I'm Through Defending Bill Clinton

[lapislzi]

Sorry, Bill.

It’s been a good 12 years. We had some great times together, you and I. I walked through fire for you, and I’d do it again. You’re a dog, but you’re the Big Dog. The Alpha. I probably would have slept with you if the opportunity had presented itself; I find you that compelling and charismatic. But you’re still a dog.

Don’t get me wrong; it doesn’t tarnish my opinion of you as a leader. Your personal pecadilloes matter not one iota to me. Please, have at. It’s not about me. It’s about the people who still can’t leave you alone about it. But I’m sorry. I can’t defend you any more. I won’t. You’ve become a liability.

You’re not running for anything. You’re not in office. You’re not threatening anybody. In fact, you’re not doing much of anything. So why, why, why, do I find myself time and again called upon to defend you when my time would really be better spent attacking G W Bush and his failed policies? Why do the Republicans act as if the world is still turning on your every action, every piece of your personal and political history? Why? I admit; you’re fascinating. But still. Wouldn’t the Republicans be better served by defending the policies of their Boy King? If they were so effective at destroying you, why are you still around? If Bush is such a great leader, how come he didn’t fix all your mistakes? Why are they still bleating about them 4 years later? What gives? Why can’t we focus on now, the present, current events, things that are actually occurring completely independently of your influence? Why can’t we talk about what a fuck-up G W Bush is? How did that particlar discussion particle get swept from the table? Whence the rush to fill the void with the sins of Clinton?

I don’t want to talk about how YOU failed to prevent 9/11. I want to talk about how Bush failed. He’s the president now, not you. He’s the one who has to run on his record, not you. I don’t want to discuss your economic policies. And I certainly don’t want to discuss your relationship with the truth, not when there’s a dangerously loose cannon in the White House whose lies actually result in horrendous loss of life. Sorry, but I can’t equate marital infidelity with hypocrisy and warmongering. And, the joy of it is, I don’t have to any more. Sorry, but it’s no longer about you.

The Republicans think they own the table and the plates, and all the knives and forks. But I have to yank the tablecloth with Bill Clinton’s image on it off that table. Some shit’s going to get knocked over. I would guess that some of their nice crystal will get broken. Tough. They can’t set that table on Bill Clinton any more. At least not as far as I’m concerned. I’m sure I’ll get tired of saying it by November, same as I got tired of saying “who cares what he does in his personal life?” Saying what? “Bill Clinton’s not running for office. Bush is running for office. You want to talk about him, fine. But I am through defending Bill Clinton.”

I’m sorry, Bill. We’re through. You’re on your own now. You’re not relevant any longer. I have to turn my attention to the matters at hand. I have a regime to change. I have a bad president to fire. I have no energy left to defend you. As long as I’m defending you, I’m not going about the useful work of shredding the tissue of lies that flutters forth from the mouths of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al. So you see how it has to be. It’s been a great ride, but it’s over now. Thanks for the memories; thanks for the surplus; thanks for preventing that attack in December 1999. You held them off as long as you could, but it’s not your fight any more.

‘Bye, Bill. But I have a feeling we’ll meet again.

[DarkPhenyx]

1. I keep telling my conservative friends...

..."Hey! Bill isn't the president anymore. Get over it."

[VolcanoJen]

11. I always like telling them "Hey, I *know* you miss him. I miss him too...

... but he's gone, and he's not coming back. We'll just have to hold peace and prosperity together all by ourselves."

That always raises a few hairs on their backs... :D

[Zinfandel]

19. And how do they respond?

[DarkPhenyx]

22. They normally don't.

Since it points out that they have no other argument tahn blaming everything on Clinton, who has been out of power for long enough Bush should start taking the blame, they have nothing left to argue with.

[bryant69]

2. Agrees

Clinton is sharp enough to defend himself, if he chooses too.

It is crucial that we not let President Bush ignore his three and a half years of botched policies by blaming them all on Clinton, but I'm not sure that's going to fly anyway. But like you say the key is not to get lost in a never ending fight to defend Clinton, but to suggest that if all of this was a problem, why didn't President Bush do something to fix it?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[coltman]

3. at last though...

the repukes and their media whores are letting go of Jimmy Carter, another outstanding Dem prez.

[patricia92243]

4. We can't stop defending him, because the pubs will not stop using him as a.

..whipping boy. Having said that:

I have received ONE puny letter from him asking for funds for Kerry. If he's not going to go out and campaign hot and heavy for Kerry, he does need to be dropped".

BUT the hard,cold reality is he can't be dropped by us, because the pubs won't drop him as a weapon against us.

[lapislzi]

5. Refuse to play

I refuse to discuss Bill Clinton with Republicans any more. Bill Clinton is not running for any office. I am open to any discussions about ACTUAL candidates.

[trumad]

6. I kill with Bill

I slaughter the repukes when they try and debate with me using Dubya against Bill... ohhh 3 million jobs ag0....ohhhhhDeficit in the Black....Ohhhh Twin Towers still standing.... Oh....Gas was a a buck..10....ohhh.... The world did not despise us...Oh...600 young men not dead in Iraq.... and so on ...etc...etc...etc....

It's still fun for me!

[lapislzi]

7. I consider it another Republican distraction

...to deflect attention away from the current squatter in the WH.

[lancdem]

13. I know where you're coming from

[MarianJack]

8. I Mostly Agree!

Bill Clinton is MUCH MORE than capable of defending himself. I prefer to attack moron & the halliburton administration and to advocate JK.

I will NOT, however, allow the rethuglicans justify bush* by attacking Clinton, or worse, use the throw off line of "they all do that" when I point out *'s lies, deceptions and incompetence!

[Festivito]

9. That's FUNNY--NOT! ... Bill is cool, Republicans droooool.

Clinton did NOT FAIL to stop 9/11, and I'll not tire of telling people that.

He did get hit by OBL's WTC bombing ONE MONTH into office. That's not his fault. He did identify OBL, froze his freezible funds, ordered his death, attempted anti-terror legislation which Republicans let lag, stopped five gov admitted attacks, helped bi-partisan anti-terror commission, caught the WTC bombers who were to be sentenced ironically on 9/11/01, upped OBL surveiliance, made secret Uzbekistan pact that Bush found very helpful in attacking Afghanistan. Bill did not implement the bi-partisan group's report since it called for a new cabinet position better left to a new president due to be in office in a few months hence.

And, I can go on about Bill. But, Bush is more fun.

Bush got hit in our WTC nine months after he took office, the bulk of assassins arrived in the US by June '01 after Bush skipped the European anti-terror conference. Bush heard the PLAN and dropped it saying Cheney would come up with ideas. Cheney came up with NOTHING until 9/11 and then came up with ... with ... a remarkably similar plan: a seperate cabinet position! Imagine my sarcasm in: "Imagine that!"

And, I can go on about Bush, but, it makes me sick.

[lancdem]

12. The poster didn't say Clinton was responsible

His point was, the Repukes bring that up as an attempt to distract attention from Bush's culpability, and he's right.

[Festivito]

18. I see that as even more insidious than saying he was responsible.

It gives tacit approval that Clinton WAS wrong and the WE DEMOCRATS agree to what the Republicans have said and what they have done. It leaves us vulneralble to attack, because Republicans will continue to invoke Clinton. And this cutsie article tells us to give away our ability to put on a bullet-resistant vest while they are shooting us.

I will not agree with what Republicans have said or done by commission or ommission.

[linazelle]

25. So what sense does it make to abandon Clinton when he's not

responsible for the attacks?

[TankLV]

10. Like you ever did.

Hmmmmm.

They are crawling out of the woodwork again!

[lapislzi]

16. ?

Don't get your meaning. If you are questioning my credentials as a Democrat, suggest you check my earlier efforts on these boards.

[Ksec]

14. So you wouldnt sleep with him today if he asked you?

[lapislzi]

15. Oh sure, I probably would

I suspect I wouldn't stand a chance if he looked my way and decided I was tasty.

[Catherine Vincent]

17. Skinner says no more sex boards.

;-)

[rucky]

20. I'm with you all the way.

I won't say anything bad about him, & I won't defend him, either.

When somebody tries to drag the Big Dog into the debate, all I say is "two wrongs don't make a right". Trite, but it shuts 'em up right quick.

[Dr Fate]

21. You and the rest of America! Let the Republicans use it all they want!

It does not work!

Mom & Pop America dont think about historical or abstract politics very much.

They KNOW that Clinton was president "years ago" and they want solutions for NOW, not a history lesson.

[linazelle]

23. You are doing exactly what they want you to do . . . I suggest

that instead of being "tired" of defending Clinton, you consider what's at stake. The democratic legacy is at stake. They have tried to trash JFK, and Clinton, the two most significant democratic presidents in the past fifty years. In their places, they want to put Ronald Nitwit Reagan and George Bush. If that alone is not enough to energize you into looking past their lies and at the facts, I don't know what is. Reagan ushered in the very media that one sidedly discredits Clinton ad nauseum. And most of us at DU are here because of the blatant corruption of Bush Jr. I know I am. When you put things in perspective, it boils down to one question: Does what Clinton did have as negative an effect on our democracy as what Reagan and Bush have done? My answer is there's no comparison and just because they can use the media to drown out Reagan's and Bush's misdeeds does not change the answer.

[JanMichael]

24. NAFTA, the TelCom Act of 1996, and Welfare "Reform" were enough for me.

Triangulated right outta my sights.

And yes, I voted for him twice, and defended him throughout the asinine impeachment hearings.