Has Bill Clinton morphed into the Anti-Rove?

[theophilus]

Is this "flap" something that Clinton has skillfully engineered to roll with into the mid-terms? Are various Dems picking up the cudgel and womping on Bushco in a planned attack?

That would be SWEET.

or......

Was this serendipity? Clinton could match Rove, I believe. Of course I also believe that Clinton, and Dems in general, have more principles than Turd Blossom.

What think ye?

[Skidmore]

1. I don't know about that but I want Rove to morph into

prison clothes and a cellblock.

[blm]

2. No. He HAD to burst sometime. Wouldn't you after being accused for 5yrs

of doing nothing about terrorism?

Clinton finally let loose - I wish he'd done it in 2002 before those elections. That would have cooked some Bush/Rove goose for REAL.

[leftyladyfrommo]

3. Yea - I'm hoping Clinton keeps this up. He is just the best when

it comes to dealing with Repug. spin.

[blm]

7. Not if it takes FIVE YEARS. The TERROR issue was TOO important to leave

the lies out there for five years.

[RufusEarl]

4. No! Clinton spoke the truth, something Rove can not do.

[oc2002]

17. Thats the true, but Clinton sumed the truth up to in a way that counters

the Rove spin and re-writing of history.

[Avalux]

5. I don't think this was orchestrated.

Clinton knows the deal but has always been a man of diplomacy, hence he doesn't engage in Rove tactics. But after the ABC movie, and further lies, he just couldn't take it anymore and it all came out. That interview with Wallace was supposed to be about his humanitarian efforts and he got blindsided. What we saw was Clinton the man, not the politician, finally unleashing years of pent-up frustration over Republican lousy smear tactics.

Sometimes random things just happen and when they do, it can cause an avalanche of change. I think Clinton speaking out (accidentally) has given other Democrats the motivation and the courage necessary to follow his lead.

[maddezmom]

8. Did you see this link on Ben-Veniste and his convo with * & cheney?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2221584

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE, FMR. 9/11 COMMISSION MEMBER: Good seeing you.

BLITZER: All right. You, in your questioning in your investigation, when you were a member of this commission, specifically asked President Bush about efforts after he was inaugurated on January 20, 2001, until 9/11, eight months later, what he and his administration were doing to kill bin Laden, because by then it was certified, it was authorized. It was, in fact, confirmed that al Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the USS Cole in December of 2000.

BEN-VENISTE: It's true, Wolf, we had the opportunity to interview President Bush, along with the vice president, and we spent a few hours doing that in the Oval Office. And one of the questions we had and I specifically had was why President Bush did not respond to the Cole attack. And what he told me was that he did not want to launch a cruise missile attack against bin Laden for fear of missing him and bombing the rubble (ph).

And then I asked him, "Well, what about the Taliban?" The United States had warned the Taliban, indeed threatened the Taliban on at least three occasions, all of which is set out in our 9/11 Commission final report, that if bin Laden, who had refuge in Afghanistan, were to strike against U.S. interests then we would respond against the Taliban.

BLITZER: Now, that was warnings during the Clinton administration...

BEN-VENISTE: That's correct.

BLITZER: ... the final years of the Clinton administration.

BEN-VENISTE: That's correct.

BLITZER: So you the asked the president in the Oval Office -- and the vice president -- why didn't you go after the Taliban in those eight months before 9/11 after he was president. What did he say?

BEN-VENISTE: Well, now that it was established that al Qaeda was responsible for the Cole bombing and the president was briefed in January of 2001, soon after he took office, by George Tenet, head of the CIA, telling him of the finding that al Qaeda was responsible, and I said, "Well, why wouldn't you go after the Taliban in order to get them to kick bin Laden out of Afghanistan?"

Maybe, just maybe, who knows -- we don't know the answer to that question -- but maybe that could have affected the 9/11 plot.

BLITZER: What did he say?

BEN-VENISTE: He said that no one had told him that we had made that threat. And I found that very discouraging and surprising.

BLITZER: Now, I read this report, the 9/11 Commission report. This is a big, thick book. I don't see anything and I don't remember seeing anything about this exchange that you had with the president in this report.

BEN-VENISTE: Well, I had hoped that we had -- we would have made both the Clinton interview and the Bush interview a part of our report, but that was not to be. I was outvoted on that question.

BLITZER: Why?

BEN-VENISTE: I didn't have the votes.

BLITZER: Well, was -- were the Republican members trying to protect the president and the vice president? Is that what your suspicion is?

BEN-VENISTE: I think the question was that there was a degree of confidentiality associated with that and that we would take from that the output that is reflected in the report, but go no further. And that until some five years' time after our work, we would keep that confidential. I thought we would be better to make all of the information that we had available to the public and make our report as transparent as possible so that the American public could have that.

BLITZER: Now, you haven't spoken publicly about this, your interview in the Oval Office, together with the other commissioners, the president and the vice president. Why are you doing that right now?

more at the link:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0609/25/sitroom.02.html

[Avalux]

11. Wow - thanks.

Air of Confidentiality agreed upon by the 9/11 Commission seems to be dissolving. Not placing blame is obviously out the window; first volley was that horrific ABC movie. Clinton defends himself, now Ben Veniste has given us a glimpse that Bush was indeed clueless - "nobody told me". I hope more comes out; I think it will.

[ProSense]

6. "But Rove is good. And I honor him."

WALLACE: Let’s talk some politics. In that same New Yorker article, you say that you are tired of Karl Rove’s B.S., although I’m cleaning up what you said.

CLINTON: But I do like the — but I also say I’m not tired of Karl Rove. I don’t blame Karl Rove. If you’ve got a deal that works, you just keep on doing it.

WALLACE: So what is the B.S.?

CLINTON: Well, every even-numbered year, right before an election, they come up with some security issue.

In 2002, our party supported them in undertaking weapons inspections in Iraq and was 100 percent for what happened in Afghanistan, and they didn’t have any way to make us look like we didn’t care about terror.

And so, they decided they would be for the homeland security bill that they had opposed. And they put a poison pill in it that we wouldn’t pass, like taking the job rights away from 170,000 people, and then say that we were weak on terror if we weren’t for it. They just ran that out.

This year, I think they wanted to make the questions of prisoner treatment and intercepted communications the same sort of issues, until John Warner and John McCain and Lindsey Graham got in there. And, as it turned out, there were some Republicans that believed in the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions and had some of their own ideas about how best to fight terror.

The Democrats — as long as the American people believe that we take this seriously and we have our own approaches — and we may have differences over Iraq — I think we’ll do fine in this election.

But even if they agree with us about the Iraq war, we could be hurt by Karl Rove’s new foray if we just don’t make it clear that we, too, care about the security of the country. But we want to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, which they haven’t for four years. We want to intensify our efforts in Afghanistan against bin Laden. We want to make America more energy-independent.

And then they can all, if they differ on Iraq, they can say whatever they want on Iraq.

But Rove is good. And I honor him. I mean, I will say that. I’ve always been amused about how good he is, in a way.

But on the other hand, this is perfectly predictable: We’re going to win a lot of seats if the American people aren’t afraid. If they’re afraid and we get divided again, then we may only win a few seats.

http://thinkprogress.org/clinton-interview

[Jacobin]

9. The Big Dog knows how to handle the RW

They tried to destroy him and they failed, miserably.

He is extremely intelligent, steeped in policy knowledge and has charm to get votes.

We don't have a Clinton and we desperately need one.

He came up the hard way, which is why the country club republicans can't stand him. They fear meritocracy, because they know all their little spoiled brats will fail when they get pushed to the big time on family ties and not merit. Viz: George Dumbass Bush.

[ProSense]

10. Unity?

Whitewater, Lewinsky, impeachment:

After Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush in November 1992, the Democrats lost interest in both the ongoing Iran-Contra investigation by special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh and a congressional probe of secret contacts between Republicans and Iranians during the 1980 campaign, known as the “October Surprise” controversy.

On Dec. 24, 1992, Bush struck his own decisive blow against any hope those mysteries would be solved by pardoning six Iran-Contra defendants and drawing only a muted Democratic protest.

Clinton wrote in his 2004 memoirs, My Life, that he “disagreed with the pardons and could have made more of them but didn’t.” Clinton cited several reasons for giving his predecessor a pass.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided, even if that split would be to my political advantage,” Clinton wrote. “Finally, President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the matter between him and his conscience.”

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/031505.html

And now look where we are today!

[Jacobin]

13. Oh, he made a mistake!!!

My gawd, I thought he was perfect. Okay then, nevermind. He's a dumbass and was a crappy president and he should be impeached again posthumously, and then can we dance on his grave?

I mean, WTF, compared to the last five years, I would have thought the contrast was obvious.

[ProSense]

14. "Mistake"?

Agree!

"We don't have a Clinton and we need one."

There are plenty of excellent leaders in the Democratic Party.

As for the rest of your comment: WTF?

[Jacobin]

15. Apparently none who can deal with the RW

effectively enough to win an election

[ProSense]

19. "Dealing effectively with the RW"?

See post 10. Speaking of RW talking points Gore won the election, surpassing Clinton's best by 4 million votes. The Supreme Court aided the RW hacks in Florida handed the election to Bush. Where was Clinton?

[leftyladyfrommo]

12. They are also afraid of him because he is so smart and so fast

on his feet.

He is really a formidable foe. And he needs to be out front all of the time now.

[oc2002]

16. Clinton, does have a talent. DNC should use it.

note to Dean: use Clinton and staff to create talking points and feed them to the MSM to counter the GOP MSM Rove machine.

[cosmicdot]

18. if so ... please slip him this ...

Dear Bill, we can use some help regarding the mid-terms. Everything was riding on a win in 2000 <stolen> ... again, in the mid-terms of 2002 <Senate majority stolen> ... once, again, in 2004 <stolen> ... here we are, now, facing mid-terms in 2006, and everything is at stake <again> ... help save our country and Constitution from further Bu$h-Cheney destruction ...

the margin of victory, I fear, resides in cyberspace ...

what's Karl and his goons doing? crunching numbers or being fitted for their Halliburton Hotel jumpsuits?


The Emergency Paper Ballot Mandate of 2006 - Let America Vote Act

maybe some injunction action against use of the machines for casting and counting the vote might be useful, too - make Karl, George, Dick, Condi, and Donald, et al, sweat

In the (highly recommend btw to see what 'hasn't' changed very much, and as an antithesis to the scorn often posted regarding progressive candidates and the 1972 nomination) 2005 documentary "One Brief Shining Moment - The Forgotten Summer of George McGovern" (firstrunfeatures.com), Gloria Steinem shares the story of having to get an injunction to find out where a supposedly open meeting for selecting convention delegates was being held (in secret) ... and, that was within the Democratic Party!


Tell Congress to Pass the Emergency Paper Ballot Mandate of 2006

In primaries in Ohio, Maryland, California and numerous states across
this nation, Electronic Voting Machines have caused serious problems
at the polls, resulting in long lines, voters turned way from their
polling places, and uncounted or miscounted votes. We must act now to
ensure that every eligible voter can cast a ballot that counts on
November 7.

Because our representatives in Washington are not addressing this
threat to our democracy, netroots activists have drafted the Let
America Vote Act: Emergency Paper Ballot Mandate of 2006.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3502&print=1

This simple piece of proposed legislation mandates every voting
jurisdiction make available emergency paper ballots for the November
7, 2006 general election. These paper ballots will not be provisional
ballots but regular ballots. They can be used by any voter who
requests one - and will be used by every voter in the event of voting
machine failure. These emergency paper ballot votes must be counted
immediately upon the close of polls.

http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/86