Wouldn't it have been nice if Bill Clinton had lashed out at repukes

[cali]

over the last 7 years as hard as he's lashed out at Obama over the last month? But he didn't. Ever. He was too busy chumming it up with bush sr and being above the partisan fray. He never addressed the nation about disasterous republican policies. He played nicey nice instead.

For Bill, it doesn't seem to be about the national interest. It seems to be about self-interest.

[dkf]

1. Yeah he can lower his dignity to attack Obama, but not Bush!

How misguided is that?

[rox63]

5. He can't do that - Poppy Bush is like a father to him

Poppy even said Bill was like another son. Can't let politics interfere with family relations. :sarcasm:

[MH1]

2. I'm trying to remember back in 2004

All those times he lashed out about the evils of the George W Bush administration.

I'm having a hard time recalling, though.

I do remember there was a lot of media attention on his book tour. And something about him opening his library and saying he liked both Bush (dubya!) and Kerry.

[babylonsister]

3. Very valid point. Rec'd. Carter, another former prez, has lashed out.

Why did Clinton remain mum, especially about the war, despite trying to tell us otherwise? :think:

[DJ13]

7. "Why did Clinton remain mum, especially about the war......."

Bill (and Hillary) were trying to keep a low profile until it was time for Hillary's coronation.

They both put their own ambitions above the country's needs over the last 8 years.

[Cha]

24. Precisely..the slick bloody road to the whitehouse..

redux.

[Kolesar]

15. Has the scarlet letters "BJ" on his forehead

?

[Occam Bandage]

4. The Billdozer only comes out when Bill's personal interests are at stake, it seems.

[suston96]

6. Whatta bunch of crap......Try Google: 'Bill Clinton criticizes Bush' and see what you get.

[cali]

11. Puleeze. Clinton has been extremely mild in his criticism of bushco

as someone upthread noted, compare him to carter; huge difference. And why on earth people think that the number of Google hits one can get on any given topic/person is proof of anything at all, is beyond me.

[suston96]

20. Uh, this is what you said in the OP:

"Wouldn't it have been nice if Bill Clinton had lashed out at repukes

over the last 7 years as hard as he's lashed out at Obama over the last month? But he didn't. Ever."

"But he didn't. EVER"? Use absolutes at your own risk.

Go to Google as I suggested and you will see how phony your claim is.

[Dante_]

8. Bill has treated Obama with kid gloves...and Obama is better for it.

Bill Clinton is one tough campaigner and most of his opponents got the full brunt of his devastating blows. Obama, is being tested and he has only gotten the kid glove treatment from Bill.
Obama, has never been in a tough race before and it is nice to see he didn't totally lose it with the Clinton criticisms.

Let us hope if Obama is the nominee that he toughens up before he goes into the lions den of a fight against a real opponent with the backing of the GOP establishment and the sleazy 501s.

I still say it will be Hillary who wins and we know she has more balls than most men.

[Cameron27]

9. I agree,

welcome to DU :-)

[cali]

10. Yes, and uup is down and black is white. All the commentators

from across the spectrum have been marvelling at Bill's delicate and dignified treatment of Obama. There have been no editorials or articles about his involvement in his wife's campaign, his red faced ranting, his accusations. Nope. none at all.

Funny alternative universe you dwell in.

:rofl:

[Dante_]

13. really?

commentators are idiots who need to feed ratings and keep the dead space from going over the air, or the white space in print.

Bill Clinton could eat Obama for a snack between Burgers.

My universe is the real one where hysterical rantings against people I disagree with do not consume me.

Red faced rantings and accusations? Oh my Dorothy, we ain't in Kansas anymore are we?

[cali]

17. bwahahaha

OK, every commentator from those at the Nation to those at MSNBC are idiots and mean, mean, mean to the Clintons. What about Ted Kennedy and Rahm Emanuel and Jim Clyburn, who ALL scolded Bill, about his agressive behavior. I suppose they're all idiots and just against Billary too, right?

And ol' Bill, might just fight Obama too much of a mouthful.

:rofl:

[Dante_]

19. Poor Obama..the Clintons are fighting back with web sites

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4032659&page=1

Why do so many supposedly Democrats parrot GOP party lies about the Clintons?
----

and before the people who hate the Clintons go all hysterical with bwahaha's...



Obama Camp Registers Anti-Clinton Web Sites
Campaign Plays Semantics Over Whether Sites Are Personal Attacks

http://abcnews.go.com/story?id=4036024



Obama Camp Registers Anti-Clinton Web Sites
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/21/obama-camp-registers-anti_n_77855.html

[Dante_]

16. You can channel Sean Hannity all you want....but....

...but you will never have an audience like he does. Why you use the GOP talking points and the hate of the conservative conspiracy against the Clintons is beyond me.

[cali]

23. Sean Hannity? Sorry babe, you picked the wrong line of attack.

I've never even seen or heard him. Don't have TV and none of the radio stations in my remote neck of the north woods carry him. I don't listen to talk radio of any flavor, don't read trash and don't watch it. Rather hard for me to channel right wing talking points considering my rather puritanical news regimen.

And that's such a boring and banal attack; the old "your channeling right wing talking points". It's what you little Clintonanoids always use. Any criticism of the great Clintons is always mischaracterized as "right wing talking points". Can't you do better than that for your lame-o talking point, sweetums?

[Dante_]

26. nope. you are parroting GOP talking points against the Clintons. Don't believe me?

read your own words and Google them


bwahahahahaha

step away from the koolaid stand and put down the gum

[cali]

28. pumpkin, are you just a tad

in denial or what? I don't give a shit what google says and the silly line of shit about how if you criticize the Clintons you're buying into right wing talking points, is just defensive nonsense. You seem to have a real reading comprehension problem, ducky. I don't tune in to the right wing chatter or the MSM chatter, in any way, shape or form.

You Clintonbots are not only defensive, you've reached paranoia. In case you haven't noticed, it's not only the right or the left that criticizes the Clinton machine, it's also the middle.

If you looked up from your worshipping and feet kissing, you might see something beyond your blind adoration.

[Kolesar]

12. mark on your calendar Jan. 25 for an outburst by Bill Clinton somewhere in South Carolina.

http://www.slate.com/id/2182355

A Clinton win in Nevada ends on an ugly note.

By John Dickerson
Posted Saturday, Jan. 19, 2008, at 5:20 PM ET


Hillary Clinton has won the Nevada caucus, which means a few things about the Democratic race are now coming into focus. For example, mark on your calendar Jan. 25 for an outburst by Bill Clinton somewhere in South Carolina. He has launched a tirade the day before each of his wife's victories in Nevada and New Hampshire, claiming the process was unfairly stacked against her. If this keeps up, he's going to require a stretcher by the last primary in Oregon come May.

Bill Clinton was so angry because it got ugly at the end in Nevada. Democrats may have cooled down their flash war over race and gender earlier this week, but by the time the vote took place Saturday, each of the two top campaigns was flinging some very ugly charges about the other. Bill Clinton accused the powerful Nevada culinary union of suppressing voters, claiming he'd witnessed it first hand. Obama's campaign manager in turn threw out some very charged coded language about efforts by the Clinton campaign to suppress the vote. "It is a sad day when Democrats start trying to suppress the vote of other Democrats," he said of push polls, robo-calls, and what he called "old-style say anything or do anything to win" Clinton politics.

Commence the hand-wringing. How do you put a party back together when Obama claims that Clinton wins only by winning ugly?
...

[cali]

21. good pick up.

I hadn't realized that. So Friday night we can expect our fightin' ex-prez to launch another fit. Nice.

[stray cat]

14. He said it was improper to criticize a sitting president as a former president

fellow democrats - who cares!

[babylonsister]

18. Pleeze. That's so lame, especially given the state the dim one has

reduced this country to. He could have taken a page from Carter's book. What would the harm have been?
Why didn't Clinton say something, anything?

[Cha]

22. I just wrote about this on

the Daschle thread where they were complaining that he didn't go after the repukes..well, neither did bill and hilary.

[suston96]

25. You won't Google? I will. Check out the date on this:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/apr/03041602.html

Wednesday April 16, 2003



FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON CRITICIZES BUSH FOREIGN POLICY
Clinton Policy Was to Force Abortion on Unwilling Nations

WASHINGTON, April 16, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Former U.S. President Bill Clinton stoked rumors that he is looking for a nomination to head the United Nations again this week with comments bashing President George bush's 'isolationist' foreign policy.

"Our paradigm now seems to be: something terrible happened to us on September 11, and that gives us the right to interpret all future events in a way that everyone else in the world must agree with us," said Clinton, who spoke at a seminar of governance organized by Conference Board. "And if they don't, they can go straight to hell." Clinton said, "We can't run. If you got an interdependent world, and you cannot kill, jail or occupy all your adversaries, sooner or later you have to make a deal."

Pro-life political observers point out however that Clinton's rhetoric drips with hypocrisy. Clinton's own world wide abortion advocacy which he strong-armed through his control of U.S. foreign policy as President is legendary. While in power Clinton used money to 'make a deal' on an international level to impose abortion worldwide. For two years a U.S. $18-billion funding package for the International Monetary Fund was held up since then-President Clinton vowed to veto the measure since pro-life members of Congress attached pro-life provisions to the funding proposals, thereby restricting U.S. monies from being used to promote abortion.

Moreover, the National Right to Life Committee has pointed out that "The Clinton Administration declared abortion to be a 'fundamental right of all women,' and ordered US ambassadors to lobby foreign governments in support of abortion."

[AtomicKitten]

27. Excellent point.

[dajoki]

29. Bush/Clinton Dynasty...

There are reasons for his silence, and it is about self-interest.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3928195

Robert Parry's blog
Hillary Signals Free Pass for Bush
by Robert Parry | January 2, 2008 - 8:08am
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/11854

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is signaling that a second Clinton presidency will follow the look-to-the-future, don’t-worry-about-accountability approach toward Republican wrongdoing that marked Bill Clinton’s years in office.

<<snip>>

“The first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again,” said Bill Clinton, who has accompanied the senior Bush on international humanitarian missions over the past several years.

<<snip>>

The Bushes and the Clintons – who have held pieces of the nation’s executive power for more than a quarter century dating back to George H.W. Bush’s election as Vice President in 1980 – essentially would be keeping matters within the board rooms of the Washington Establishment.

In responding to Bill Clinton’s remark, George H.W. Bush issued a statement making clear he would not join in any slap at his son’s foreign policy. That also means Hillary Clinton’s “first thing” is unthinkable if her new administration were trying to exact any accountability from George W. Bush for his wrongdoing.

So, to get the senior Bush’s cooperation on the worldwide tour, there would have to be an implicit understanding that the second Clinton administration wouldn’t investigate the younger Bush’s crimes –from authorizing torture, ordering warrantless wiretaps, exposing CIA officer Valerie Plame’s identity, waging war under false pretenses and other abuses of executive powers.

The First Clinton-Bush Deal

That’s exactly what happened in 1993 when Bill Clinton entered the White House after defeating George H.W. Bush.

Clinton and other senior Democrats shut down or wrapped up four investigations that implicated senior Republicans, including Bush, in constitutional abuses of power and criminal wrongdoing during the Reagan-Bush years.

MORE...