Bill Clinton defending Bush......why?

[Cascadian]

I know it's old news but since I was away I had to bring it up.

What was everybody's reaction to Clinton's statements on Bush and his lying about Iraq's WMD? "Give the guy a break!" I could not believe he said that. That was a ridiculous thing to say, don't you think? If Clinton had been in the same situation about Iraq as he was with Monica, he would have been lynched by the Republicans. Admit it! Yet Bush and his criminal gang are getting away with it.

This is what I am talking about. Same old Democratic middle of the road play it safe mentality. A mentality that is going to kill the Democratic Party!

John

[JohnKleeb]

1. I agree with you totally

now to let the right wingers I know their favorite villian, is defending their hero. Bill, please do not do this, Bush is a fuck up and a liar, he would have partied all day and all night, if those bastards managed to remove you.

[joeybee12]

2. I really wonder

I don't like what he said, however, Bill is very smart. Maybe he realizes this is going to come down on Dumbo anyway without the democrats help, so it's best to let it happen and not let the Nazi's start saying it's a partisan witch hunt. Then again, the Nazi's will say that no matter what.

[JohnKleeb]

4. I dont know, I agree he is smart

It would be best to confront him imo though, Shrub that is, and its not a partisan witch hunt, its a truth hunt.

[Cascadian]

3. This is what I am talking about!

Clinton should have not said those things. I would have accepted a "no comment" from him better than a "Aw shucks, guys. Give 'em a break!". That was an irresponsible statement IMHO!

John

[JohnKleeb]

5. Yeah Cascad I know

Give him a break, Bill I mostly respect you but that is wrong, did they give you a break Mr. Clinton? They made you in to a monster which you werent. Fight the evil Bill fight it.

[Tammuz]

6. he's part of the conspiracy

Oklahoma was a conspiracy which lead to harsh anti-terror legislation that was extremely similar to the Patriot act

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/include/detail/storyid/257504.html

Both Clinton and Bush are trying to get a war with China going so they can have a New World Order when everyone is tired of war.

[JohnKleeb]

7. conspiraccy you say very interesting

[Cascadian]

8. Oh damn! Where is my tin foil hat?

Art Bell, where are ya? (kidding!)

John

[karlschneider]

9. Bill rarely says anything publicly without considering the fallout...

I believe he was attempting to make the point (the success of which is still to be determined) that he is above the slimy tactics the BFEE use. Some people will take it that way, as I do, and some won't 'get it'.
JMO...
;-)

[RichM]

13. BWAHahaha -- Democrat loyalists are so funny! There is no contortion

they won't try to twist themselves into, to rationalize an act of overt betrayal and lack of principle, on the part of anyone wearing a 'D' on his uniform!!

You just can't be serious that Clinton was trying to make a high-minded point like the one you give him credit for, here! (If you are, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.)

[jonnyblitz]

38. anything but the truth about that slimy centrist opportunist.

I give him credit for the Republicans taking over Congress in the 90's...

[RichM]

10. It demonstrates that Clinton is not seriously opposed to Bush's policies

in general. Recall that the situation was, at the time of Clinton's Larry King phone-in last week, that Bush had finally got some pressure put to him by the media. He was in trouble. Clinton could have used the situation to intensify the pressure. He could have said he thought it was a very serious matter for a president to use known falsehoods to fearmonger & hype the danger we really face, with the object of driving the country to war.

So Clinton not only fails to intensify the pressure, he actually leaps to DEFEND Bush!!! His remarks & entire act of "supporting the president" were NO DIFFERENT than any loyal Republican toady would have come up with. There was NOT A WORD of criticism of the idea of "pre-emptive war."

This was a disgrace -- & shows how deeply soulless & rotten most of the Democratic Party is. This is a good illustration of why critics of the party say, with much justification, that there isn't much difference between Democrats & Republicans.

[skyzics]

16. I believe this analysis is correct.

The policy of Bill Clinton regarding Iraq was not fundamentally different than that of either the current Bush or his daddy. Bill Clinton kept the sanctions going strong along with routine bombings in the US imposed (not UN sanctioned) no-fly zones. Inspections continued, along with spies being planted in order to try to ascertain Hussein's precise location, one presumes in order to target him for assassination. Bombing was intensified in 1998 after unilateral withdrawel of inspectors, killing civilians.

The aggression initiated by Bush One continued unabated throughout Bill Clinton's two terms. The rational was the save then as now - control of the oil and gas resources of the region and a determination to keep massive US forces in the region in order to prevent other foreign powers (read France, Germany, Russia, China) from becoming 'threats' to US interests (read US big oil).

Furthermore, the Democratic Party (for the most part), particularly the leadership of the party, voted to give Bush authority to go to war even though it was well-known that the stated reasons for the inevitable invasion were false and a fraud.

In fact, there is no particular reason to believe continued aggression against Iraq would not have occurred if Gore had been allowed his victory, though it probably would have taken a less extreme and costly form than we are seeing now.

Fundamentally, however, there are no differences between the leaders of the Democratic Party (including Bill Clinton) and Bush and the neo-cons regarding Iraq policy. Thus, Bill Clinton's remarks, while shocking to many considering the persecution he endured and still endures at the hand of the right-wing, should not, unfortunately, come as any great surprise.

[CWebster]

22. Right on!

Sorry I didn't check out your comments before I posted. You nailed it!

[CWebster]

20. Plus he supported the war and consulted with Blair

and there were the years of sanctions and the ongoing bombing campaign under Clinton's watch...and, of course there was Hillary's vote to consider...Edwards, who he counseled...Kerry...

He and his were not in an ideal position to air the issue. This is why it will be extremely difficult for me to support the nominee if it is one of the candidates that relinquished their duty and gave Bush carte blanche. If this very serious event in the history of our country is casually dispensed with to avoid awkward political fallout--it will be crippling to the ethical standard we aspire to uphold. It is like living with a terrible lie.

[w4rma]

11. Clinton was still taking the DLC leadership's position it appears.

Note that Clinton was advising Blair (who is now political toast) during the build up to the Iraq invasion.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair sought advice during the buildup to the war in Iraq from President Bill Clinton, according to published reports.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-irq26.html
http://newsblaster.cs.columbia.edu/archives/2003-04-29-01-08-10/web/summaries/2003-04-29-01-11-12-050.html

Clinton: Bush Iraq Mistake Understandable
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/22/lkl.00.html
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-clinton-iraq,0,6425221.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=29173&mesg_id=29173&page=

President Carter and President Clinton disagreed on whether the U.S. should invade Iraq:
Read Carter's Nobel Lecture, delivered in Oslo on Dec. 10, 2002.
Carter warns against 'catastrophic' war (December 10, 2002)
A Statement By President Carter: An Alternative To War (January 31, 2003)
Carter: Iraq threat does not justify war (January 31, 2003)
Carter Says Bush Has 'Not Made a Case' for War (February 1, 2003)
Carter Urges More Diplomacy on Iraq - Ex-President Blames Neglect of Mideast for Anti-American Mood (Feburary 25, 2003)
Just War — or a Just War? (March 9, 2003)

[Cascadian]

12. Thank you for those sources.

A friend of mine who is slightly more left than I am told me of Bill Clinton that he was the best moderate Republican president and in some ways he is right. It seems that the Democratic leadership has become the de facto moderate Republicans while the other Republicans have moved further right. Still that is not how you run an opposition party by moving party policy closer to your opponents.

John

[JohnKleeb]

14. I agree and this is why I support Kucinich

by not moving to the right to be more like your opponent.

[jfkennedy]

15. One word Clark

See Clinton is a product of the anti-liberal part of the Democratic party. Clinton only let a liberal like Gore on his team so he can sleep at night saying to himself, "see all the nice things I do for the little people," while at the same time selling out the party.

When Gore was running they (including Clinton) never expected Gore to win. Gore never expected to win. No way in hell does the DLC want someone like Gore that wrote Earth in the balance to have any power.

They let Clinton in because he was a Republican democrat.

Now with Dean the same day winning the polls in California. The Republicans man on the team (Clinton) thru some water on the fire.

Democrats might as well face it; Clinton has endorsed Bush which might in the long run be one of the greatest victories for the Democrats in the last 40 years. Clinton is very worried about Clark. General Clark would beat Bush by the following numbers 63% Clark 27% Bush. That will reverse 40 years of the Republican control of this country.

And by doing it in the name of liberalism the very thing Clinton and the DLC hate.

[Sweetpea]

17. Clinton is one of the most hated people of the Neo Cons

The following day, all of his haters had to quote him as a reliable authority.

At the end of the day, people have to make their leaders accountable regardless if they are a conservative democrat or liberal.

[CWebster]

18. Yup

and it came as no surprise. Anyone figure out what genius Clinton'r brialliant and diabolical plan to outsmart them was?

It is time for Clinton to get off the stage.

[rhino91063]

19. Just a guess

Perhaps it is simply a matter of Clinton being a man of honor and intergrity. Perhaps he remembers how horribly he was treated by the republicans. He probably does not want to see anyone go through the torture and abuse he was put through. Even a republican that deserves it far more then he did. He always was very empathetic. He is simply relating to being attacked. Unfortunately he does not see that the attack on him was wrong and the attack on bush is fully justified (as people are dying as we speak).

[RichM]

23. Oh sure. Give me a break. Clinton just "does not want to see anyone go

through the torture and abuse he was put through."

You crack me up! We are talking about an ambitious driven savvy deal-making power-aware politician here, not Jesus Christ Himself.

Clinton, "a man of honor & integrity" my foot! This is the guy that diddled all the girls he could get his paws on, even while married & with a grown daughter. This is the guy that signed the Welfare Bill of 1996 even though he knew it was harsh, cruel & unfair. This is the guy who gave the rightwing NAFTA & the Telecom Act of '96, & bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Africa for no damn reason.

Please, don't confuse Mr. Clinton with Mr. Christ. These two guys have very little in common.

[CWebster]

24. Use this one

:nopity:

;-)

[bodhisattava]

21. Clinton--DLC-PNAC

Clinton is the creation of the DLC crowd which believes in the US hegemony theory of the PNAC.This is the same theory that the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Perle crowd believes in. So, if you think that switching over from the republican administration to a Democratic administration will make any difference in our Middle east policies, think again. Two of the Dem candidates, Kerry and Lieberman, are darlings of the DLC crowd and are PNAC supporters.
They were the first ones to support giving Bush a carte blanche for the attack on Iraq and never even bothered to question the evidence.
After the original rationales were proven to be lies, kerry has started distancing himself from his support for the Iraq war, but Lieberman still calls the war a just war without giving any reasons why he thinks so.

So long as we do not question our candidates on their support for the PNAC principles consider it certain that we will have trojan horses in our party.Clinton and Blair are clearly PNAC bedfellows.

[CWebster]

27. Kerry stands by his vote

"100%"

I hope I never have to give him mine. (is there a praying smilie?)

[RichM]

28. How's this?

[sandnsea]

25. They're going after the policies

I'm a little disappointed with the lack of response to Hillary's speech tomorrow, and RFK Jr's today, but oh well I guess. RFK did a pretty slick job of discrediting GOP policies as well. He went back and used a quote from a 1630 puritan founder that said this land should be used as a shining example of Christian Charity, not simply as a land grab for greed and selfish purposes. Great way to take the Christian Coalition propaganda and turn it back on them. I am convinced that is what the Democratic Party is doing.

Why waste time on Shrub which is just portrayed as sour grapes and presidential campaign politics when neocon policies are SO BAD??? It's not just Bush that needs beating, it's the whole Republican agenda. I may not agree with everything the Democratic Party stands for these days, but I do not believe they support neocons.

[DrBB]

26. One of the better Republican presidents

As Democratic presidents go, he was one of the better Republicans.

[RichM]

30. This is true. Clinton was a relatively benign Republican president. While

he unquestionably did much to strengthen Republican control of the nation, he was not personally vicious or sadistic, like most of his fellow Republicans. He didn't snarl or indulge in gay-bashing in public, for example.

Mr. Clinton had the virtue of flexibility. He was so flexible, there wasn't a single principle he wouldn't compromise on. He stood somewhat to the right of Eisenhower politically.

It wouldn't surprise me much, in the next election, if he campaigns for Bush.

[robbedvoter]

29. So this is where the Ralphie's boyz are hanging nowadays

When not attacking Clark, chewing on old news. How long are you going to keep this up?

[JohnKleeb]

32. oh come on

robbedvoter I supported Gore in 2000 very much I couldnt vote because I was too young but I did campaign for the guy. I respect Clinton for the most part but he should be attacking Bush. Its not Clark's military experience that bothers me its the war he commanded, ok it wasnt wise to bomb Kosovo continously. I am a democrat and a proud left wing democrat. Dont call anyone who gets mad at Clinton for defending Bush, a green ok.

[CWebster]

34. Until

you get it.

The slow end of the curve.

[Pepperbelly]

31. what did he say to defend Bush that wasn't 100% accurate?

Speaking truth should not trouble any reasonable person. Truth speaking upsets only ideologues.

[Snellius]

33. Clinton isn't defending Bush. He's defending Clinton.

Clinton's comment about "We all make mistakes. Let's move on." seemed really out of touch with the kind of cynical duplicity that Bu**sh** is up to. All this crap about WMDs and "job programs" and "it's the people's money" and "healthy forests" and "tax relief" and "tort reform" and "modernizing" social security. These aren't mistakes. There not even lies. They're worse than lies. They're conscious attempts to deceive the American public into supporting policies with which, truth be told, they would never agree. Clinton only sees Bush in relation to his own personal ordeal. A kind of false magnanimy. As if to say "See I can forgive and forget. Why couldn't you."

[gematta]

36. It all has to do with 2008.

Bill wants Bush to win in 2004 so that Hillary can run in 2008. Hillary won't run in 2004 after promising N.Y. that she won't till her term ends. After Bush who does the Repukes has. If a Demo wins in 2004, guess what? She can't run for another 8 years. 2008 is the year she runs and Bill needs Bush to be re-elected.

Just my opinion. I'm hoping that's not the case.

[moondust]

35. I think it did do this much.

It more or less removed "Clinton's revenge" as a motive. Wingnuts could no longer summarily dismiss it all by crying "Politics! Politics! This is nothing but Democrats trying to get even for Clinton's impeachment!"

I'm not sure it was intended that way or had a meaningful effect.

[Lexingtonian]

37. Lord, so much political stupidity in one thread

deserves a few carefully aimed bolts of lightning. Though You have, for reasons only known to You, also spared the Bush White House. Amen.


What Clinton said to Bob Dole in a call-in on air was that the Niger uranium problem the Bushies have can be perfectly well explained as an "understandable mistake".

This was at the point where George Tenet had just issued his mea culpa-that-was-not-a-mea culpa. Rice was pretty much the next target of investigation.

Look, at that point it was clear that the Bushies were going to sacrifice someone close to Rice, or Rice herself, to stop the thing. Think a step or two or three ahead. What the sacrifice was going to protect was not lying, because the evidence isn't there that Bush blatantly chose to lie. (We know that's the case, though.) What was being protected by throwing Tenet and then, as it turns out Hadley, to the wolves was this: the Bush Administration's reputation, its claim to strategic infallibility to its supporters. Which is worth an incredible amount to them, because it gets them 90+% of Republican support for just about anything.

So the evidence of Bush's prevarication isn't available to anyone to expose. Tenet and Rice are falling on their swords. What is the way to maximize the strategic political damage to the Bushies?

That's right, boys and girls: tempt the Bushies into doing things in a less painful way in the short run- but undermining the thing they sought to protect in the first place- by declaring it an "understandable mistake". And you do it by, as a prominent Democrat, pretending to give them cover and floating the idea on a TV broadcast where it can't be missed. And it took a few days, but Fox News and some other right wing pundits started declaring the thing a matter of "an understandable mistake". A lot of the higher right wing politicos don't dare use the term, realizing its danger, but now Condi Rice has declared that it was all "a mistake" on her part. And the responsibility for the problem has vanished into a nexus of Rice and Bush and a bunch of their peons.

Ok, now for the part that makes you HoHosterics a bunch of fumbling idiots as politicians: that's a massive mistake by them. They've admitted to failure and responsibility for it but covered themselves by pretending it wasn't a serious matter. This is a defense that is very easy to penetrate and makes it possible to demolish them with their loyalists whose faith is predicated on the overall infallibility of the Bush team.

The trick now is to let the Bush people keep generating distractions until there is Distraction Fatigue. Then the argument for invading Iraq gets rolled up, piece by piece, by Democrats and the press until the centrality of the supposed Iraqi effort to build nukes becomes the Bush position again. Having stripped Tenet and Hadley away from the decision about the Nigeri fraud, the focus will then go directly to Rice, Cheney, and Bush in a hurry. With their admission of having made an "understandable mistake" previously, the whole argument for the Iraq war will focus in on how understandable a mistake it really was.

So the "understandable mistake" approach is a breach of several Bush defensive PR lines, leaving them with very little to put between themselves and investigation once the distractions fail. You see their underlings trying desperately to float trial balloons of other sorts- we lied in order to save the Iraqi people, and such- but this explanation for the SOTU Snafu has snared their supporters' faith in the Bush Administration's goodheartedness hook, line, and sinker.

So, Clinton has managed to almost force a collision of the innocent faith of the average Republican with the malign prevarications of the Bush inner circle. If the collision is achieved, at least one side is not going to survive the encounter intact. And it could be a completely catastrophic collision if all goes right.

[demgrrrll]

40. Damn, that was one great post. Thanks! n/t.

.

[Pepperbelly]

41. thank you ...

That is very close to what I said in the immediate aftermath although I didn't say it nearly as succinctly nor with the flair.

Good analysis and spot on IMO.

[preocupied]

39. Netscape poll: Has the Iraq war made you more likely to re-elect Bush?

Interesting Netscape Poll:

Has the war in Iraq made you more likely to vote to re-elect President Bush?

Yes, he's my choice now
15%

I would have voted for him anyway
38%

I would never vote for Bush now
47%

http://www.netscape.com/sidebar/news.adp