I've had it with Bill Clinton

[whometense]

Cozying up to Bush pere, and now this. Where was this guy during last year's campaign? I know he had health problems - but he could still have said some of this stuff in public when it might have really helped people - other than his wife. I'm fuming.

Clinton launches withering attack on Bush on Iraq, Katrina, budget

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Former US president Bill Clinton sharply criticised George W. Bush for the Iraq War and the handling of Hurricane Katrina, and voiced alarm at the swelling US budget deficit.

Breaking with tradition under which US presidents mute criticisms of their successors, Clinton said the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq "virtually alone and before UN inspections were completed, with no real urgency, no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction."

The Iraq war diverted US attention from the war on terrorism "and undermined the support that we might have had," Bush said in an interview with an ABC's "This Week" programme.

I'm going out on a limb here because I know a lot of democrats still love the guy, but to me he's looking more and more like some guy working an angle. I supported him when he was in office and the republicans were in full attack mode, but now he just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[MH1]

1. Oct 25 2004 - Philadelphia

First appearance after heart surgery. Philly loves Clinton, so him joining Kerry probably helped bring out the 100,000+ crowd.

Maybe someone can find a link to Clinton's speech from that day? (I'm at work or I'd look for it myself) I don't remember how much he bashed * that day but I'm sure he did some.

[Mass]

3. And the media spend two days telling people that Kerry did not connect

and Clinton did, and of course, in interviews, Clinton did not do anything to kill this canard (even talking about Hill in some of them).

So, you may be right for him getting more crowd , but I am not sure it was that successful for the rest of the country.

[karynnj]

7. But what were the crowd sizes in cities

Kerry was in the week before and afterwards adjusted by the size of the city. I assume that Clinton DID draw in some of the people - but I think Kerry alone was getting some pretty big crowds.

As to the Kerry does not connect, I doubt if Clinton even noticed. He seems to be a very self centered person.

[TayTay]

8. 80,000 in Madison WI

That's a freaking huge crowd. Ad the source, I think, of the awesome pics that have been posted here. (Hmmm, Springsteen was at that one too. )

[Mass]

9. Crowds were nearly as big, I agree, but the media did not report

so people who were only relying on the media got the impression that the crowd in Philly was only due to Clinton and were drawn to oppose Clinton's charisma to Kerry allegedly not connecting to people.

This is why I was never sure that Clinton appearing with Kerry was such a good idea, contrarely to Clinton campaigning alone in Arkansas or Colorado.

[TayTay]

6. Here ya go

A transcript:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61663-2004Oct25.html

CLINTON: Their plan is more of the same. They gave two huge tax cuts to upper-income people like me and to special interests. They run these big deficits, and they go every month and borrow the money to cover our debts from the Chinese and the Japanese government and they're saddling it on our children. They're making our children pay for it today and tomorrow.

Over 2 million children not funded in the Leave No Child Behind Act, over a half a million children kicked out of their after-school programs, 140,000 unemployed workers kicked out of their job training programs, 100,000 working families losing their child care. Leaving the burden of the deficit for my tax cut on the children of this country, that's their plan.

John Kerry's got a better plan.

(APPLAUSE)

He wants to repeal the tax cuts for those of us who have been fortunate enough to make a lot of money. He wants to finally give us a chance to make a contribution to America's economic recovery and to the fight against terrorism. It's time.

[MH1]

21. Thanks for the link.

I don't entirely disagree with all of the comments made here, but I find this thread unsettling...

[whometense]

22. I'm sorry about that.

Maybe I shouldn't have posted it. But it is how I feel, and have felt for a long time now.

[Mass]

2. It was not so much withering attacks than a perfect example of

triangulation, a little less on ABC may be than on MTP.

Some of what he said was just ridiculous as it was contrary to what Clinton said all last year (In Iraq, for example). And frankly, his only criticism on Katrina was that they destroyed what he did for FEMA and that when he was president, they were less poor people (still the old egotist Clinton).

[whometense]

4. I agree.

It's all about him.

I'm truly angry with him. I was loyal through all the Monica mess which, though he was absolutely persecuted by lunatic republicans, was caused by his own lack of self-control. I was loyal because I saw him as a strong spokesman for the democratic party, a person the public would listen to.

I see him differently now. I see him as an opportunist and an egomaniac. Him and his first.

[karynnj]

11. Not only were his Iraq statements different, but they were KERRY's

His comment that he would have voted for the resolution because in his experience Saddam never moved unless pushed and that he would never have invaded while the inspections were continuing was what Kerry said for 2 years. His comment on taking our eyes off Afghanistan was what Kerry said in 2002 when it was happening.

In 2002, when Kerry was talking about Afghanistan, both Clintons were silent. When Bush was poised to attack in Feb/Mar 2003, Kerry wrote an op-ed against attacking then, both Clintons were silent.

I admit to having been happy that he was President and in ignoring things he did that I would have been outspokenly against done by a Republican. It bothers me that he can slide his positions at will and no one calls him on it. I am really unhappy with the idea of Hillary as President which is unfair as it is due to being sick of Bill.

[pinkflower21]

24. Clinton feels he has to walk

a very fine line, I'm sure those statements on MTP he wanted to say for a long time, but he is friends with Bush Sr. He does not want to say too much and make the current folks in power mad at him because then they will not be putting him in any more positions of power to help out with things like the Tsunami and Katrina. I get mad at Clinton sometimes too, he can be an egotist for sure, but he was a darn good president and a great communicator. But, Kerry has the stronger morals for sure.

[karynnj]

5. I never has the sense that he was really that much behind Kerry

He did what was expected, but never went beyond it. I remember that there were some people who were concerned that his putting his autobiography out shortly before the convention could divert attention. Delaying the book release until after the election would have been nice, as the book did take attention away from Bush and Kerry at that time.

He was also out on tv so soon after the election saying he liked Bush and Kerry and giving his comments on Kerry not following his advise (on the gay marriage amendments). I assume he wanted Kerry to win, but he seemed too content too soon. Also that he was too intent on seperating himself from the loss, Kerry didn't follow his advice. It may just be that on many levels they are very different - Kerry is guided by a strong moral compass while Clinton windsurfs on opinion polls.

[fedupinBushcountry]

10. IMO

he is PR man for Hillary. I agree Whome, talk about flip flop, who is he trying to fool.

I remember at the opening of his library, and he said am I the only one who likes Bush :puke: and Kerry, it did not go over big. But when he acknowledged Kerry in the audience that was the biggest applause of the day.

I'm sorry but he did lie to us once, and in no way should it of gone as far as impeachment, but he still lied to save his own skin, so that is why I do not trust him.

Oh and by the way Kerry has said all those things over and over again, and I'm sure today he will add more to his "leadership is not a toll free number" statement. I can't wait for TayTay's report.It would be nice if it got some air time, crossing my fingers.

[TayTay]

12. Well, the speech will probably be released

way before I get home. You guys might know what's being said before I hear it live. (If it's released at the web site or if the blogs get it via e-mail.) Gawd, I kinda hope so. It would make the report from your humble blabbermouth shorter. (Sigh! I'm working on my brevity skills. I promise to stick to the matter at hand and not indulge in useless observations about interesting side stuff. As much as my ADHD allows.)

[whometense]

13. Oooh, I want to hear

the interesting side stuff. We can read his speech. I want all the catnippy side details. Who was there? How did he look? What was the crowd like? How was the reception? That kinda stuff. We also must know what tie he wore.

[karynnj]

14. I agree with whome

the side stuff makes everything more interesting. It's cool that you notice the things we won't hear from reporters - like the lovely story of the women who really wanted to hear Teresa, rather than her substitute - it's easier to miss all that trying to capture only what's front and center.

[whometense]

15. More here from Arianna

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/russert-watch-i-think-t_b_7537.html

. . . He completely missed the point during the roundtable. And he completely missed it during his interview with Clinton. The point is that contrary to Drudge's misleading headline ("Clinton Turns on Bush"), Clinton refuses to directly challenge the president on the disaster that the war in Iraq has become (see the video here at Crooks and Liars). Through all his equivocating answers, there wasn't a single mention of the president or of anyone else in the administration responsible for this war and how it's been prosecuted.

In fact, to hear Russert and Clinton talk about the war in Iraq, you'd think it was just as much an act of God as Hurricane Katrina. In his answer to Russert's question, "Do you think the war in Iraq has hurt the U.S. image in the world?" Clinton started by saying, "I think it's been a net negative," but quickly moved on to "On the other hand, Saddam is gone and 58 percent of those people voted. That's an even higher percentage of people than voted in America in 2004, when we were proud of our turnout and when nobody's life was at risk. So there's still a chance this will work. And if it does, there's still a chance it will be a net plus for the Middle East."

Leaving aside his few mitigating hemming and hawing words, what the former president is effectively saying is what Bush's apologists are saying -- in fact, what National Review's Byron York actually said on the show: "I think there is still the possibility for good things happening." Wow, pretty stirring, huh? It must be nice for the hundreds of thousands whose loved ones are over there risking their lives that some people think there's still a possibility for good things. . .

[Mass]

16. This is closer from what I saw yesterday than the AFP piece.

[TayTay]

18. Thsi seems much closer to what I saw yesterday

as well. Clinton is hedging his bets. He can't say anything different from what Sen. Clinton is saying. She has backed the current approach to the war. So does her hubby.

The Dem 'red meat' of attacking the tax cuts is the same. We all hate the tax cuts. They are way, way, way too much money and do a lot of damage to the economy.

[sandnsea]

17. I'm with you

I don't like to post stuff against Dems, but I had a little tantrum over that same thing yesterday. All he had to say last year is that nobody knew anything about Iraq after he bombed it in 1998, and that would have stopped all of that "the Democrats said" stuff. I don't know why he wouldn't say it, but he went out of his way not to. I think it's because he wanted to protect Hillary in case Iraq worked out after all. It's ridiculous Dems can't find the message on Iraq.

[whometense]

19. It is ridiculous.

And it makes them look like the gang that couldn't shoot straight.

Imagine if they could stop elbowing each other aside long enough to get a message out. I can dream, can't I? All that blather about the swifties and Kerry's campaign errors last year is utter bullshit. If they'd bothered to line up behind him last year we'd be living in a different world today. I'm having trouble putting that fact behind me.

[politicasista]

20. I am too

The Dems were busy propping themselves up while the GOP got behind Smirky despite is catastrophic failures.

Speaking of Clinton: When he called BET during the Save Our Selves telethon for Hurricane Katrina relief, he said something like rebuilding NOLA from the ground up.

I posted at an urban message boards and some were not happy with his comments because we took it as a fact that he wanted to kick to poor troublemaking folks out and have corporate conservatives rebuild the city.

When I posted about him hanging out with Pappy Bush, they shook their heads. He also encouraged people to give through BushClinton.com (I think that's the site). I know Steve Harvey and Queen Latifah had strange looks on their faces when he mentioned the site (cause of the name Bush). But anyway, his conversation was strange, very conservative sounding in a way.

[beachmom]

23. Clinton is a fairly conservative Democrat, we need to remember

I mean, wasn't he one of the founders of the DLC? Now I don't have a problem with this. The Democratic tent is a big one, and I think it's great that we have different voices. But the difficult thing (for me) to accept is that the rivalries within the Democratic party are nearly as great as across the aisle. Yes, on the issues, there are many things we unite on, but right now a battle is being waged for WHO will be the leader of the Democratic party. There are various fiefdoms -- the Clintons, Moveon.org, the congressional leadership, the liberal pundits, outside the beltway governors, outside the beltway former candidates a la Wes Clark and John Edwards, the left wing blogosphere and its various factions, and then there is John Kerry and his online community. All of these groups are in a struggle that could become as nasty as the last general campaign, while pretending to all smile, saying "we are all one" in public. But make no mistake the high stakes game that is being played. I am not anti-Clinton, but I have no illusions about him and his wife. They do fight for great ideals, albeit more centrist ones overall, but they are ruthless and let's face it, sometimes lack ethics. There were a lot of lies told about Bill, but not EVERYTHING was a lie. I judge him by his entire presidency, and overall I think he did some great things for this country, and there is no doubt in my mind that the country would be in much better shape if he were still at the helm.

[pinkflower21]

25. I agree on this

but whenever we start thinking about Clinton and his lack of morals sometimes, then just look at the Bush administration, they make the Clinton administration look like Mother Theresa.

[sandnsea]

26. I think he's a politician

Of necessity, a politician has to govern, it's part of the deal. I don't think Clinton could ever stomach full-on Republican economic policies, but I also don't think he's completely altruistic in his supposed concern for the poor. I think if he had to choose between elevating his political status and standing up for the poor, he'd choose his political status. I also think he's wrong on a lot of things and trusts the "free market" way too much. I can't figure that out. Like I can't figure out why he let the price of oil go so low in the 90's, gave tax credits for SUV's, which he knew would set us back in terms of making the energy changes he had to know we needed to make. That's the Bill Clinton I don't get, and when he comes along and pretends to take the lead on one of these issues... I just want to pull my hair out!!