NYT: Clinton Defends Husband, Adding That All Democrats Should Take a Hint

[DeepModem Mom]

Clinton Defends Husband’s Tack, Adding That All Democrats Should Take a Hint
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ
Published: September 27, 2006

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — The war of words between the Bush administration and the Clintons intensified on Tuesday as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested that her husband would have reacted differently as president if he had heard the same warnings about Osama bin Laden’s plans that President Bush had access to before 9/11.

In unusually blunt terms, Senator Clinton questioned the current administration’s response to an intelligence briefing President Bush received about a month before the 9/11 attacks. It mentioned that Al Qaeda was intent on striking the United States using hijacked planes.

“I’m certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,’ he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team,” she said during an appearance on Capitol Hill.

The comments by Senator Clinton ratcheted up an already bitter exchange of charges between the Bush and Clinton camps over how the two administrations responded to the threat posed by Al Qaeda before the attacks, which occurred nearly eight months into the Bush presidency.

In her remarks, Senator Clinton also suggested that Bill Clinton’s animated defense of his own national security record as president, delivered only a few days earlier, provided a powerful example for Democrats, whom Republicans have sought to portray in recent national elections as too weak to lead the country in such perilous times....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/washington/27hillary.html

[lvx35]

1. Yes! She's right on there.

The lion finally roared, and both the Republicans and the terrorists heard it...

[blm]

4. So ALL DEms should wait 5 years before they counter the lies against them?

Or ALL Dems should vote to confirm Condi Rice even though it is apparent that she lied to the 9--11 commission and to the senate committee?

Or ALL Dems should support Bush and his war policies, and claim publically that you never even heard of the Downing Street Memos?

[AtomicKitten]

11. try converting the 5 years to 60 months just to give us some variety

in this post that you post a gazillion times a day

effin hell

[blm]

28. Please condemn repeated falsities as often as you condemn repeated truth.

.

[lvx35]

70. What are you even saying?

That we should yell at them for coming to the same opinion as us, because they didn't do it quick enough? "Sorry Mr Ex-president and Ms Senator, you can't be in the *cool* club because you didn't agree with us soon enough...And we don't need your type around here anyway". Absurd.

[wisteria]

2. Hillary, the grandstanding, obnoxious, self- promoter.

She keeps this crap up, she won't have any support. How dare she criticize others for not fighting when she herself has been fence sitting and not uttering anything of importance for as long as I can remember. This was in my opinion, besides self promoting PR, an attack on Senator Kerry. It was also an opportunist moment by the Clinton's trying to take advantage of everyone else's hard work right before the elections. They will claim that they alone are responsible for any wins in November and demand the power that goes along with that assumption. It is a power grab by the DLC to take our party back wards.

[JNelson6563]

3. No shit!

WTF Hillary???

[blm]

5. Hillary will go toe to toe with Republicans on National security -

something Kerry did not. Kerry was the target here, but examine whether it is true or not.

Hillary's idea of going toe to toe with the Republicans is standing side by side and confirming the known incompetents.

[Disturbed]

6. She could have spoken out after Ms. Rice spewed lies

to the 911 Commission. She could have spoken out against Ms Rice for Sec. of State and voted no. Why did she wait so long? Why did she vote for Ms Rice?

[blm]

7. This is all starting to seem like a Kabuki dance perpetrated ON Dems, not

FOR Dems.

[pnwmom]

74. That's not the point now. The point is Bill Clinton is still

hugely admired by the American public and what he says now can make a difference. We want to win this next election, don't we? We want majorities in the House and the Senate, don't we?

So let's take his message and run with it. The Republicans are NOT keeping us safer. They are the fear party, not the security party. And if Clinton or Gore or Kerry or any other Dem were in office, 1) 9/11 might have been prevented and 2) we wouldn't have attacked Iraq and we would be much safer TODAY.

[juajen]

31. Bull

If either of the Clintons had spoken up earlier, the same people would have been attacking them. John Kerry didn't need the Clintons taking up for him. He had to decide what he wanted to do and defend and no one else. Most people on this board were very angry with him for not firing back, especially when he was swiftboated. At that point, nothing either of the Clintons did would have been applauded by the far left.

As far as Hillary posturing and fence sitting, etc., remember she is the Senator from New York right now, not a candidate for President. I like her very much, others don't. But, if I'm not mistaken, this attack on Hillary is not your first. I doubt she could to anything to please some. Just sayin'.

[ProSense]

35. Nonsense!

They should have spoken up. Also, why is everyone from Begala and Carville to the Clintons themselves trying to portray this as the first time a Democrat ever spoke out against Bush?

[madfloridian]

37. Like in the good "Dr. Clinton giving us a spinal transplant. "

Yeh, Begala, we know what you were doing when you said that.

I agree with you. Others have been speaking out loudly and this is getting ridiculous?

[wisteria]

42. Yeah! n/t

[wisteria]

41. As Democrats, the Clinton's should have been more supportive.

They never spoke up on behalf of Senator Kerry when he was being assaulted by the media and the SBV, that left the impression with the media that they wanted him to lose for Hillary's sake- so that the Clinton's could gain control of the WH again.
Many here who were mad at Kerry for not speaking up, could of bombarded the media and the papers with support for him also. They could of demanded that the media present equal time for Kerry to refute the charges without having the SBV played in the background as the charges were being denounced. Actually, Kerry did fight back, he fought them off in April 04, and they came back after additional funding by a Rove friend in August. You assume that Kerry had control the media, and enough power behind him to declare all out war and fight them himself. That is a pretty tall order for one guy to fulfill. Face it, you want an excuse to not support him, so this one is convenient and well used. I criticize Senator Clinton for legitimate reasons,her pandering, her fence sitting, her not taking real positions on issues and pretending to be tough by supporting President Bush and his war of choice- Iraq. And, the unfair advantage she is given, simple because of her last name. I have not seen where she actually earned any of this advantage. No, I am not found of the Senator, she hasn't earned my support, Senator Kerry has.

[pnwmom]

57. How can you read this as an attack on Kerry?

It was attack on Bush.
Clinton is up for reelection, in case you've forgotten. And she has every right at any time -- as we all do-- to speak up in support of her husband's Presidency.

[TayTay]

8. Gee, maybe Mrs. Clinton should have shown some spine

by voting against Condiliar for Secretary of State. This talk of her and Bill being full of piss and vinegar for Democratic causes is pretty laughable.

Yeah, they can be full of piss and vinegar, when it's about them. Why isn't Hillary calling for a filibuster of the Detainee Rights amendment? Why isn't she on every talk show calling for Dems to filibuster a bill that repeals habeas corpus.

Yeah, right, they're fighters. Bullshit.

[blm]

9. How about - I never even heard about the Downing Street Memos so I can't

comment - so Clinton could keep protecting Bush and Blair.

[AtomicKitten]

12. or maybe when asked she hadn't heard of them yet when quoted here

nice policy: always believe the worst

this kind of bitchiness is that of pubescent junior high school girls

[wisteria]

14. She is an opportunist. No bitching, just stating the truth.

She isn't a leader, she is a poll watching follower willing to take advantage of other Democrats hard work to promote herself. :puke:

[AtomicKitten]

16. opinion is not truth

it is YOUR version of the truth, and not a particularly nice one at that

you complain about people slamming Kerry - take a look in the mirror

[wisteria]

43. It is a fact she is being an opportunist. it isn't my opinion- it is fact.

She is making a point that she and her husband fight at the expense of other Dem's like Kerry and Dean and Cl eland and Lamont.Oh, and we people in the grassroots. Sorry you are so sensitive to criticisms of her behavior. I would of been more than willing to support her if she had done this photo- op to really support all Democrats. Sorry, you don't see that this was all about Hillary and the Clinton's and to hell with everyone else.

[AtomicKitten]

54. here's a clue

"Opportunistic" is an adjective describing an impression, ergo subjective.

A fact on the other hand is something that can be proven true, as opposed to opinion, which is something that can't be proven.

It is your impression - your opinion - that HRC is opportunistic, but it is not a fact.

[pnwmom]

75. She didn't criticize other Dems, she criticized the Rethugs.

Take off your dark glasses. You're seeing dirt that isn't there.

Oh, you know it is a fact, not an opinion, that she is being an opportunist. What a mind reader you must be.

But even if they are being opportunists, then they should keep it up. Bash the Republicans all they want. Remind everyone what a terrible job Bush did in protecting us from 9/11.

Because Bill Clinton is still a greatly admired person. What he says could very well influence the election. I can't imagine why any Democrat wouldn't be happy that he is finally sticking up for himself -- because his words reflect well on the whole party. We are the party that cares about Americans. They are the party of fear and hate.

[juajen]

36. She is the biggest fundraiser the dems have, and

no, it isn't all for her. She and Bill devote many, many hours to funding other dems, though they sure aren't given much credit here. We are our own worse enemy, it seems. Even here, everyone seems to have an agenda. I wish ours was to support all dems. It is one party, after all.

[wisteria]

44. She has horded the majority of the money she has raised. Oh, and

why does she raise so much? Could it be the Clinton's calling in some past favors and the name alone?

[blm]

15. It was BILL CLINTON two months after the DSM came out and AFTER letters

were circulated through congress and the senate who claimed on national tv that he had never heard of the memos and couldn't comment. David Letterman wanted Bill to specifically address and explain the Downing Street Memos so the viewers could understand it, and Clinton claimed never heard of em.

LIE! A lie that ONLY served Bush.


Maybe you shouldn't insult posters when you assume using incomplete information.

[AtomicKitten]

19. you don't know that was a lie

and that is mind-numbingly presumptuous of you to impose that bullshit on the conversation

you don't have complete information; you are just making shit up to back your predetermined POV

[blm]

22. No one who knows what a voracious NEWSPAPER reader Bill is would ever

conclude he hadn't heard of the Downing Street Memos.

Or that a policy wonk like Bill would never have discussed whether or not Hillary should sign the DSM letter of inquiry in the senate. It circulated there for at least 2 weeks.

Clinton's appearance on Letterman was shortly AFTER that time.

You want to believe Clinton never read one article about the Downing Street Memos in that two month time, then suit yourself.

[AtomicKitten]

23. I will suit myself and not judge people based on my bent

You have lots of rationalizations but zero facts and zero insight into your predetermined caustic POV.

[pnwmom]

58. Why can't we show some political SENSE

and use strong statements like this when they occur?

So she's not perfect. Big deal. She said something strong, the media is reporting it, and we should all be supporting her. Pres. Clinton damn well would have acted if he had gotten the repeated CIA warnings that Bush did, and he may well have prevented 9/11. And the Dems -- ANY DEMS -- would be far superior to the Repubs in keeping us safe.

[AtomicKitten]

10. Wow - Hooray for all the Democrats on board

NOT!

I'm getting damn sick and tired of reading the same old shit here day in and day out: pessimism, bitching and moaning, complaining, derision and denigration of Democrats ... at a time when Democrats should be closing ranks to win in November.

Effin hell.

[wisteria]

13. Hillary is the one doing the attacking on other Dem's. We are calling

her out on it.

[AtomicKitten]

17. funny, all commentary I've read talks about how Hillary

is building up the party

you are calling her out, but not for any honorable reasons

[wisteria]

45. She is building up the party? Please. Her brand of build-up we don't need.

President Clinton did much damage to our party. We are building up our party. They don't like it because they are losing control.

[pnwmom]

56. She wasn't attacking anyone but Republicans in her press conference

She was attacking their message that the Republican party is the National Security party -- that the Dems can't keep us safe. Every single Dem candidate benefits when any of us fights back on that message.

[LostinVA]

18. Tell me about it, AK

[blm]

20. Tell that to Carville, Begala, Hillary and her crew. Attacking Dems as

if they are just a brand new meme "weak without Bill leading them" to replace the Bush WH memeused against them the last 5yrs with no correction from Bill "Dems are weak on terror because Clinton did nothing" - now THAT is effin hell.

[AtomicKitten]

21. for crissakes

Begala and Carville are political analysts - talking heads - they are asked for opinion; who gives a crap what they have to say.

Bill Clinton is a former 2-term president, not likely to get down in the trenches in the day-to-day news cycles. You have ZERO respect for him which is why you can't applaud him when he knocks one out of the park, something that has given a jump start to the Dems.

Quit yer whining.

[blm]

24. I respected what he did - and wish he hadn't waited five years to do it

while every Dem candidate trying to run and every Dem lawmaker trying to help govern this country was necklaced with the "Dems are weak on terror because Clinton is to blame for 9-11" bogeyman that was out there from 9-11 thru 2005.

[AtomicKitten]

25. yes, you remind us frequently - 60 months - shake up your rhetoric a bit

and try living in the present for a change and quit smacking people around for the same stuff over and over and over and over and over and over again.

[blm]

26. That's how I'm fighting - I repeat the truth when lies are repeated.

I hope you are just as condemning of repeated lies.

[AtomicKitten]

60. no, you are confusing the truth (facts) with opinion

A fact is something that can be proven true, as opposed to opinion, which is something that can't be proven. Your impression - your opinion - is not a fact and thereby not truth; it is YOUR truth. Your opinion is formulated by the interpretation of facts, which is why there is disagreement.

[blm]

68. Those weren't Clinton strategists all over the tube telling Dems Clinton

just gave them a spinal operation? That wasn't Hillary telling Dems that Bill showed Dems how to fight back and not gonna take it anymore?

Bill and Hillary haven't spent the last 5 years publically supporting more Bush national security policies than publically opposing them?

[madfloridian]

34. You are right.

.

[madfloridian]

38. Hillary is urging other Dems to speak out?

Suddenly? They have been speaking out, she has not.

[pnwmom]

66. Hillary said her husband demonstrated that Democrats are going to

speak out.

She is not criticizing other Democrats, or critiquing other Democrats.

She is sending a message and a warning to Republicans: Don't try that line of attack unless you want it to blow up in your face.

[blm]

69. And then had her spokesman refer to swift attacks - mixing national

security debate with the swifts like Bush does Iraq and 9-11.

There is no record of Clinton addressing publically the YEARS of attacks made on him blaming him for 9-11 before last week. There IS substantial evidence that Kerry and his campaign DID answer the swifts substantively from April through September of 2001. The data is in the DU Research Forum.

[pnwmom]

72. What was said or not said years ago is completely beside the point.

The point is that we should be applauding and echoing every strong message we hear ANY Democrat makes that reflects well on the whole party. As Clinton's interview most certainly did.

What the Clintons were both trying to do is attack the Republican theme that the Republicans are the National Security party. They are not. ANY Democratic President in 2001 would have done a better job in protecting us from 9/11 than Bush did. Bush did NOTHING. He failed to do any follow up on the work that Richard Clark and others had devoted years to. Gore wouldn't have dropped the ball like that. Neither would Kerry, or any other Democrat.

We need to quit slamming each other and aim our punches at the Bush administration, where they belong. Who cares what Hillary or Bill did or did not say 5 or 4 or 3 or 2 years ago? Pres. Clinton, who is still hugely admired by the American people, said something very strong this week. It may be long overdue, but the timing is ripe to help candidates in the current election. Let's shout it from the rooftops.

The Republicans are not the National Security Party. They are the National FEAR Party. The Democrats have no interest in fomenting fear. They have every interest in taking intelligent action to keep us safe.

[blm]

76. And I *APPLAUD* that it WAS finally said, but, why SMEAR all other Dems as

weak and needing a Clinton to show em how to challenge, when a good number of them HAVE been challenging Bush all along, whether he was at 40% approval, 50% approval, 60% approval, or 70% approval.


Dems had to go into 2000 election cycle as "immoral" and into the 2002 and 2004 election cycles as "weak on terrror" because of Republican memes.

Now the Clintons label the Dems as "so weak they need Clinton to give them a backbone" going into the 2006 election.

It's NOT true - Clintons know it's not true - Bush's ratings have been down for a long time BECAUSE a number of Dems have relentlessly challenged his policies over the last 4 years - and waiting 5 yrs before you attack the lies about you and waiting till Bush's approval ratings are a steady 40% is NOT showing backbone OR leadership that the Dems "need" the way the Clinton team has spun it.

THAT's my beef - I have absolutely no problem with what Clinton said - I love it and would have kissed the ground he walked on if he said it before the 2002 election.

My problem is his team of spinners including Hillary, using it to backhand slap the rest of the Dem party right before an election.

[wisteria]

46. Funny, most of us have been energized, Oh, and we did it without

Bill. Actually, I an not upset with what President Clinton did, I applaud him for speaking up- it is about time he realized the Republican's mean to smear his legacy. It was Senator Clinton's comments that I found insulting and self-promoting.

[pnwmom]

73. It's just your own prejudice that makes it sound that way to you.

You're not listening objectively. There was nothing in Bill's or Hillary's actual words that conveyed that message or anything like it.

[ProSense]

29. Yup!

I hate it when other posters resort to calling others names like "dipshit"! Give me a fucking break!

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

53. What the hell are you talking about? n/t

[BootinUp]

30. Me too. n/t

[pnwmom]

55. You are 100% right, Atomic Kitten.

And you might be interested in this thread. It's time for us ALL to become the Democratic Party's echo chamber:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2849748&mesg_id=2849748

[blm]

27. I'VE BEEN DEFENDING HER HUSBAND AGAINST 9-11 lies for FIVE YEARS - why

didn't Bill and Hillary defend him publically throughout that entire time?

How many timelines and articles and threads were posted here at DU defending Bill Clinton for the last five years on terrorism, and he couldn't lift his voice throughout that entire time when it could have laid that line of BULLSHIT to rest and Democratic candidates running in 2002 and 2004 wouldn't have had to bear that added burden "Dems are weak on terror" meme?

[pnwmom]

59. He did make statements before, some of which were hardly covered.

But he was mostly trying to follow the path of previous Presidents, and staying above the fray. Maybe they realize that was a mistake now.

[madfloridian]

61. He just this Sunday called Iraq an experiment that might still succeed.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/315

No one else has been able to stay above the fray. We have worked our butts off in many areas.

I don't mind if he stays above the fray, but don't call a war an experiment.

[pnwmom]

62. That's exactly what it was, from the Bush side.

The neocons had a theory, and the Iraq war was their experiment.

And they lied about weapons of mass destruction, and about Bush's waiting for U.N. approval, in order to get the authorization to carry out their experiment.

Some Dems made the mistake of trusting Bush not to abuse the authority that he was given. But Bush had the votes without any help from our side . He would have carried out his experiment whether or not a single Dem had voted to give him the authorization.

[madfloridian]

63. Ok, then why didn't he tell us before the IWR vote?

If he as former president knew, why didn't he speak out.

Here at DU we all knew back then in 2002 what they were doing. We called, we begged, we pleaded. We marched.

They still voted for it.

Clinton should have said something.

[pnwmom]

65. I don't know why he didn't speak out more THEN. But this is NOW.

I would NOT assume he had special access to info we didn't have. I can believe he thought they had recent reliable intelligence about WMD that he was not privy to.

Nonetheless, I wish he had spoken out more against the war before it began. OTOH, I applaud his recent statement and that of his wife, as well as that of any Democrat who forcefully stands up against this administration.

[blm]

64. Maybe they do realize it was a mistake, but don't send your strategists to

shove at every other Democrat who HAS BEEN challenging Bush publically for years now and taking the hits for it every time they stick their necks out. Without retreating and with little support from other Democrats. Dean, Kerry, Kennedy, Feingold, Boxer, Conyers, Kucinich, Murtha, Waxman and some others come to mind.

This whole bizness that Clinton's showing Dems how to show spine is HOGWASH. The time to do it was when it first happened.

[madfloridian]

67. Amen.

You are very right on this.

If we had just been allowed to be happy over the interview, that would have been one thing. I loved it

But the next day strategists were all over the forums and TV, spouting about how we were getting a lesson in spine.

[madfloridian]

32. We were defending her husband while she was voting to go to Iraq.

I am tired of this. We have defended him for years. I was just reading some posts from 2002 here at DU that I have bookmarked. I doubt I can post them as the posters are not here anymore. But there were so many links about how Clinton fought terrorism.

I am all for working together, but we have done our share for years.

The thought that no one utters, and perhaps it is time:

Former presidents know a hell of a lot about what is going on behind the scenes. Did he know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, was not a threat to us? Past research shows he was bombing Najah even in 1999. Here is what was recently written here about it.

We bombed Najaf in 1999, killing civilians....reported by AP.

Did he know Saddam was contained? Did he speak up? We were saying it way back then.

[madfloridian]

33. And hardly anyone responded to that post.

I was talking to myself on it.

And now we are having to beg our party not to vote for torture?

And on Sunday he said "What's done is done."

"But what’s done is done and I, I, I still think it’s important to recognize that if this Iraq experiment could be made to work now, it would be better than if it can’t. No one knows yet whether it can."

From the MTP transcript.

[madfloridian]

40. To clarify my concern...Bill called Iraq "an experiment."

I don't like that. You don't experiment with the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians in a country, and then be casual about it.

[blm]

71. Sure you can - - it's called Vietnam.

,

[Imagevision]

39. No problem, we've always got Obama...

[AJH032]

47. Funny

DUers attacking Hillary for doing what DU does all day, every day: criticize Democrats. (DU) Democrats criticizing a Democrat for criticizing Democrats who are already criticized by (DU) Democrats. It's like a circle.

[NeedleCast]

48. Good Eye

As a person who's lurked here for years while posting very little, I agree totally.

Lots of DU'ers not looking at the big picture. To busy arguing with or attacking the people who should be their allies.

[madfloridian]

50. Being allies includes all of us... and all who have been fighting.

Let's not twist this.

[madfloridian]

49. Here is an example from Sept 2003..speaking out.

I am sure others have examples just as good and powerful. I post it because it is really not fair for the Clintons and Begala and Carville to act like things like this never happened.

I only post one example, there are so many. And others as well.

I admire the Clintons but they should not be critical of those how have been fighting the good fight for ages..

From Sept. 8 2003 on the campaign trail...

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, the early front-runner for the Democratic
nomination, called Bush's remarks "nothing short of outrageous."

"In 15 minutes, he attempted to make up for 15 months of misleading the
American people and 15 weeks of mismanaging the reconstruction," he said.

In his speech, Bush called Iraq the "central front" in the war on terrorism
and said foreign terrorists were to blame for recent violence there. But
Dean said the security vacuum caused by the war itself is to blame for that
situation.

"The president has created a much more dangerous situation in Iraq," Dean
said. "The president has created Iraq to be the front line of terrorism."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/07/bush.reax/index.html

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.