Why did Clinton excuse "yellowcakegate"?

OK, this has been bothering me for a while now. Let me start off by saying that I think Clinton did a pretty decent job as president. I had my disagreements with various policies, but overall I would say he did a lot more good than harm...

That said, I never understood why he called Larry King on Bob Dole's birthday and discuss that thing in the first place. Now, I'm not sure if King himself brought it up, or if Clinton himself did (if he did, it'd make this all the more confusing), but as I understand it he simply excused it as "being a mistake", or "mistakes happen". Now, I don't expect Clinton to simply call up and blast Bush's foreign policy. I also understand Dole is his buddy, but why the hell didn't he just call King's show, wish Dole a happy birthday, make some fluff talk (or better yet talk about AIDS in Africa), but he could have kept away from what was brewing as a scandal at the whitehouse at the time.

In my view this seriously undercut democratic opposition to Bush at a critical time. Coincidentally, most of the critical democratic statements ceased at that point. What happened then in the WH, and what has continued to happen is a matter of outright lies and deceptions regarding their primary (stated) motives for going to war with Iraq.

So, what was Clinton's motive? Did he use his great political gifts and guess that this was a no win for democrats criticizing? Did he believe it would cost them more (being viewed as scandal mongerers and going out for a "witch-hunt) by taking this issue on, than by not? Or was it a way for himself and the rest of the bigwigs in the DLC and Washington establishment to try to preserve credibility regarding what I have always considered an irrational and unhealthy obsession over Iraq and WMD?

This is important in light of the leak (which is also unfortunately falling out of the spotlight). We have seen several big chances to expose this administration. First was Enron, but we can all see how Joe handled that. Then the uranium bungle and 14 words (was it 14? I don't really remember how many words, considering everything this admin. spews is BS), and now the leak. While, obviously people do get turned off by overtly making something a partisan witch-hunt, as indicated by polls during the impeachment, I still believe it's very important to get to the bottom of what's going on.

...but I think it's because he's blemished. He likely had used intel he knew was dubious for trivial political opportunity. He also had come under pressure from certain business interests and individuals (who happen to now be supporting and contributing to the present unPresident) to do the same (invade and occupy). Probably elected to instead compromise, and the compromises made render him in some way complicit in other events that have occurred. Of course, this is all pure conjecture. There's also another possibility. We're damn near having the cold civil war heat up. Some may be willing to maintain certain illusions to prevent that from blowing up, which would have dire consequences on the global economy and stability.

I take a more charitable view, which is that ALL ex-Presidents to one degree or another support the current President, especially in times of military conflict.

I believe Clinton is an honorable man. I think he wanted to express a rise above partisanship in a difficult time. Maybe I'm naive, but it seems to be a pattern among all ex-Presidents. I think someone who's made the decision to commit troops is especially sensitive to the difficulty of the situation, as well as the value TO those troops of knowing they're supported.

Clinton was a talented politician - the downside being a lack of ethical depth.

Kucinich, on the other hand, is almost the polar opposite, commanding a strong ethical purpose but lacking political sophistication.

Somewhere therein lies an ideal balance.

When he doesn't say a thing, then he's hiding...when he sneezes, then he's saying too much. Go figure.

I don't think Clinton was giving Whittleass cover as much as he was the office of the Presidency (remember when the two were seperate during Clinton's inquisition?). His point was that a President (of course one elected, not selected) is the CEO and can't know every thing that is said or done in his name (the leak/leaker). Remember, his comments were just days after Wilson did the NYT Op/Ed, and I don't think it was clear at the time that his wife had been defined as a NOC. My impression was Clinton spoke based on little information and reacted as if he was the one who was under attack.

How soon it's easy to forget how Clinton operated in a constant world of second guessing and endless sninping (from his own flanks as well as from the GOOP) and became defiant so that the executive moved unilaterally on many issues...similar to this executive...and that the President needs to be able to operate unhindered; especially when it's dealing with such a sensitive issue as both blowing the cover of a CIA agent and the cause of sending a nation to war.

There's also a sneaking suspicion that Clinton (as many of us) knows there's a lot more to this story...and many others...and that the time is difficult, if not right, to attack this regime. Any criticism Clinton would make would create a greater diversion for the GOOP and media...another round of Clinton-hate...where supporting THE OFFICE (he didn't support WhittleAss) keeps him above the fray.

I suspect that as the lies and the subsequent cover-ups and corrupt surfaces, Clinton will not say much of anything, as this regime is doing him a great favor in "resurecting his legacy (WTF is that??)" by making him look so good compared to the fiascos of the last 3 years. Clinton knows time is his friend and his vindication isn't a matter of if it's when...and to stick on the high road until that happens.

One thing for certain, no one knows the political winds like Bill Clinton.

All their talking heads were spouting Clinton's (very few) careful words for a few days thereafter, as if it had exonerated them. Making them into hypocrites about his credibility. Clinton 1, Reps 0.

And it did keep them running further off the cliff into Loonie Tune Land, to the point where they were all running on air. Gravity/exposure of the forgery did the rest to send them crashing into the canyon below. Clinton 2, Reps 0.

(BTW, today Josh Marshall is hinting that someone in the press has been tracing the forgery itself backwards and that the trail of solicitations leads to Washington and the Administration.)

In short, Clinton saw an opportunity to bait a bunch of right wing PR folk into sheer craven stupidity and took it, if only because he loves toying with and embarrassing the dopes who abused him so much. (The selfinflicted wound is the fatal one.) They took it hook, line, sinker, rod with reel, and are now one more display in the Master's trophy case. So, sophisticated but not entirely calculated revenge.

If anyone knows the monkeys and what makes them go and where, it's Clinton. You are spot on that Clinton did and will always delight in driving his detractors to distraction, or to make them eat their words.

The real cue on this one was the non-stop hammering that it was Clinton in '98 that really started this whole thing rolling (and where were our GOOP "friends" then?) thus justifying that this was some sort of bi-partisan war. This was the same cover that people like Kerry and Edwards were hoping to use to hedge their bets that this regime would win the war and be so popular that any dissent prior to the war would be the deathblow to any Presidential aspirations. They're paying the price now and will continue to until the primaries are over.

There's such a growing list of contradictions and hypocricies the right wing is getting itself into, I expect Clinton will have many years of fun toying with these losers. It's almost a co-depenent thing (not that Bill needs it), but he knows that Clinton hate works for him just as much as against. And payback's a bitch...especially a nice, long 40 year one.

proportion and the big picture was being lost. Just like he said.

Now I respectfully don't agree with him. But my disagreement with Clinton is a respectful one: I respect his opinion even when I disagree with it.

The Bush administration used a piece of false intelligence which it knew was a cheap and dirty and meaningless forgery to start a war of aggression under the pretense that Iraq was a "grave and growing danger to America" when they knew for a fact that Iraq was not a danger to its neighbors, and that it was a very minor regional power, vulnerable and waning in its limited power. The real reason for the war was stated and signed in the PNAC document: it's part of a political make-over for a number of middle eastern countries and the beginning of wars and destabilization against Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. I, too, would like to see all of these governments change, but not at the tremendous costs in lives, credibility, money and international stability that the Junta has cost us.

The right thing to do now w Iraq. Has Bush done it? (I don't think so) Can the dem leadership and canidates articulate the right thing and bring it to the American people?

There was a lot of noise going nowhere in the press and from some of the leadership about the 16 words, but the focus really did need to be on the larger issues.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/22/lkl.00.html

CLINTON:   And what I think--again, I would say the most important thing is we should focus on what's the best way to build Iraq as a democracy?  How is the president going to do that and deal with continuing problems in Afghanistan and North Korea?

We should be pulling for America on this.  We should be pulling for the people of Iraq.  We can have honest disagreements about where we go from here, and we have space now to discuss that in what I hope will be a nonpartisan and open way.  But this State of the Union deal they decided to use the British intelligence.  The president said it was British intelligence.  Then they said on balance they shouldn't have done it.  You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president.  I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile.  The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now.  That's what I think.

Edit for clarity

no excuse.

What's your point? Why are you bringing this up?