgot -- you don't read the news because it's "corporate". You only read things that you agree with. And if you disagree with it, it's got to be corporate.

You didn't even read this article, did you? Anyone? Clinton's "approval" of Bush's war in Iraq was quite qualified. He's said things like that many times, and each time, he's led with a compliment and returned with crippling blow. It's been an effective weapon against the Right.

First, Bill Clinton never called himself a "liberal". And if I recall, Noam Chomsky, who's gotten a lot of support here, has a particular hatred of liberals, too.

Second, there seems to be this idea floating around that Bill Clinton personally took it upon himself to individually murder 200,000, 500,000, or one million babies in Iraq (depending on what issue of Counterpunch you pick up) by way of economic sanctions.

And nobody remembers that these were United Nations actions? That the pressure was on Clinton from no fewer than 50 members of the UN, and the entire neo-Con wing of the Republican party? The policy of humanitarian aid Clinton had to wrestle through Congress and the UN? -- only to be rebuffed, then called a "murderer" three months later when the UN and Congress decided it had been their idea all along?

Another bad guy you seem to overlook is Saddam Hussein. In spite of Bush's jolly little PNAC jihad, Saddam really was a tyrant. Somehow, the fact that he instituted policies of society-wide terror, and genocide through starvation, attracts less attention than "Bill Clinton killed a million babies!"

The Left also called upon Clinton to bomb the Serbian army's forward positions. Clinton bombed the Serbian army's forward positions. The Left then called Clinton a "mass murderer." And soon thereafter complained that he didn't take military action in Rwanda!

And long has the call been heard that the United States -- so often caricatured as a pig in Leftist periodicals -- ought to "share the wealth". But when NAFTA was proposed, the attitude was that other countries could go take a flying leap into their own pigstys. I also seem to recall that very little political action -- aside from ineffective "mobilizations" -- was taken against NAFTA, which still hasn't destroyed the United States. (FYI, I opposed NAFTA, GATT, and MAI, but from the point of view that they were flawed programs designed to enrich a small number of businesses. But I had to read the Wall Street Journal to find that information.)

Yeah, it's easy make your mind up when you get all your political information from a single point in the spectrum -- the same point that told us, over and over, that Al Gore equals George Bush. But when you live inside an echo chamber, it's easy to think that it's the entire world.

Peacemaking in Ireland, the Middle East, India and Pakistan, unparallelled prosperity in the United States, a reversal of the 80s trend of the Rich getting far Richer while the Poor lost what little they had, a reduction in violent crime -- I guess they count for little when one's "nuanced" analysis excludes any good news, or any hint that the American President does not have the power to dictate policy. If you review "How A Bill Becomes A Law," you'll have a better idea why Big Bad Bill was unable to crack the whip and have the 635 members of the Legislative branch do his bidding.

There's something else you should check out before you continue your purity campaign -- how much money has Noam Chomsky taken from the Department of Defense? No one knows exactly, but it's kept his career running at full-throttle. And yet, no dead children are being blamed on Citizen Noam. Not even a single scraped knee.

My own point of view on Noam? Brilliant guy, and I like his writings, but the man has a very selective sense of outrage. The uncritical adoration of Chomsky among the hard Left is puzzling, since it's coming from allegedly independent thinkers.

I don't expect anyone to think that Bill Clinton's 8 years in the White House were perfect. He did a lot of things that I took grave issue with. There were times that I swore I would march down to Washington and kick his fatted ass myself. But overall, he did more to advance the state of America and the World than any President since FDR.

And what did I hear from the "progressive" echo chamber? That we were "anesthetized by prosperity" ... ! But you need not have worried -- the anesthesia has worn off, and a Spontaneous People's Revolution is just around the corner. Not.

"Progressives" consider themselves to be better-educated and better-informed than most of their fellow citizens, but it's amazing how narrow the scope of insight many of them have. The hard Left seems have become the mirror image of the hard Right. A "properly nuanced" analysis of any political moment requires looking at both good and bad, and at unintended consequences. Bill Clinton is hardly the Messiah you seem to think the rest of us take him to be -- but he's a lot further from Hell than from Heaven.

By the way, before you stoke the outrage and fire off a scathing reply, re-read that last sentence. No, wait, I'll save you the trouble and write it twice:

Bill Clinton is hardly the Messiah you seem to think the rest of us take him to be -- but he's a lot further from Hell than from Heaven.

--bkl
"We've got a bigger problem now."
(Jello Biafra, 1980, after attacking liberals for several years, on Ronald Reagan.)

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

46. good post,

Thanks.

[Toucano]

77. Well said.

Thanks for helping keep things in perspective.

[bleedingheart]

44. Clinton was in my view a very moderate republican

now that doesn't mean I didn't like him but I hold FDR in far greater esteem than him.

[TomNickell]

47. Clinton didn't really say that.....

Clinton said Bush 'couldn't ignore' the possibility of WMDs, but that Bush should have waited until the UN inspections were finished. If Bush had done that, there wouldn't have been a war.

Clinton is taking a politically astute position here. "Bush had the right idea, but he messed it up." The general public won't believe Bush invaded for oil. They will believe Bush screwed the pooch.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

49. Yes, excellent, you get it....

Clitnon is "damning with faint praise", and being crtiical of the 'execution' of the war....

This is, indeed, a very politically astute position.

[scared]

76. He also said that he has been DEFENDING

Bush on his invasion of a sovereign, non-threatening country. What is not to understand about that statement. We invaded a country illegally, and he is supporting that.

[mmonk]

50. Unfortunately,

there is a deep lust for military conquest on both sides of the aisle. Those of us who only believe war is a last resort to defend the nation and constitution are up against it.

[emulatorloo]

51. If the inspections had continued, there would have been no invasion

No WMDs = No Invasion. . .

it is pretty simple to figure out. . .

[2cents]

59. I disagree

I don't think it would have made any difference at all.

Even if the inspectors were given the time they wanted and discounted the WMD charge - we would have insisted they were wrong and invaded anyway.

[mazzarro]

61. You are absolutely right!

* & co. were primed for invasion and would have discounted any findings contrary to there conclusion to justify this goal of invasion.

[hang a left]

62. That is not the point.

They discounted the findings all along. Wasn't it Cheney whos said something like "they're wrong and don't know what we know."

The point is the timing. We had to invade in March. They shut down the process. You are correct that they were going to invade anyway, they were, we all know that.

The subject here are the comments and supposed support of the invasion of BC. Let us get back to that.

[emulatorloo]

65. Clinton wouldn't have invaded. . .n/t

[2cents]

69. He couldn't...

the precursor (911) would have been thwarted.

[Dr Fate]

81. Clinton was never obsessed with Iraq....

...I dont recall him faking evidence or lying about Iraq either.

[2cents]

87. Desert Fox exemplified ....

more than just a casual interest. Clinton, like Bush, pronounced Iraq to be a nuclear threat.



http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

(snip)
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

(snip)
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.


I believe Clinton would have invaded if he could, but he didn't have congressional support for an all out invasion.

As we now know, the needed support would only come after a "Pearl Harbor type incident". (PNAC quote)

(edit)

[Dr Fate]

89. Except he did not present any faked info...

...Clinton did not have a propaganda machine anything like this one...


...and most UN inspectors, including Scott Ritter say that most of the WMDs were probably destroyed in Desert Fox...

Dont pin the sins of Bush on Clinton- that is what the media is for...

[2cents]

90. Be careful with pins...

If you believe a decimated Iraq was a nuclear threat to the US prior to Desert Fox, by extension, you are justifying the possibility of Bush's contention re: reconstitution of said threat.

I believe neither.

Take the blindfold off when playing with pins.

[Dr Fate]

91. Uh, no but perhaps you need to put the pins away...

Because the tail you are trying to put on this donkey dont fit.

I never said that Iraq was a nuclear threat on the level that Bush said- I said that opponents of the war, like Ritter, claim that most of the WMDs were destroyed during Desert Fox.

Clinton never faked or forged evidence against Iraq, and he certainly did not put us in the situation we are now in...

Forgive me if I refuse to join "blame Clinton" crowd. He was nowhere near the Whitehouse when this war was ordered...

Former President Clinton says al Qaeda, not Saddam Hussein, was the biggest terrorist threat to the United States when the U.S. invaded Iraq.

In an exclusive interview with Dan Rather to be broadcast on 60 Minutes Sunday, June 20 at 7 p.m. ET/PT., Mr. Clinton also says the United States should have allowed U.N. inspectors to complete their search for weapons of mass destruction before attacking Iraq.

"In terms of the launching of the war, I believe we made an error in not allowing the United Nations to complete the inspections process," says Mr. Clinton.

Rather then asks Mr. Clinton whether he agrees with President Bush's stand that the world is safer from terrorism now that U.S.-led forces invaded Iraq.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/01/60minutes/main620619.shtml

[2cents]

94. One more time

Did Clinton say Iraq was a nuclear threat to the US or did he not?

He did.


Was Iraq, at any time, a nuclear threat to the US?

I believe it wasn't. I further believe, when it comes to Iraq, the difference between Clinton and Bush was congressional approval.

Clinton's latest expounding has not dissuaded me from that opinion.

[Demeter]

55. If This Is The Famous Clinton Triangulation, I Want None of It

I canot believe that any sane and informed and moral person would make such a statement. Even if Iraq were loaded for bear, there was no legal, moral, or pragmatic reason to attack it, especially not in the slapdash, offhand, going on a picnic way that Bush and Co took.

No, that dog won't hunt. Sorry, Bill and Hillary.

[depakid]

60. Clinton the enabler

The best Republican president we ever had.

I don't know why this should surprise anyone- the evidence has been in on Bubba for over 10 years.

He's been the single largest factor is the growth of the Green Party.

And rightly so.

[Vladimir]

64. Tell me something I don't know n/t

[denny1958]

67. CNN spin?

I've checked out many other major news dailies and I can't see anybody else spinning this story quite like CNN. I mean "Clinton defends successor's push for war". Not quite.
Most reports have headlines equivalent to "Clinton: Al Qaeda Biggest Threat". Even Fox News' headline is "Clinton: Al Qaeda Was Bigger Threat Than Saddam".
I think CNN lead with a very misleading headline. Clinton is big news right now and will have a lot more to say in the next couple of weeks, just wait. I wouldn't be so quick to condemn him based on CNN spin.

[mom-mad-about-bush]

71. I only watch FOX to check in and see what lies they are telling....

...and yesterday morning I reported that FOX was reporting that Clinton's new book was going to benefit Bush's re-election. No one had seen this report, everyone just told me not to watch FOX. But, they reported this slant on the story first....and then CNN picked-up on it. All of these news stations are ultimately owned by republican supporting companies.....so there is always a right-wing-spin (even if they try to make it appear otherwise). If the press doesn't change their tune.......Kerry is going to have a really hard time winning this election. It's because of the press and their lack of accurate and complete coverage of the failures of Bush's administration that over half this country still thinks he has been a good president.

[robbedvoter]

73. As opposed to what he said when it mattered?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP: Clinton Warns Bush of Consequences of Attack on Iraq
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33802-2002Oct2.html
Former president Bill Clinton today warned his successor,
President Bush, that he
could face "unwelcome consequences" if he launched preemptive
military action
against Iraq. Addressing the British Labor Party's annual
conference here, he
sharply criticized the administration's foreign policy while
endorsing the goal of
compelling Iraq to disarm.
Clinton said that "a preemptive action today, however
justified, may come back
with unwelcome consequences in the future." And he urged Bush
to continue to
seek U.N. Security Council approval before sending in U.S.
forces.
While his tone was generally milder than the attack issued a
week ago by former
vice president Al Gore, Clinton suggested that the
administration's first priority
should be to eliminate the al Qaeda terrorist network. "Our
most pressing
challenge is to finish the job," he said.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

78. Maggr I am really disappointed in Clinton, he has really let us down

and hurt the cause of ousting Bush with these remarks. Even though JK and not WJC is running for Pres, you can just imagine the glee with which the RW media machine will be flogging this all day tomorrow.

Even if this is the way he truly feels he could have not commented, recognizing that this can only hurt JK's effort.

[Dr Fate]

80. Did anyone besides me see the famous Clinton subtleness/diplomacy?

He said he wished that Bush would have let the UN finish thier job.

The rightwing and the media HATE the UN, and they would have NEVER let them finish.

Cast your mind back to those pre-war days when the GOP/media claimed that the UN was "irrelevant" and a "tea party"...

Then fast forward to NOW, where Bush really NEEDS the help of the UN...

Clinton is forever being the diplomat, plus he does not want to say anything that can be construed by the GOP/media as contradicting our DEM nominee...

I wont spend too much time worrying what a DEM who won 2 elections has to say about Iraq & the UN one way or the other...

[Dr Fate]

82. Here- lets flesh this out with more actual Clinton statements...

NEW YORK - The Bush administration made a mistake by invading Iraq (news - web sites) before United Nations (news - web sites) weapons inspectors finished their work, former President Bill Clinton (news - web sites) said in advance of Tuesday's release of his memoir, "My Life."

In an interview to be published in Time magazine, he said that even though he didn't agree with the timing of the attack, he wants the Iraq invasion "to have been worth it."

"I think if you have a pluralistic, secure, stable Iraq, the people of Iraq will be better off, and it might help the process of internal reform in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere," Clinton said.

Terrorism festering in Iraq could make the lives of Iraqis worse than they had been under Hussein, Clinton said in a "60 Minutes" interview to be broadcast Sunday.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040620/ap_on_re_us...

[kidrocks]

83. BRILLIANT!

Unlike our present leader, no one ever accused President Clinton of being "dumb". Not even the extremists. So, Clinton saying he supports Bush can be surmised in one word... BRILLIANT!

Bubba knows exactly what he is doing with this strategy and he will use it wisely to help Kerry defeat Bush by taking the heat off Kerry.

We all know how the extremists always like to point to Clinton's quote on Saddam/terrorism and how we need to rid Saddam of his WMD's.

And unlike Al Gore, John Kerry will request the services of President Clinton and will welcome him to campaign for the Kerry/Edwards ticket.

Never underestimate the power of one of America's best loved, two-term President.

[Dr Fate]

85. People must think Clinton just shoots-off at the mouth...

...I agree with you- Clinton does not make statements that are not meant to be heard...

[Redleg]

86. Another "Dems are not liberal enough according to Chomsky" thread.

Sheesh- that crap gets awful god-dammned old. Anyone who honestly thinks that most Dems are Republican lite are just fooling themselves. Do I wish the Dems would be less cushy with Big Business? Sure I do- but as long as candidates need tons of money to run for office, they will be tempted to suck on the teet of Big Business.

[Dr Fate]

93. Is Chomsky even a Democrat?

I know what you are saying- I like Chomsky, but he is much further to the left than the average Dem voter, so I dont see why he or anyone like that should be the "Democratic" measuring stick...

...in fact, I think we all need to focus on the issues that we DO agree on instead of having this "I'm more Liberal than you" pissing contest...

[Darranar]

103. Clinton is a Democrat, the DLC is part of the Democratic Party...

this is undeniable.

The question is whether they are progressives, and whether they should be supported - a question that should be asked by all leftists and liberals, not simply Democrats.

[Redleg]

106. Good point.

It seems that some here have to prove themselves to be more ideologically pure than others.

[Sean Reynolds]

88. Clinton is an imperialist whore.

That furthered the United States imperialist war machine while president, and now obviously supports it even after he's left office.
People like to idolize Clinton here at DU, sadly you're often forgetting he was probably the most right-leaning Democratic president we had in the 20th Century.

Ya'all sit and bitch about Joe Lieberman and his unyielding support of the war. Yet I hardly ever hear people piss and moan about the fact that not only Clinton himself, BUT HIS WIFE, supported the war!

[Dr Fate]

92. So dont vote for him or buy his book...

...what is the point Sean, to not vote for Kerry or Democrats?

What is the point of all this Clinton revisionism- Bush got us in this mess, not Clinton...

[Sean Reynolds]

97. And Clinton supported it.

I don't understand your logic though, you say not to vote for Clinton. May I ask how I can? Is he running for anything? Moreover, I don't plan on buying his book - nor supporting his warmongering causes.

Sadly, Clinton supported Bush's war -- and we all know Clinton was hawkish when it came to Iraq during his time in office. So while this may be a war started under Bush, it was also a war supported by both Clintons, Kerry and countless other Democrats.

[Aidoneus]

107. Speaking of revisionism!

W's failing crusade could not have gone off as it did had not Clinton paved the way for him previously..

[PATRICK]

95. Wow, at first I was going to

complain about that statement by Clinton. Then the discussion went way far beyond.

Well first my original thoughts:

Buying into the 'those on the left" label for people against the war is very forgetful of the time, not so long ago, when the GOP was the anti-military action party so long as Clinton was CIC. Stupidly, bloodily determined not to be "partisan obstructionists" on basic tenets of foreign policy(i.e. dictators with terror must go) the Democrats who are not "left", not "right" not much of pretty anything at crucial times
were willing to support the right policy in the worst hands imaginable. The point was, President C., that for anyone with ears and eyeballs and ideals, Bush never intended to let inspections work and there would be war at all costs. Only the perhaps irrelevant, perhaps not, support of the Dems for the "high road" continues to gloss over the inevitable progress of the low road.

Neither the Clintons nor the Dems nor only Americans continue to be prey to the scam of mutual interests and laudable goals by the neocon scam artists who illegally seized(thank you Dems) control of apparent legitimate thrones of power. The myths are gone, the policies ruined, any good byproducts endangered and blood over all your tough good intentions. Keep it up and lies will kill us all. You don't have to respect the hand that kills you because the trappings, the theories, the apparent mutual ends demand so. Is that what healthy social consent and responsibility demands? What a travesty. yet the worst thing is not the hypocrites in the WH but the schmoes who honestly concede them such scorned "support". Scorned by the left, right, center. Scorned by the truth. No wonder Clinton couldn't see the knives going in during his own administration.

Now for the outrage of others. That said, the Democrats, remember are a real, committed and competent party for the progressive interests of the people whom they represent. because they are trying and goofing they are the subjects of criticism. The non party of GOP oppression, anti-Democratic, anti-government, anti-people fanaticism? That is only a cause for despair so mysteriously, mystically, they are NOT the target of people interested in the POSSIBILITY of freedom and survival?

And the past Democrats, with some better examples of committed even savvy leadership were much worse in some regards even not associated with representing unfettered business interest.

I would concentrate on party building for the only true party in town.
I would, if I were inclined to tout the values of more focused third parties, not do what Clinton is doing here, ironically supporting those who make all such criticism, such building, such disagreement, disappear in a wave of despair.

Is this a contest between who can finish off the forces of democracy faster, naive DLC collaborationists or secessionist "progressives"? Neither side can honestly be what they think they are in that wrong response. Both sides simply vanish and are overwhelmed.

The truth is the the extreme right and lawless capitalism ARE the enemies of the day. Touting some other vision as if THAT is more crucial- at the moment- is becoming them. Some of this is a good debate, IF we ever get the country back.

[Darranar]

98. What's new?

Clinton has been in favor of the war for a long time, and enforced the brutal and devestating sanctions on Iraq throughout his two terms, puncuating that destruction with devestating and murderous bombing strikes.

Clinton adopted a whole series of imperial policies during his terms; he and the Democratic Party are not as innocent in all of this as some make them out to be.

[drfemoe]

104. omg

we are doomed ..

I hope the media is misrepresenting facts.
Sinking feeling they are not that far off.
omg

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

[Dardi]

108. I wonder if Clinton would like to be the Second former President

on the Supreme Court. Maybe he thinks that Bush will win the election and is angling for a nomination.