consider yourself left? think Clinton's, like, the best ever?

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/index.html

Why?

He supported invading, but thinks we should have waited until the inspections were over.

Of course, that would have meant invading after we found out there were no weapons - which negates the purpose of invading.

I just always thought Clinton was smarter than that. Maybe he is and has some ulterior motive here - which I'm sure he does because Clinton's brain works on like, five levels at once.

That's exactly what I was thinking when I first read that. President Clinton is WAY too intelligent to make a statement like that without having an ulterior motive.

The American Empire has ALWAYS been a bipartisan project.

The DLC has its own version of PNAC, called the "Progressive Policy Institute" -- PPI -- which is basically an identitical geostrategic blueprint, but utilizing somewhat subtler and more politically correct language.

sw

......always stirrin' SHIT...especially amoungst us...the divided left. :eyes:

Not exactly the thing the left is comprised of. He was selected tactically like all the democratic candidates for the last several elections to be in the middle in order to steal votes from the right. Thus moving this country further to the right and silencing the left and leaving them with no organisation or structure.

Nothing new here.

Wasn't exactly registering surprise, Az. :)

clinton is a conservative in liberals clothing.

:shrug:

once in office.

....because you see...the very MEDIA who wrote that article will help make sure it never happens.

oh and when Kerry loses...don't forget I told ya so! :hi:

But that sure beats a radical right authoritarian like Bush*

If bush had waited until the inspections were over, No WMDs, and No Invasion.

Simple as that. . .

I would consider FDR to be the greatest ever. His position is not much different from that of Kerry, Edwards or Hillary Clinton. I am disappointed by his statements, but all Democratic presidents have black spots on their records.

Wilson was a racist who set back the cause of civil rights substantially. He also was very repressive on the issue of civil liberties.

FDR excused, tolerated and deferred to the post-bellum culture of the Old South. He also interned the Japanese Americans.

Truman also got us into the pretty much useless Korean War, aligned the US with dictatorial governments in the name of Cold War foregin policy.

JFK was also a Cold Warrior who initiated the Vietnam War, aligned the US with dictators, messed up the Bay of Pigs

LBJ is responsibe, more than any other president, for the disaster in Vietnam. He also used COINTELPRO tactics to spy on political opponents.

Jimmy Carter cozied up to the Shah of Iran and we all know what that got us.

Compared to the those, I think that Clinton's support for a war that took place after he left office is relatively mild by comparison. I supported him in Operation Desert Fox in 1998 because they were air strikes limited to specific locations suspected by the inspectors, who were disallowed access to those spots. It was not an invasion, coup and occupation.

They all suppported pre-emptive invasion and still do. They qualify it with it should have been done with more Allies' support. The Dems will jsut have to accept the notion that the majority of the Dem party are Im agreement with the Right Wing on the basic notion of invading other countries that are not towing the line of full compliance with Globalization of Capitalism of the Multi-Corps. The US is NOT a democracy. It is a Plutocracy. The Right Wing and the majority of the Dem party are servants of the US Corps and Multi-Corps. The concept of a Representative Republic is DEAD!!!

You're talking the so called "Bush Doctrine" - pre-emptive war. The democratic party does not support the notion of pre-emptive war, which was the whole reason they forced the weapons inspections on Bush. You make a false accusation.

It's ranting, raving "leftists" like you that Clinton is referring to.

1. Had we waited till the inspections were over, with no WMDs in the country, Bush would have had to worked to have found another excuse.

2. Clinton was always more conservative than I am. I didn't approve of some of his policies. Is the fact that we disagreed on several issues somehow supposed to make me decide that he was a bad president? If so, you're wrong. In spite of his more conservative policies, he was one of the better presidents.

Had we waited till the inspections were over, with no WMDs in the country, Bush would have had to worked to have found another excuse.

The problem with that being?

Is the fact that we disagreed on several issues somehow supposed to make me decide that he was a bad president?

No. The question was for leftists who think that "the Big Dawg" is the shit. I just wondered what they thought of Clinton defending Bush against them.

I'd consider Clinton and Kerry to be pretty similar in their political outlooks. Kerry may have been liberal at one time, but he clearly is not what I would call a liberal any more.

for a huge Kerry fan. :shrug:

(btw, I'm not playing defense. :) )

It just irritates me that Kerry is the candidate. Nevertheless, like I said below, I will hold my nose and vote for him this election.

I don't understand the point? Of course he was?

Yes I am a leftist, and no I do not think Clinton was the best president ever. But it isn't his support of shit for brains sealed the deal for me with him. It was DoMA and DADT that did it for me. His support for shit for brains, is just the icing the cake.

:shrug:

...moderate (paleo-) conservative.

Clinton was the best "Republican" president we ever had!

what it does is allow the right to move further rightward, slowly dragging you along with them, sitting there just to the left of them.

We certainly don't give Republicans such a huge benefit of the doubt. Why do it for our own? If he says he backs the war, then he backs the war.

If Bill Clinton took one small step to the right, he'd be a Republican. He was never a liberal. He's a DLC, establishment Democrat, and he sold the middle class out on multiple occasions.

I'm sorry, I'm just not on board with the Clinton Fan Club.

Over the years, Kerry has become a DLC, establishment Democrat. And yes, I'd say that when he approved the war, Patriot Act, etc., he either sold us out or was not doing his job. Nevertheless, I will hold my nose and vote for him this one time.

I, too, will be voting for Kerry. But only because the alternative is the biggest corporate stooge, wannabee dictator this country has ever seen.

I'm going to have to really pinch the hell out of my nose to vote for him.

DU isn't the Kerry campaign headquarters, either. There are alot of DU'ers who are very disappointed with the Kerry nomination. I'm certainly one of them.

I don't want him doing it another 4 years.

He is an accomplished public speaker. He has sales gift and he has achieved the Super Sales Person status. A great Pres.? Not by a long shot. He failed in most of what he set out to do. There is plenty of evidence that his Admin. was the beneficiary of a positive economic upswing. America was just lucky that he screwed up with his sexual escapades that stopped him from pursuing a more agressive foreign affairs policy. His NAFTA policies hurt the working class and his Welfare Agenda, hyped as it was, is a failure. If he had mustered more courage he would have damned the Right Wing and gone after Al Q. with everything at his disposal but he appeased the Right Wing in almost everyway he could. The damned him anyway.

1) Yes
2) No, although he's probably the best president in the lifetime of DUers under the age of 24.

is a mindset that transcends partisanship.

:) :thumbsup:

even when it's unpopular.

But I do understand his position on Iraq. While my view is different, it's not that different from either Clinton's or the anti-war stance. I was sort of in the middle (too long to explain my position, and it doesn't really matter, anyway, at this point).

...(actually a chapter title) from "Stupid White Men".... But quoting it here not long ago got me called a repuke supporter of numbnuts.

:eyes:

Not by you, uly.

I'd try to find it myself, but my copy's in the attic. :)

"The Best Republican President We Ever Had".

:evilgrin:

at a Republican co-worker in 2000 or 2001. It genuinely convinced him that I was quite the communist. Then he thought for a bit. :)

...than a repuke. That hurt.

:cry:

you're used to it by now. I mean, how dare you go against the party hierarchy? Apostate!

;-)

I'm a recovering Catholic.

Whatever helps, my friend. :D

To use one of the favorite DLC apologist quotes. I voted for him, reluctantly, twice. I still regret it.

He delivered our party into the hands of the DLC.

His foreign policy didn't cost very many American lives, but it did cost 100s of thousands in Africa.

I'd put him in the bottom 20 of presidents.

He wasn't my choice in the primaries, but I partied hard the night he won that year.

Four years later, I voted non-Democrat for the first time in my life.

The DLC apologists have a point about "not as bad as", but not as much as they think. We've got to get away from the Quisling mindset.

Just like I'll be doing this time. Dammit!

Not from "educated" progressives. To paraphrase Churchill, Clinton was the worst president of the latter 20th century--except for all the other ones.

that can't be marginalized as "single-issue politics"? I suspect that there isn't.

His support for globalization?
His support for "welfare reform"?
His successful attempt to stop the UN from intervening in Rwanda and the Congo to stop the genocide?
His giving the party to the DLC?

But, now that you mention it, America--and the world--was a better place when he left office in 2000 than when he took office in 1992. He was far from perfect. He made mistakes--Rwanda being one of the most egregious. But, surely even an idealistic progressive such as yourself would admit that he was a better choice than the alternative--i.e. Bush I.

Of course he was better than Bush I, but is that the best we can really do? Is the best we can do someone who "defends Bush against the left" on the war in Iraq???

A plate of boiled turnips would be better than either of the Bush's. That doesn't let Clinton off the hook for his "mistakes".

His handling of Rwanda and the Congo (Zaire, then) wasn't just a "mistake". It was a thought out policy that he should be a lot more ashamed of then any of his sexual antics - which I could care less about.

His continued opposition to the left, and tacit support for the war in Iraq, is just more of an indication that he was always a politician in the worst sense of the word.

Did you get your monicker from the "Flashman" books?

If so, and assuming that you like them, we have something very much in common.

I've only read two--the eponymous first one and Flashman At The Charge, which was brilliant, too.

I chose the name because the character reminds me of Bush: a high-born scoundrel, drunk, philanderer and coward who, somehow, always comes out smelling like roses.

But, Flashy is a lovable scoundral, who mostly blunders into horrible jackpots.

I was a history major and the history in the books is really quite good. The footnotes are half the fun. There are a couple of clunkers in the series, but be sure to read them all.

Actually Elspeth, Harry's wife, as described by him, "She had the cornflower light blue eyes of the truly stupid.." reminds me more of Bush than Flashy does.

given the consequences of repuke power he doesn't look so bad!

Clinton's statement is brilliant: It props up his own legacy and legitimizes Kerry's reputation for strength on Defense. Any other answer would hurt Kerry.

Story: 1) remove Saddam good; 2) Bush* blew it bad.

Stick to the story line and Kerry could win without having to discuss details.

Everybody just wants to sell their books and make millions. The Iraq debacle is so obviously a tragedy on many levels, it is indefensible. Clinton is an idiot to say this.

You see Tim Russert on Fox taking the "moderate" viewpoint, Clinton defending the filth, Kerry playing it safe and basing his campaign on having a better plan to suppress the Iraqi's.

Who comes next? Michael Moore in a Subway commercial?

I have meet Clinton--been around him many times (Gore too). You would all like him, he is extremely personable and fantastic at small talk!

He really keeps up with stuff like the most recent movies too! All in all a very fun guy.

I supported him with my pocketbook, but he is not a "liberal" like I am. I think when he was young he was--at one time I believe he worked on the McGovern campaign. But he sold out those ideals and power is more important to him. So he gave up liberal causes--like fighting against the racist death penalty.

I hated him as governor of Arkansas--like Junior he applied the death penalty even to mentally challenged people. And Clinton was so crass, so disgusting--that as Governor when he murdered a poor minority soul his only concern was how it would impact him in the polls. He was worse than Jr. that way.

Oh well--at least is quite charming. Kerry is not a real liberal either. Dean tried--I think he would have supported a real liberal agenda. But now the people in power in the D party do not care about their ideals they think they should ape the repubs so they can get some of those votes. Clinton makes me sick. I did help him get into office--I gave him lots of money both times he ran. But now, his day is done. He had his time in office and he did not use it to fight for the poor and minorities. I will not put one penny into his pocket by buying his book and I would not waste my time reading it if it were free. I will support Kerry because he is the only choice--but I do not expect great things from him either.

I will be at the convention and I am looking forward to butting heads with some of the power people who have forgotten that they are supposed to care about the regular people.

Therefore, his statement doesn't take me by suprise.

but it's tradition for ex-Presidents to absolutely under any circumstances, NEVER criticize the sitting President. Even if your supporters are egging you on to do so. You just doon't do that. I can't remember any President out and out trashing the policy of another President. I honestly think it's best that way. It shows respect for the office. I will now go under a shield to protect myself from the rocks that may be coming my way. But I honestly think that's all it is.

Also, if Clinton does criticize Bush, he is more likely to do it more soberly and effectively and use measured facts in order to help Kerry and not look rabid and crazy which will turn off people more likely to listen to him.

Bush I being interviewed during the Lewinsky scandal and refusing to comment on questions about it or say anything derogatory about Clinton. Good point, Sleepy.

Hell, I would have supported the removal of Saddam after the inspectors were finished--but not as part of the War on Terra. This would have been separate, carefully planned, and done CORRECTLY.

Saddam needed to be removed--but not now, not during this. The Bushies completely botched the effort in their mad rush to avenge Daddy Bush. This, I think, is what Clinton meant.

Yeah I consider myself left. Clinton's remarks didn't faze me.

Still think he's (one of) the best ever, yup sure do.

as Bush did. He wasn't as hell bent on invasion. He would have waited for the UN to finish. Then no war, but he believed that WMD's were present in Iraq. It is something he also thought needed to be done. Heaven forbid the man speaks his mind if it isn't popular among his party.

this should be news to DUers under 5 years old.