Grrr .... Clinton calls Kerry soft on national security.

[Mass]

I guess Hillary is running (or at least Bill wants her to run) and she has chosen to run on a Bushlike stand. (too bad that Kerry got a lot more votes that Clinton ever got),

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20050709/NEWS/107090032

Dissecting John Kerry's loss to President Bush last year, Clinton blamed the Democratic candidate's soft stand on security and the party's inability to reach out to rural, white America.

In the final days of campaigning on Kerry's behalf, it was clear even Kerry's supporters weren't clear on the candidate's position on national security, according to Clinton.

"I think, in the end, he lost in a close race because of the security issue," he said.

[pinkflower21]

1. I like Clinton, BUT

the man thinks he is a know it all...and you know what, he does know a lot, he was elected president twice but he doesn't know it all and he goes around talking like he does.

I knew what Kerry stood for on national security. He stood for getting the troops better equipment, he stood for having a plan in Iraq with benchmarks, he stood for getting other countries involved so we wouldn't have to go it alone. He stood for not cutting the VA budget. I don't know why people say that it wasn't clear. I really don't get that. It was clear to me. Some people might say, well Bush would do all of those same things too so what's the difference, but the fact is, Bush has not been doing those things. If he had been, we would be much further along in being able to leave Iraq. If Kerry was so bad at talking to rural voters, then why the heck did he get more votes than any Democratic candidate in history. Sure the Democrats need to do even better, that's obvious, but it's not like Kerry didn't even try, which is what this quote makes it sounds like.


And I like Clinton....I really do. But this quote just irritates me. Kerry never was soft on national security.

[Mass]

2. My feelings are mixed when it comes to him

but what irritates me with this comment is that he thinks clearly that Kerry should have been Bushlike on security, which is not surprising given the comments he has made on Bush and Iraq and the fact that Hillary is on record saying that the time the US forces stay in Iraq is not important as long as they are protected.

[pinkflower21]

3. Yeah, I've read that Clinton thinks

that the Democrats need to be careful to not go too far to the left. I'm sure he must be absolutly thrilled that Howard Dean is DNC chair then. <laughs>

One thing that this makes me wonder about, if Kerry were to try again in 2008, would Bill Clinton and others campaign for him again if he got the nomination. I have a feeling he wouldn't be supported by Clinton and others in the primary. Anyway, I know I shouldn't be worrying about this now, I can't help myself sometimes.

I actually really like Bill Clinton but sometimes I just think he should put his foot in his mouth. I wonder if he criticized Gore in the same way after he lost. I'm sure Clinton does not mean for Kerry to take it personally and I'm sure Kerry doesn't take it personally but I take it personally as a big fan of John Kerry because I think he did as best of a job as he could do.

[jillan]

20. That was then - in his day.

I loved Bill Clinton as my president.
I was as happy as could be, I loved to listen to him talk, I loved how he was the teflon kid. I loved how everything in America was humming during his administation - jobs, more cops on the streets, balanced budget. And I don't care what this administration has to say about him,
9/11 happened on their watch.

But President Clinton, with all due respect, that was then. This is now. This country has moved too far to the right, it's time to bring it back, way back. All the way to the left.

[TayTay]

5. Kerry was quite hawkish on Afghanistan

As were the vast majority of Dems. We needed to go into Afghanistan and clean house. But we botched the job, perhaps due to an undue deference to Pakistani officials (which still gauls me to this day.)

The Iraq War is another matter. Kerry clearly voted to give the Prez authority to go into Iraq if absolutely needed. (And we all know by now what constituted absolutely needed.) Kerry was both trying to preserve Prez authority in case he ever needed to use it and prevent the US from going to war unless it could justify it in terms of eminent threat. (And the Senate was lied to by false data, as the DSM proves.)

Clinton did have a fairly vigorous foreign policy. He did attempt to get Usama bin Laden several times, but he failed to get tougher with the Saudis and with other US allies in the Middle East. Now quick, for ten points and bragging rights all over DU, what was Clinton's policy on Saddam Hussein? On Iran? On North Korea? Why didn't he implement the plan to hunt down Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda after the bombing of the USS Cole? What about the bombing of the US Embassy in Kenya? What was his response? Did it help or hurt the cause of bringing peace to the Middle East? What was his plan on the Israeli/Palestinian problem? (In ten pages or less, double-spaced and with footnotes. And yes, this will be on the TayTay test.)

Clinton did well with the wars after the breakup of Yugoslavia (though it took him a long time to act in this conflict. Many, many lives were lost before the Euros and Americans got their act together and interfered to stop genocide in a war for profit.) Clinton screwed up badly with Rwanda and did nothing while more than 500,000 people died in another genocide.

I view the Clinton Admin with a very jaundiced eye. On the one hand, he was better than a Repub would have been. On the other hand nothing that he did in the realm of foreign policy really accomplished much. The Dayton Accords fell apart. The Israeli/Palestinian accord didn't last past Sharon. Bosnia is a 'win' of sorts, but a very sad and diminished one. So, in short, he is one to talk. He is hardly the paragon of 'swift action' and bold response. And I think John Kerry knows more about foreign policy and would not have come 'cold' into it as Clinton did. (I wish Clinton had been older when he won the PResidency. He was so talented, but so undisciplined. That would not be a problem with KErry.)

[BlueIris]

18. Ah, TayTay. My favorite. I can't help but think that Kerry's position

on and remarks about Afghanistan specifically, over and over again, are a major part of what has elicited this latest jab from Clinton. I don't have the energy or the resource material in front of me to do ten double spaced pages, but I'll point out that I think Clinton's extremely bad call with regard to Afghanistan was arguably the worst foreign policy mistake he made. Kerry's harsh comments about some of the consequences we have suffered in no small way because of Clinton's errors in judgment there obviously didn't sit well with B.C.

[ginnyinWI]

6. agree 100%

And I like Clinton, too.

During the debates, both candidates agreed that loose nukes were the number one problem. But * had four years to do something about it. It's all talk with him, no action. I believe Kerry would have done something, and fast, after taking office. You just can't just judge them on what they say--you have to see what they do or do not do.

[globalvillage]

4. My e-mail to "friends of Hillary"

Bill isn't running for anything, but I can withdraw my support for Hillary. And I have. Bill's comments were ridiculous and patently false. And he knows it.

Here's my e-mail:

No longer a "friend of Hillary"

Dissecting John Kerry's loss to President Bush last year, Clinton blamed the Democratic candidate's soft stand on security and the party's inability to reach out to rural, white America.

In the final days of campaigning on Kerry's behalf, it was clear even Kerry's supporters weren't clear on the candidate's position on national security, according to Clinton.

"I think, in the end, he lost in a close race because of the security issue," he said.

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20050709/NEWS/107090032

This is bullshit from Bill, and it's Hillary's loss. If the Clintons can't support our candidates, I can't support the Clintons. Shame, really.

[Island Blue]

7. Here's a quote from the link that made me scratch my head

Clinton said "You can't win an election in this country unless you talk to people who you think aren't for you."

Ummmmm, yes you can Bill. The Shrubster "apparently" did just that. In order for him to talk to anyone last year, they had to sign a blood oath of allegiance and forfeit their first born child to the Dark Side. Shrub STILL hasn't talked to people who he thinks aren't for him.

I also don't understand how he interpreted Kerry's stand on security to be soft. I think in the coming months we will see that Kerry was right on the money when he kept repeating (among other things) that we need to do a better job of securing loose nukes around the world and of protecting our ports by better examining the ships that enter them. Sorry Bill, you're wrong about this one.

[TayTay]

8. Clinton didn't challenge the perceived wisdom enough

Granted, he only had a Dem Congress for two years (and then lost it in one of the biggest boneheaded displays of incompetence in American history.) But Clinton continued the Reagan/Bush agenda in the Middle East (and elsewhere.) Again, it's so sad. I wish Clinton had served in the Congress. He was so gifted as a politician, but he was not seasoned enough in policy when he assumed the Presidency. If only we could take Clinton's 'aw shucks' demeanor and graft it onto John Kerry's brain. Sigh! The perfect Democrat.

John Kerry knows foreign policy. It is actually one of his biggest strong suits. He knows about shady dealings in the Middle East through his investigations and he knows a lot about Pakistan and it's really, really odious dealings with the world. (Pakistan is where the BCCI originated. Pakistan encouraged the Taliban to start cultivating opium for the heroin trade and quite a bit of that money went into BCCI. Mr. Kerry knows a lot, a friggin whole lot about the evil side of this mess.) The weird side of the the whole 'he's not strong on security' debate is that Mr. Kerry knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, where the bodies are buried in the Middle East and who put them there. He knows a whole lot about who runs most of the terrorist rings in the world and how to actually hurt them, as opposed to playing games with them for global advantage. Sigh!

[pinkflower21]

11. Good point by Island Blue

Your right, Bush won an election by basically just rallying the base. I do think it's common sense for any candidate running for president to try to reach out to both sides but I do not see that as a prerequisite for winning. In my opinion, Clinton was a good president and despite his personal faults, he has done a lot after his presidency to help with causes around the world, so I can't totally dog on Clinton but I can say that Clinton's personal behavior in the White House was something I was disappointed in. I always thought the Republicans were dead wrong for trying to impeach him because he was a good president but the whole Monica Lewinski scandal changed the way I view Clinton somewhat. The way I look at John Kerry is that if he had been elected, he could have been just as good or even better president than Clinton without all the scandals. I think John Kerry has a lot more personal integrity. Clinton was the one that wanted Kerry to say he supported banning gay marriage just so Kerry could win with the red state voters but Kerry did the right thing. If he did that, he would have just been selling out if it wasn't something he believed in. As much as Kerry wanted the presidency, he would never sell out to get it.

[globalvillage]

9. Check this thread in GD. It's mostly supportive of JK

And NOT of Clinton's statements.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1616678

I am really, really disappointed in Bill.
This is for you, Big Dawg :spank:

[MH1]

13. Actually we need some help over there!

and I *have* to turn in...

there's a couple posters claiming Kerry was just like Bush, didn't want to win, yada, yada...

Anybody have the energy to go straighten them out?

[paulk]

10. gosh...

The "soft on national security" bit is just flat out political posturing from Bill in preparation for his wife's presidential run.

Disappointing and I'm beginning to wish that he would just shut up. Nothing like reinforcing the Republican talking points.

[pinkflower21]

12. Exactly, Clinton needs to put his foot

in his mouth. I'm not a Clinton hater by any means, he was a good president but I don't much want to put up with him criticizing Kerry. I'm an objective person. If he had said some positive things about Kerry along with that it would not have been so hard to swallow but when he criticizes another Democrat it just helps the Republicans. Also, if he feels this way, he should tell party insiders in an understated way or communicate to Kerry personally.

[politicasista]

14. I agree pinkflower

As much as I like Clinton, this is unfortunate that he is saying all this now instead of personality talking to Kerry about his disagreements. It only plays right into the hands of the repukes. Clinton seems to forget that there were lots of people who stood by him during the Monica scandal, and now he is chilling with the BFEE? I wonder how people will feel about that? Anyway, did he ever criticize Gore after his loss? For some reason, Kerry seems to be a punching bag or dart board for fellow Democrats.

[LittleClarkie]

15. He lost in part because of 9/11 to be sure

but more because voters didn't want to change leaders in the middle of a conflict. They wanted to see Bush finish what they started.

From the debates to his New York University speech, Kerry couldn't have been stronger on national defense. It was his tremendous showing in the first debate on an issue that was supposed to be his weakest that gave him that first shot of needed momentum. It just may have come too late.

If things were fuzzy in that regard, it was because of the Bush campaigns flip/flop campaign, and Kerry's trouble counteracting that campaign.

The media didn't seem to be helping matters either. From what I heard, we'd get speeches in full from Bush that were supposed to be policy speeches, but turned out to be nothing more than "9/11! Vote for me!!" and that they'd interrupt Kerry's speeches just when they were getting good, or they'd tell you what he said rather than letting you see the speech itself.

Still, when the public got its first unfiltered gander at Kerry in the debates, I can't even tell you how much of a shot in the arm it was down at HQ. Suddenly everyone could see a winner, and wanted to be part of it. If only the Incredible Hulk could have made an earlier entrance.

[BlueIris]

16. Bill's really starting to piss me off.

And previous to reading these remarks I was a big fan. Well, these remarks, and another bizarre thing I ran into a couple of months back about Clinton having told JK to come out in favor of one of the ballot measures banning gay marriage? WTF? I was so happy to read that Kerry politely and immediately decided to decline to follow Bill's advice there.

[FreedomAngel82]

17. *Snicker*

Kerry soft on terrorism? Uh did he forget who closed BCCI all by himself?! What about Iran/Contra?! HELLO!

[karynnj]

21. It would be more accurate for Kerry to claim that Clinton was

soft on terrorism. Someone (BLM ?) posted the list of things Kerry felt needed more work on when his BCCI task force was closed down. The first one dealt with Pakistan, Khan and spread of nuclear technology. The Clinton administration publicly did very little on this.

Imagine if Kerry would have become President in 1992. His life was too complicated for this, but the point is that his experience, interests and skills would have made him better on security than Clinton. Given the BCCI list, it is inconceivable that as (magically) President, he would not have done more to prevent the Khan networks spread of nuclear technology.

In hindsight, Clinton also mismanaged Iraq, keeping the sanctions on there for all 8 years of his Presidency. I would imagine a President Kerry would have more actively pushed to insure Iraq was in compliance and ended santions that were never intended to last 12 years - killing children and babies because they couldn't get parts to repair water systems. (I hypothesize this because Kerry would be more likely to take political risks if he felt it was the right thing to do and because Clinton lack of military credentials may have held him back).

It seems this is just Clinton trying to push Hillary. It sounds like he is pushing her to take almost the same position as Bush on Iraq. It's also interesting that he is taking pot shots at Kerry, while Hillary is not. Is it a plan that he will be Hillary's attack dog? Does this diminish his status? Will this be hard to fight?

An even more interesting question is will Hillary be able to "control" Bill? When she was the candidate's wife and as first lady, she supported Bill's goals and positions, but I really wonder if he has enough control over his egotism to do so for her. On the Rove issue they appear to be split. When the papers wrote about her as first lady, they usually described her as more conscience driven than Bill and less skilled as a politician. If this was accurate and if it is still true, it may be interesting to see what role Bill ends up playing. Also, what happens when (like 2004 with Kerry), Bill suggests taking a position she disagrees with.

[jillan]

19. ha ha ha Hillary is in deep doodoo with the repugs

This was the first time Hillary impressed me!