Why do so many miss the point of Clintons words?

[NNN0LHI]

The only thing that could save Bush right now is if the Republicans could convince the majority of Americans that due to the elections coming up that the Democrats are just playing politics with the lies of Bush. That is the only rabbit Rove has left to pull out of his hat. Clinton put an end to that BS last night. The more people that hear that clip of Clinton saying what he did the better. It takes the Republicans fire away. They know Bush lied, and they don't need Clinton to tell them so. Whether you want to believe it or not and for for whatever reasons you don't, just wait and see what happens now.

If only DUers were voting I would not say this. Bu we are just a tiny part of the electorate. Sure Clinton did some shit that I did not like too when he was president. But when you weigh the good against the bad he did while president its not even close. And I think most here know that? All Clinton did last night was give himself and the Democratic party more credibility then anyone can imagine. I hope to hear that clip played over and over today on every channel. But don't expect too many Republicans bringing up what Clinton said very much. They will not. It would only be more nails in their coffin. But watch and see how many Dems do because they will. I bet Paul Begala brings it up today on Crossfire and makes a big thing about it too. This is a turning point for our cause. Clinton took the Repubs last hope away last night. Just wait and see.

Don

[Sagan]

1. I was disappointed in Clinton's words..

Looking at it charitably, I could see how Clinton could be making the point that * needs to take responsibility for his mistakes and move on. Not taking responsibility makes Chimpy look bad.

But Bill should know by now that trading in a good "soundbite" argument for a more pedantic one is not the way to go when the media is dominated by the reich-wing.

[magnolia]

35. I think....

...Clinton (like a few others have said) is saying that all Bush needs to do is take responsibility etc...and everything will be just fine. They are safe saying that because they KNOW he's not going to take responsibility. And Clinton of all people knows that too much time has gone by, and it's too late for him to come clean now.

I don't trust Bush because I'm smarter than he is. I trust Clinton because he's smarter...way smarter than I am.

[Galley_Queen]

62. Big Dog Knows What He's Doing

And I agree...he's a hell of a lot smarter than any of us.

I watched Hillary the other night and she basically stuck by her contention that Hussein had WMD's and they would probably still be found.

I didn't 'like' hearing her say that, and I sure didn't like her voting for giving the Squatter free reign to attack Iraq. But....

Clinton and staff WARNED Smirk about Bin Forgotten and Hussein. He (and Hillary) can't go back on that now.

Wait and see what next comes from Clinton. I smell a 'check mate' coming soon.

[mac56]

2. Don, I really want to believe you're right.

But like another poster said on another thread, it feels like our star player kicked a field goal for the other team.

[NNN0LHI]

5. Sports anology

Did you ever see a football team give the other team 2 points by taking a safety and still win the game by one point because they prevented the other team from getting a touchdown?

Don

[NewYorkerfromMass]

21. Very good analogy

100% correct. WE ARE the better team.

[tomp]

54. bad analogy

the analogy might hold if there were some indication of dems' ability or inclination to actually put points on the scoreboard. we allow the safety and lose 2-0, we still lose. the dems have missed so many opportunities, been so unable/unwilling to advance the ball that to trust that they will ever score again, or that the repubs won't keep scoring, is a really bad bet.

[peace4all]

60. unfortunately, your analolgy seems closer to the truth

"our" team seems to be quite adept at fumbling the ball.

[tomp]

78. fumbling? yeah, and tackling our own guys. nt

[CWebster]

3. its embarrassing

the groveling.

[BurtWorm]

32. What groveling?

[bushisanidiot]

4. I agree. The Repukes will fall all over themselves trying to

not take advice, suggestions, congrats, or condolences from President Clinton. They hate him so much they want to do the opposite of whatever he advises. If President Clinton praises the repukes it will only frustrate them and push them more to the right... losing them votes in '04.

I say President Clinton is brilliant! :)

[hang a left]

48. I made a similar post

last night on another thread. And I woke up this morning thinking, you know we have alot of people (Dean for one) keeping the issue out in the open. I think that is why noone is attacking Dean right now from the other camps, because he is doing everyone's politically dangerous dirty work. Love Ya Bill. Now that is who I would love to see able to run in 04

[blm]

6. I believe you're right, Don.

Big picture trumps details. Unfortunate, but, true.

[Cha]

7. I hope you are right!! I'm not too good at politics ( the politics of

saying one thing that seems so blatant to achieve quite another intended result!

I do know I went to bed thinking about the things Clinton said and woke up thinking about it! So I'm quite happy to have this version to ponder! :-)

[ArkDem]

8. That speech won't even be remembered by most in less than

a month. Sixteen months is an eternity in politics.

[jonnyblitz]

13. and some of us never heard it to begin with.

so your theory is probably correct!!! :hi: (what speech??)

[CWebster]

17. go here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=66028&mesg_id=66028&page=2

And follow link to breaking news.

[madfloridian]

9. Ask the families of the dead military if it was a "mistake."

I noticed his words being used on CNN this morning. I felt sick inside. Many of the House democrats are starting to speak up now, and he just pulled the rug out.

Bush did not make a mistake. It has a name. It is called a lie. I don't care what Clinton calls it, and it makes me question more about him now.

Never in my life have I been so concerned about our country, and the fact that we are trying to excuse what he said is so sad. There is no excusing a leader who takes a country on an invasion of another based on lies.

[madrchsod]

10. you mean

*******? last night alot of people compared ******* to ****..i guess this is the new party line... yes ,alot of people last night missed the point of - dare i print his name?- words. at least some understood the meaning of the words he used in context ..honesty..honor,does bush have honor,is he a honest man? oh ,well the line has been drawn here....

[Trek234]

11. You know you people

sound just like the freepers talking about how Bush has some grand scheme right now with all the reports about the lies and all they have to do is wait and it will all be revealed to them.

Clinton screwed us BAD. Admit it. This was no accident, and it is no scheme that we just have to "just wait and see" for it all to be revealed to us.

[ima_sinnic]

12. can someone fill me in please?

somehow between working and then going to bed early I missed what Clinton said and only heard about it this morning on the car radio when Neal Boortz said gloatingly that "Clinton backed up Bush on the Niger thing"--wtf?? what's going on? sorry to be so out of it--whatever it is, Boortz is spinnning it to mean Clinton supports B*sh's lies--something I just refuse to believe.

Is there a link to the remarks or to a DU discussion?

[Q]

14. ENOUGH of these excuses for...

...those who betray America and the Democratic party.

- Clinton should be ashamed...and so should those who excuse his complicity in helping the Bushies cover up their crimes.

[starscape]

15. I'm afraid that what you heard wasn't spinning too far..

Clinton pretty much did back up Bush, at least from what I've read. I wish he had at least qualified his statements with something about accountability.

I mean, part of the reason I've really supported all these frontal attacks is because of what the pukes did to Clinton. Now, to read this, just has me wondering, WTF.. Not sure what to make of this. Here's a link to a CNN story:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/index.html

[ima_sinnic]

18. thank you--wtf?

this gives credence to the theory buried in one of these DU threads that Clinton is just trying to cause dissension among Democrats and mess up the 2004 election so B*shit gets "re-elected," so that Hillary can run and supposedly win in 2008. Hate to admit it but I'm growing increasingly disenchanted with Bill Clinton.

[bearfartinthewoods]

58. i got to hear it every hour on the hour

on the local radio station's newsbreak.

just lovely.......

[TacticalPeek]

16. OurCountryIsBetterThanThis

you're exactly right, ArkDem...and the football safety analogy is deadon NNNOLHI.

Clinton should not do anything in public to push aWol on any of this; it will just energize aWol's base (now getting spooked).

lately their big talking point is "politicizingblahblah", and now the Big Dog gives Sean and Rush a chance to come put their arm around him bigtime, help save their prez...how they're gonna play this without stepping into a nasty tiger pit will be fun to watch.

plus, words from Bill to encourage media/grassroots pressure are totally unnecessary...the steam is building and needs no help from him.

i think it's a brilliant move frankly, and helps me understand how frustrating it was for newt et al. to negotiate with the Man. they were always three moves behind and would leave the room wondering "now, how is it that my head wound up in my hand?".

[NewYorkerfromMass]

34. Good points. nt

[oasis]

19. That sounds reasonable enough to me.(eom)

+

[Armstead]

20. Once again, Clintonism disappoints

"Go away all you pesky war critics. We must let Bush off the hook on this one, Find a better issue to make a contrast, like,like....uh, uh."

Clinton could have been gracious and covered his own butt without letting Bush off the hook. But noooooooo.

The only way to deal with the GOP is with their own medicine. What the Clintonites keep glossing over is that even if Clinton were to say George Bush is the greatest president we've had," the GOP and their "moranic" followers would not see Clinton as being gracious or anything else -- they will continue to see him a demonic, and they will continue to see the Democrats as partisan spoilsports.

The only way to fight back is to BE partisan.

[madfloridian]

22. CNN uses it to full advantage..... a lot.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/

[Bandit]

23. Sounds like child psychology to me

If Bush* is getting congratulated by Clinton he must be doing something wrong. If Bush* is doing what Clinton wants then the right will re-think their position on Bush*. This will goad Bush* to go even farther in his frantic attempts to undo everything Clinton. Praise them and they know they are doing something wrong.

[jobycom]

24. They want Clinton to be partisan, and he's above that, so they are disappo

Disappointed.

Clinton said exactly what a statesman and a former leader of the nation should say. If you read the transcript, he wasn't praising or agreeing with Bush, he was just saying we should move on, and worry about what's happening in Iraq now. Which, of course, is not going to help Bush any.

Clinton has class. We are just not used to seeing that from politicians. Our highest leaders bicker and backstab continuously, and never offer a positive reason to work together. It has warped some of us so much that all we want to hear is pathetic, impotent whining about how mean Bush is. Clinton, as former leader of the free world, and the best president of the last two millenia, responded for the sake of our world image, not for the sake of his party. Sadly, that upsets some people whose political ideology seems to have gotten in the way of their political ideology.

Or rather, they have forgotten that people who are being killed in Iraq don't care whether the president doing it lied to do it, they just want it to stop. Bush won't be impeached-- it's only happened twice, and both times when the other guys held Congress. They didn't even impeach Reagan, and he was clearly guilty of treason. His own party won't impeach Bush, and the media won't let the people know enough to demand it.

We won't win by waving a magical impeachment wand. We will only win by convincing people that we are right, and only in November. Clinton is simply refusing to sink to name-calling in a losing battle. It's why he was so good as president-- he chose his battles, and even won something when he retreated. By focussing attention on what's happening in Iraq now, Clinton is damning Bush far more than claiming that he lied in the SOTU would do.

[Armstead]

26. There's a difference --

Clinton can be non-partisan and above the fray -- but he can do it without screwing the Democrats and undercutting all of the issues in the process.

A simple "I would rather not comment on my successor's handling of the Iraq issue" would suffice.

But Clinton had to go the extra mile and basically killed the issue of hpw we got into this war in the process.

[jobycom]

67. I don't think he did

He commented only on the inclusion of the Niger documents in the SOTU. All his comments kill is an already dead case. Bushed killed that issue when he killed the Hussein boys, if not before. On the evidence as it stands, nothing is impeachable, nothing is going to happen. Clinton would have looked disgraceful if he attacked Bush on rumors and assumptions, rather than the evidence.

If more comes out, either about what Bush knew on the Niger documents or about more falsified evidence, then we can pursue that. But as it stands, based on what has been demonstrated (and therefore all Clinton should be commenting on), this one bit of evidence in a whole pile of evidence was disputed by our CIA and supported by British intel, so Bush used it. It didn't start the war, it wasn't the deciding factor, it didn't cause all the atrocities. It was just evidence used as rhetoric.

I'm not defending Bush or his use of it, by the way; only Clinton's rather offhand comments during an interview that many here seem not to have heard or read. Bush is a lying piece of garbage. The "sixteen words" were carefully crafted to be defensible when the truth about the documents came out-- technically stating something that could linguistically be construed as true, not unlike Clinton's "sexual relations" answer. That to me proves he knew it was a lie. And since it was a lie, it proves Bush was more interested in making a case for invading than in determining whether there was a case for invading, which to me means he knew there wasn't. All that should be investigated and pursued.

But Clinton couldn't comment on assumptions, only on what is known. So far, Bush has covered it up well.

[CWebster]

27. This is sickining

why the hell didn't they give Nixon a pass for a far lesser crime?

What is, IS. Stop with the pathetic, contortions to distort the reality, only to preserve your own illusions. How many times will you have to be kicked in the teeth before you recognize it as being kicked in the teeth and not dental surgery?

[jobycom]

64. I'm not sure whether you are

criticizing my post, or agreeing with it by criticizing those who are dwelling on the "sixteen words"...

But on the Nixon comparison, you ask why Nixon wasn't given a pass on a less serious crime. You are confusing the "crime" with the bigger picture. Nixon's crime was serious, as was his coverup. Bush's "crime" as it has been demonstrated to this point was to use false data to make his case for war. Even the data is still being disputed-- our CIA says it's false, the British intelligence still says it's true, as Clinton pointed out. So it is not even yet a case of Bush lying so much as using questionable data.

The war was atrocious, and to my mind illegal, and he should be impeached and imprisoned for treason and war crimes for it. But the specific case on which Clinton commented-- the Niger documents and their use to make the case for that war in the State of the Union-- is a minor thing, by itself. It may be symptomatic of a larger pattern of lies-- and I think we all agree that it is-- but by itself on the surface, it is no more than Bush trusting British intelligence rather than the CIA on one issue.

I believe there is much more to the story than that. I believe Bush lied throughout to make his case, and that even if his entire case were true to invasion was an atrocity that should be punished. I believe we should continue to investigate to see what Bush knew, when he knew it, and how much he lied about.

But I also believe it is not the place of a former president or a world leader to attack for partisan gain. Without the partisan suspicions, this is one detail of a much larger case for war, and so far it isn't proven that Bush even lied about that detail, so much as that he relied on the wrong authorities. If more is proven, then Clinton can go after him. But if this is all we've got, we'd better not be buying furniture for the White House just yet.

Clinton was not attacked by Bush Daddy, Reagan, Ford or Nixon while he was in office. He was attacked by the Repubs, though, to the point where they were determined to oppose everything he did. Because of that, no one listened to his warnings about Hussein or Bin Laden-- all for political reasons. Without the partisan bickering last decade, Bin Laden may not have become so entrenched and powerful, and Hussein may not have believed our attention was divided, and might have cooperated more. That bickering led to massive tragedy in this decade, both here and in Afghanistan and Iraq. No one is more aware of that than Clinton. So I'm proud of him for not fueling the fire until there is actually a fire. We have enough politicians. Not enough statesmen.

[tomp]

84. have you considered...

...that this niger story is first real story of bush's corrupt nature to make any kind of splah in the press, to stick at all?

i agree that in the end it may prove to be small potatos but isn't it possible that the investigation into what actually happened would reveal other problems, such as: it wasn't really hadley or tenet but rice or rumsfeld or cheney or bush himself. i mean, the official story is full of holes. maybe it would link to other lies, distortions, deceptions. this could only be good.

why let bush off the ropes when we just got him there? it still doesn't make sense to me (except in the covering his own ass sense in the post above).

[CWebster]

99. Sorry ,endless verbage

doesn't excuse the obvious need to spin it both ways. The credibility of the US is at stake and Clinton worries that he may be in some way tarnished.

The Repug spin and smear machine is going full steam ahead and Clinton seems to shoveling coal. Republican congressman on Hardball is lauding Clinton with appreciative remarks...just like y'all.

[blm]

31. True...and too many of us are desperate

for our side to act as badly as the GOP do in regard to the politics of an issue, when there are times when statesmanship is NECESSARY. Someone needs to focus on the real WORK that has to be done to help the people of Iraq who are suffering NOW. Bush is failing miserably at that, and Clinton directing the focus on that issue is being a WORLD leader.

[CafeToad]

25. Wow - so it's win-win for Clinton and the democrats!

Your point, plus

covering his own ass for the repeated bombings of civilians in Iraq and the sanctions that killed at least 500,000.

I will never, ever again doubt that this guy is a masterful genius!!

[starscape]

29. Good point.

Maybe we shouldn't be so surprised, nor should we be giving this guy as much credit as Dems tend to do.

He was a political superstar, but when you get down to it, Clinton is on some shaky ground for his own actions in reference to Iraq..

[jobycom]

63. Yeah, that's a very good point

Clinton is invested in the outcome of this. Whether it is because he just knows stuff that we can't know, or whether he is deluding himself because of his actions, his opinion will be slanted by his past actions.

I don't like "me too" posts in general, but yours was so well said it deserved an extra flag beneath it.

[robbedvoter]

28. Best spin: It won't help W any.

But it's justifying mediawhores to lie and cover and undermining the opposition. And it's morally wrong. A preemptive action was taken - based on BS. That's no 16 words - it's an international crime - with thousands of victims.

[starscape]

30. Fox News on the story? You betcha..

It's funny.. Fox News has been almost ignoring the entire flap this week, kind of "ignoring it out of existence.."

But suddenly they've got Clinton front and center.. never mind it was a CNN show... They're happy to parade Clinton under the headline: "Clinton: Uranium Claims Acceptable"

..man it ticks me off... I bet the freepers are high-fivin' each other, too. Spin this all you want, this makes the Dem candidates look bad and it steals a lot of momentum from the Dems as a whole.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

37. It doesn't make the Dems look bad

it makes us look good. Incl. the candidates.
I notice the freepers aren't talking about this. A good indication that Bill has tripped them up... BIG TIME!

[NNN0LHI]

43. Oh.So FOX news is now vouching for Clintons credibility as a truth teller?

Man, that is terribe. I am almost crying. Almost. :-)

Don

[bunnyhop]

33. That is pure BS

I'm sick of hearing all these mind games about how helping the repugs will help the dems. Clinton is just another gutless coward that won't fight. We saw that when he was in the WH. He was constantly on the defensive over monicagate.

[Khephra]

36. It's not the point of what he said

Which was bad enough. It's 1) the fact he didn't need to say them and 2) the uses that the GOP can find for just snips of his comments.

Bill should have known better.

[Khephra]

38. Hell, without using Bill's name

It seems like Wolfowitz is on the same wavelength as Bill.

He just said that we make stupid mistakes from time to time, and that others keep looking to see what sort of a plot is behind it all. (paraphrased, of course)

Yep, the defense is now "We make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes."

[NewYorkerfromMass]

42. "...the GOP use snips of his comments" !!??!!

Yeah right. The people who say: "how do you know Bill Clinton is lying?...(you know the rest)"

Bill has just heaped a big pile of dung on them. He's saying: "O.K. let's move on, sure Bush lied, (or is an incompetent boob) but today is a new day".

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

39. Knowing Clinton, you may be stating the obvious.

Here's my thoughts from another similar post:

1) Trust in Bill--that he knows more about the political machine than anyone else out there. He has access to polls and he's a political genius. He may be seeing something politically 5 moves ahead that this argument is leading us towards. He may want to get us out of the way.

2) This could be a presidential candidate's "Sister Soulja" moment. This candidate could distnace himself from Clinton. This candidate could call for the truth, express distaste for same-old, same-old Washington equivocation. He could say that it's time to quit playing word games, that it's time to be up front, to take responsibility. In other words, it's a way to paint Bush as Clinton by using Clinton himself, especially since Clinton inserted himself into the situation.

Just imagine: "With all do respect to President Clinton, some of us are tired of the word games coming out of Washington. Not everything's about politics. Sometimes, it's about right and wrong, about telling the truth and playing with the truth. Sometimes, especially in war, it's about life and death. Some of you may think it's about "gotcha" politics. This isn't about someone's personal indescretion. It's about our men and women sent off to war and our REPRESENTATIVE government potentially being misled."

[starscape]

45. If he's working the machine, that could be bad too..

I'm not buying it yet.. but if he is working the political machine, astutely playing a strategy.. then that could just lend credence to the idea that he does want Bush to win in '04 so that his wife will be the top candidate in '08.

You don't make it to the presidency by being honest or dumb. I'm sure he's working an angle somewhere, but there's no guarantee it's in our best interests...

[ninkasi]

40. Don, please help me here...

I read what Clinton said, and from the transcript, it says

I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying, Well, we probably shouldn't have said that. And I think we ought to focus on where we are and what the right thing to do for Iraq is now. That's what I think.

I took that to mean that Clinton was giving Bush credit for admitting a mistake, not for using the dubious material in the first place. I'm not as astute as my fellow DU'ers, so could you kinda explain to me why my interpretation has been so different?

I took it as a rather tongue-in-cheek statement giving credit for admitting ANY mistake, rather than saying the lie was ok.

[NNN0LHI]

47. Bush has never admitted any mistake. Now or ever. Never will either n/t

[diplomats]

49. That's the impression I'm under

People need to read the transcript.

[sangha]

69. "focus on where we are...

and what the right thing to do for Iraq is now"

Think about that. Do you think it will help Bush* if people focus on what's going on in Iraq right now?

Do you think it will help Bush* if people focus on what we should be doing in Iraq (as compared to what we actually are doing)?

Clinton's a political genius.

[CWebster]

100. Whats going on now

Studies released say there is a "closing window of opportunity" in Iraq, but all we hear is the spin about how everything is going great. Focusing on the situation as it truly exists rarely rises to the surface.

[Isome]

41. Interesting

This is an interesting alternative perspective.

[Walt Starr]

44. I, for one, will never defend Clinton again

Spin it however you like, Clinton just stabbed the Democratic Party in the back.

Fuck him.

[bpilgrim]

46. it's only 'politics' we all just take it too seriously

:evilgrin:

i have always said that the dem party is pretty much on board with REGIME CHANGE as official U.S. policy for iraq so why would we expect clinton or any other big DLC dem to say differently.

dems may have differed on how to achieve it, they usually prefer to starve the people and the occasional air strike where repugs prefer the military option most of the time to get OUR way.

now once you understand that, you begin to realize the challenge that we face if we really want to see change here at home but the sooner we face that challenge directly the more likely we are to succeed instead of spinning in circles and endless debate about what the politicos think and say.

but i am comforted by the fact that the people usually WIN at the end of the day... even though there may be many dark days in between.

peace

[tomp]

51. agree 100% on the dems being part of the problem.

disagree on the optimism. from the look of this board there are still far too many who see the dems as saviors.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

91. part of the problem? Yes. Saviors? No. Better than repubs? Yes

And Clinton clearly let us and his country down. I couldn't begin to guess at his motivation.

[diplomats]

50. Also Don

Hillary supports an investigation into the Iraq intelligence. I saw an article linked on buzzflash where she made that remark in Buffalo. Sounds to me like the two of them know what they're doing. And I don't care if the media plays the clip. If the Repukes embrace Clinton now for saying this (and they must be desperate if they need to rely on their hated enemy for "support"), what are they going to do when he says something critical? Suddenly diss him?

[LiberalLibra]

52. PEOPLE: There are a variety of ways to call a person a liar and Clinton...

.....managed to do so in a mannerly tactful way. Now, what the crap is wrong with that??

Keep one thing in mind people, Clinton can deal one-on-one with any world leader and Bush can't. That alone should tell everyone something.

[tomp]

53. this is an example of the other shadow government.

the one where the dems have some secret plan that none of us are privy to unless we're really good at reading tea leaves or have a functioning crystal ball handy. what looks like black is really white, votes for war are really votes against war, etc.

sorry, don't buy it. the time for secrets is long over. if clinton or any of the white knights knows something, has a plan, i want to know too. otherwise i have to judge the book by its cover, and this is one ugly dust jacket.

[TacticalPeek]

55. OurCountryIsBetterThanThis

I'm sorry, but I think some of you are just missing it.

As an ex-prez, whatcha gonna do? You can be silent or almost silent, a la Carter. Only speak up at what you deem is a crucial juncture, like JC did last year calling for UN and Congressional approval during the early Bush jihad, and speak carefully.

Or, you could not be silent. Then the question is what to say, what approach to take. Maybe some of you would like to have heard WJC say something along the lines of "It appears that the White House was making decisions based on cooked intelligence. I'm not saying that the President lied, it's just that we need to know all the facts, and Congress needs to exercise it's oversight duty, war powers and everything, and have a full, public inquiry to get all the facts out there and let the people make their own judgement." That sounds to me like the way President Stupid would go if he lacked minders.

What that would do is jack up the RW base, which I truly believe is starting to get a nice cold sweat going (see Smokin Joe yesterday on the Vulgar Pig Boy not liking casualties being reported...weird and dumb!). And to give those creeps even a straw to hold on to is the absolutely very last thing any of us should want to do. Going oppo would inflame the media for days, sucking air out of dem candidate space, spiking talk radio, etc.

Some of you, your position seems to imply that the Big Dog is seeking approval from Sean and WSJ, etc. Gimme a break. He ain't forgot. He's just peaking at them from the tall grass, and they probably didn't even see it.


He's sorta saying "move on" about the 16wd, but that particular bit now has it's own life support system: potential criminal activity and at least an investigation (No Way that's not "persued"). And "move on" sure, to the mess in iraq, and the Many Other Damn Serious Offenses they pulled in the mislead up to the unnecessary war (and since, it just keeps getting better-now Durbin and Hadley).

If this whole deal could be "skipped by" from either Clinton or aWol saying "let it go and let's move on", then it ain't that much of a deal. But worry not. This is real stuff, unstoppable by any spin, too many rocks rolling down the hill toward that usurper. Bill was telling aWol and his crew that having been there, he knows where those rocks will stop.

However, I do think that he should probably go back to silent mode for a while and let things cook. Yummy.

[CafeToad]

59. Some of you, your position seems to imply that the Big Dog

is seeking approval from Sean and WSJ, etc.

I submit that may be exactly what he's doing, it wouldn't be the first time!!

Here are a few snippets from the decision process for one of Clinton's bombing episodes against Iraq:


By late June, the White House had lost any semblance of control over the media debate, and it was widely known among Washington journalists that the F.B.I.'s final report would conclude that Iraq and Saddam Hussein himself were directly involved in the assassination attempt. "FOR THE PRESIDENT, IT'S DECISION TIME ON ATTACKING IRAQ," a Wall Street Journal headline announced on June 23rd. The story stated, correctly, "Within the next few days, a confidential report will hit President Clinton's desk, pushing him toward one of the toughest decisions of his young presidency: whether to order new military action against Iraq." In discussing the President's options, the article noted, "There are few actions against Iraq that would arouse strong domestic opposition, and little reason to think Iraqi air defenses yet pose much of a deterrent."

(snip)


Three of the million-dollar missiles missed their target and landed on nearby homes, killing eight civilians, including Layla al-Attar, one of Iraq's most gifted artists. The death toll was considered acceptable by the White House;

(snip)

The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post were among the many newspapers that praised the President's firm leadership in the aftermath of the bombing of Baghdad and his willingness to send potential adversaries a message of American resolve. "Mr. Clinton is learning on the job," the Journal said.

more . . .

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02

[blm]

61. Applause from this sideline.

ABSOFUCKINLUTELY!

[bearfartinthewoods]

56. i'm dizzy....so dizzy....everything is spining around and around.......n/t

[TacticalPeek]

57. now you know how newt felt...

look for a safe place to fall...

[sangha]

65. It's Liberal Fundamentalism

Just as the religious fundamentalists believe that the Bible should be interpreted literally, and only literally, so too do many liberals believe that a politicians words should be interpretted literally, and only literally.

[Lexingtonian]

66. Yep, that's it

A lot of the sledgehammer-wielding dullards here don't recognize that Bill is most excellent at undermining Republican claims, that he's always three steps ahead and cutting off escape routes when they have untenable positions.

My dad is still in awe of him moving his offices to Harlem when Giuliani and other NYC Republicans criticized the Upper West Side location and rent of his initial plans. It was a total PR victory for Clinton within the Five Boroughs- they haven't dared even acknowledge his existence since. (Classy people that they are, they attack Hillary instead.)

This particular one is pretty deadly. Once the Republican party line about Bush's lie goes to "understandable mistake" their tacit infallibility claim about him becomes mockable. And the attack route on the 'understandable' part is strong, too.

[TacticalPeek]

68. DeadOn

now the task goes to "let's understand this mistake"...hmmm, oh, is there a pattern...what about x? now let's look at y? have you heard about z?

aWol himself should be the final task, after the legs of his supporters are cut off at the knees, and he's alone and cornered.

the time will come to strike the king, but first there will be many appetizer courses...yummy.

[Pepperbelly]

74. A challenge to the Clinton detractors ...

I dare you to name one, just ONE person who has kicked as much republican ass as Bill Clinton. Go back as far as FDR and Truman. Since those titans, no one, since 1950, has given the gop more heartburn than BC.

He is the MASTER of kicking republican ass and he always does it in such a way that nobody gets mad or offended EXCEPT the republicans.

If you think that you are more sophisticated or better at dealing with the electorate, I suggest that you check yourself carefully because compared to BC, you are in the minors.

[CafeToad]

75. Well, for starters

Anyone who did NOT lose both the House and Senate during their administration . . .

on edit

Not that it was necessary Clintons fault (with the VRWC in play, and all that), but still, just how formidable was he to have allowed that to happen?

And why was he continually duped by the republican-leaning CIA on foreign policy matters?

[Pepperbelly]

77. there isn't one of those because ...

no Democrat since Truman and FDR EXCEPT Clinton held office for two terms.

And do you really think your political judgement is better?

[CafeToad]

88. Clinton was completely ham-strung by the republicans

During the first two years of his administration, largely due to two huge miscalculations - by giving attention to the gays in the military issue, and by appointing Hillary to develop a health care plan. While both initiatives were unquestionably worthwhile, neither reached fruition, AND they completely negated any 'honeymoon' period to allow other accomplishments to occur.

Then, during his last two years, the whole MonicaGate episode made him essentially impotent as president. Once again, not his fault, but this time period can hardly be considered an to be a time when republican ass was being kicked. Quite the contrary, it set Gore up to be to afraid to be associated with Clinton's accomplishments, and was probably the largest of many factors that cost him the rightful occupancy of the White House.

edited for spelling (ugh, I've had enough posting for one day already, I guess)

[bpilgrim]

79. thats easy

JFK

peace

[Pepperbelly]

82. sorry ... nope ...

A thousand days was all he had and while JFK is a demigod to me, he just didn't kick nearly as much republican ass. He kicked them until it hurt but Bill kicked them enough that they STILL hurt from it. :D And that image pleases me to no end.

Everytime they see him, their ass hurts.

And maybe that explains why they hate him so much.

Everytime they see him, their ass hurts. :D

[bpilgrim]

86. ah... well maybe we need to define 'kicking ass' - lol

remember that it has been said that "Bill Clinton was the BEST republican president we've ever had"

so, please show me where he has caused serious and lasting republican pain.

remember JFK caused so much pain they took him out...

peace

[Pepperbelly]

89. please ...

it is goofy to argue over clinton vs. kennedy. You may carry on at will but I will refrain. The point is that Bill Clinton has forgotten more about kicking gop ass than the collective memory of everyone on this board and if you want to substitute your judgement for his and call yours more sophisticated or effective, then again, be my guest.

[bpilgrim]

92. you brought it up

"You may carry on at will but I will refrain."

:shrug:

peace

[bpilgrim]

71. HEY, i resemble that remark!

"lot of the sledgehammer-wielding dullards here..."

:P

but seriously...

if i was a smart politico why wouldn't i call the smirk a liar or worse carry his water for him?

because of some bizzar FUTURE plan to put them 'on-the-ropes' when thats exactly where we got them now?

i don't get it, but as you say some of us are 'dullards' so i guess that was obvious ;-)

need a little help over here...

:hi:

peace

[TheDonkey]

70. Clinton needs to be more vocal about Bush.

I don't think Clinton stabbed us in the back for saying what he said on Larry King but he needs to use his popularity and name to help the Dems... not Bob Dole.

I was more upset on how he took the time to kiss Dole on the cheek than to really get out there in the news and talk about the economy, talk about progressive issues, talk about Iraq. Even Gore has done 100% more than Clinton on being a loud and proud democrat, Clinton has been acting as if he could care less now he's out of office.

[Starpass]

72. It turned up on Crossfire alright and Novak shoved it up the Dems asses

....and that's why people are reacting as they are. This is the way pandering by Dems ALWAYS ends up and then the repukes blame everything on planet earth on them as a nice "thank you for your support". I have given Clinton a lot of the benefit of the doubt but this put me over the edge. I didn't want to admit it to myself before but I now do think that the Clintons want the Dems to lose in '04 to set up a run of Hilary in '08 and it scares me to think that their handpicked buddy, Terry, is the head of the DNC. This was once to many, Bill,...it really was.

[bpilgrim]

73. woah, starpass! if i didn't know better...

you are startin to sound like a 'RADICAL' ;-)

:hi:

peace

[Starpass]

81. bpilgrim---I'd give my ass (and that's a lot to give) to put a little

"radical" into some democrats!!! I mean, the Clintons now have all the money they could ever want and will get much more; why the hell can't he make his remarks a bit more stinging...in other words remarks that repukes absolutely do not want to play over and over again as "support" for their boy. If the repukes took the "remarks" the way they did so that they wanted to hae this played over and over today, then wake up Dems; i.e., it WAS a real shit on all the progess the Dems have made on this issue. Goddamnit, the repukes could not have found a better henchman to start quelling the stirrings that are now going on in America. As people have stated here: Bill is the greatest politician (political keen mind) in the nation. And, now, I sadly believe he is using it against his own party and for the promotion of Hil in '08. I think he has no particular love for the Dems because many of them desserted in during impeachment. I saw him "manage" the blacks in this nation who still adore him and yet did a lot of pulling the carpet out from under them while still smiling at them. I believe he does have it "in him" to do this and now I see on the news that "some Dems" (don't know which ones) are today saying that "Clinton was wrong" in his remarks. I don't blame them for being bullshitted. He's playing a game with America just as dangerous as the one Bush is playing; and whether he knows it or not, Hil won't get elected 'cause she's too controversial.

[bpilgrim]

85. lol

and i hear ya, the tradition is not to comment on the current policies of the succeeding administration UNLESS you agree with them and want to PROMOTE THEM.

i don't think anyone is saying that he had to come right out and call him a LIAR, wouldn't be diplomatic and all but it was a PERFECT OPPROTUNITY to sow more seeds of doubt in this administrations ability to lead and possibly the inherent FLAWS of the radical right neo-con strat.

but what do we know, we are just the pesants ;-)

:hi:

peace

[Feanorcurufinwe]

93. Hil

"Hil won't get elected 'cause she's too controversial."

So obvious it's amazing how it is always glossed over by everyone. I would love for her to be the first woman president but it just ain't gonna happen.

[ScreamingMeemie]

76. I am sorry, but that is a stretch. The Democrats did enough pandering,

thank you certain Democratic candidates at the beginning of the farce in Iraq. There is no political strategy in a world with a blue sky that should cause an ex-President with a successful 8 year term behind him to play with the other side.

Sorry, I think it's wishful thinking.

This, plainly spoken, disgust me more that Monica and a cigar ever could have.

[Sweetpea]

80. He said all presidents make mistakes

Maybe he is setting Bush up to admit that this war was a mistake and it's time to fess up.

[TacticalPeek]

90. Precismo...

take a nice breath, shed baggage if possible, and try this:

look at the effect on the real world of these current cycles. what has been the repugs latestbiggest talking point banger? "politics", politicizing, "all them lebentyleben little pissant dem candidates on him like that, is why his numbers are down", etc. and that's saying: c'mon, let's get back to that 51-49 wedge that was so good for us, everybody back on their side on the line (and scared), WE need this to be "politics", it's worked every time, right? Gives them a perfect sniping position on the 9 + 1 dems. And really, this is their ONLY hope i can see: if they somehow successfully force enough folks back to their sleep in political disgust.

Clinton's statement smokes over that, but still leaves the barbs and missles coming. Watch there be less and less of that talk, because the lines are freeing up. McCain and Hagle calling for investigations? Clinton feeling sorry for poor Stupid? HehHehHeh...

The thing he's done is kept things out in the center of the river flow, away from snags and eddies along the banks. It keeps this floating on track with a little swish of the hand you can hardly detect. Man, he's good. Just another swish or two and you can imagine Bob Dole agreeing quietly on air with the Man: "That's right, Mr. President. We always looked into things like this when you and I were in office. At least that's always been my view."

[ScreamingMeemie]

101. Still a stretch, still rose colored glasses. This is reprehensible...

and if it were true, most people wouldn't get it...Sorry

[dpbrown]

83. Hell, yeah!

Clinton knows exactly what the Republicans are capable of, and he headed them off in their tracks with his statement.

Every day I'm alive, I thank goodness for the best President of my lifetime.

[Trek234]

87. From Free Republic

"Did you read his comments last night. I was shocked. Clinton was actually making sense. I think it was a body double."

[Rose Siding]

95. But wait til it hits 'em

Bush 'made a mistake' (OK, no, but if everyone in the could sit a modem for a month we could explain it to them) so:

Bush made a mistake.
Bush 'erred'
Bush 'screwed up'

It happens, we say magnanamously. Then, when there's a consensus:

But hey, he never really copped to that did he?
Never 'owned up' did he?
Never took responsibility, did he?

So what was the screw up? (how bad could it be?) IRAQ. Americans are still dying. Americans are still paying.

Well THAT's a hell of a 'mistake'

[Dont B bush N Me]

94. Funny how the bar is always lowered with this corrupt pResident.

Interesting how Clinton was held to his lies but Bush is allowed to slide on his!? Now even by Clinton!!! Go figure. Until Democrats start playing hardball with these corrupt corporation pandering money grubbing liar dominated Republican's Democrats will be in the minority.

[TacticalPeek]

96. waitwaitwait

' is allowed to slide on his!? Now even by Clinton!!!

you kidding? SLIDE?! aWol is headed for the baddest whupping one can possibly imagine, the one he's deserved all his life and never got!

first, he'll watch everyone around him turn to hell-fired crispy critters, all the way up through Cheney. that will be plenty of horror, and it's already in the cards. then we'll decide what to do with poor him. it is not unlike what saddam's sons just went through, only non-violent as befits our constitution and nature.

Even by Clinton? What Clinton slid him was a topical anesthetic for the sting of "You made a mistake" sticking to him in a way aWol and his supporters have No Way to counter.

Next shoe, please...yummy, these crispy critters are delish...

[oasis]

98. There is much wisdom in your post Tactical Peak.....welcome to DU

:hi:

[TacticalPeek]

103. thanks and thanks, oasis

watching hardball now on tape and flicking cnbc capitol rpt/cnn etc.

ain't seeing much traction at all for the usurper's minions...they trot it out, toss it around like a joke they heard that day, then it's Right Back on track! praise the lord! rep Gary Ackerman is real real good on cap rpt, handles the shouted interruptions from Drier just great, even ends it under the outshouts with something like "see how you like it when we get this president under oath and see how he does"...

Every time they bring it up it naturally brings up the SOTU! Fantastic...amazing. I hadn't even realized that gleaming facet: they can't bring up Clinton's remarks without bringing up SOTU and all the questions that trails off into...Go ahead on, twits; how many more times do you want to say "State of the Union"? Until people start to realize what those four words mean? Watch out!

And speaking of the usurper's minions, how bout last sunday's talk shows? White House troops = zero. Wow.
Anybody else notice that, did i miss someone (Bremer don't count)? Zzzzero White House on Sunday Talk, in these cycles.

Guess it's a very complicated set of stories dumped on poor Mary Matalin to try to herd; better lay low. On kkk, Larry Kudlow and Mary toss them dems in a little bit, but they seem tired and bored, strained really, and would rather chat tax cuts and the (whoops, larry) economy. Really starting to go, riiiiigghht.

love it.

[CWebster]

97. This pathetic rationale,this groveling apology, this sad commentary...

"The only thing that could save Bush right now is if the Republicans could convince the majority of Americans that due to the elections coming up that the Democrats are just playing politics with the lies of Bush."

You insult the American people and you spit on the truth when you suggest that we must enable lies of this magnitude to avoid cowering from the predictable charges leveled by Republicans.

And they continue to lie, they lie flagrantly , blatantly, continually, and you strain amd stretch the bounds of foolhardiness just to stoop to cover Clinton who still is trangulating for his own selfish reasons alone.

[WINEWOMAN7]

102. Why do so many miss the pint of Clinton's words?

This is why Clinton was so brilliant as a diplomat. He calls Bush on his lies without calling him a liar. He looks and sounds more presidential than the whining, crybaby Bush. He said Bush made mistakes, lets go on and correct them. This is why he survived the vast right wing war waged on him and his administration. He takes the high road and chooses his words carefully.