Hillary Slams Giuliani Over Moveon.org Comments

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_257171953.html

"It's hardly surprising that Mayor Giuliani is running the first negative ad of the '08 campaign, given his inability to justify his unqualified support for President Bush's failed Iraq strategy."

it's enough to slap him but still give him very little attention.

eom

Iraq and Afghanistan, Rudy's threatened by Fred Thomson so he attacks Clinton.

:toast:

With Rudy it's primordial...

The problem with Hillary saying that is that everyone has seen Bill on Larry King Live 'justifying' his support for Bush on Iraq.


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


Clinton defends successor's push for war
Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs


(CNN) -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"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."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.
>>>>>

When Bill was on his book tour, he made many remarks supportive of Bush's decisions, and this line of attack for Hillary may not be the best idea - she should attack Rudy for being Rudy and HIS record of supporting Bush on EVERYTHING else - but not with this argument. She's gonna get hit back. She and Bill didn't change THEIR view of Iraq withdrawal till late 2006. She's on thin ice here, whether people realize it or not.

It would be like supporting the Viet Nam War in 1965...

In fact, there was little difference between Lieberman's position in support of Bush from the Clintons until recently.

I think our 04 nominee voted for it as well...

it was the DECISION to go to war that Clintons supported.

And stayed supportive until this year's primary race.

IWR was working to prevent war through the weapon inspections - Bush's decision came AFTER the weapons inspections. There was an opportunity before, after and during to say this war was wrong BECAUSE inspections proved force was not needed. The 04 candidate said that many times, and started submitting withdrawal plans since Oct 2005 - plans Hillary rejected, and even took to the floor to say NO TIMETABLES in June 2006 - and therein lies a BIG DIFFERENCE.

and had called for regime change at home before the point where some here excuse Bill Clinton for backing the war. Kerry never backed the war - just defended his vote.

In an anti-war op-ed in Sept 2002 and in the IWR speech, Kerry re-iterated promises Bush publicly made - that he would work to get the inspectors in and let them do a thourough job, he would exhaust the diplomacy, build a real coalition, and go to war only as a last resort. He said in a January 23 speech that there was more that inspections and diplomacy could do - it was not a war of last resort. Those conditions not met, plus the one of not planning for the peace were listed as reasons Bush misled us to war and broke his promises. Kerry often said in 2004, that war of last resort has to mean something. To Kerry it did, in his speech at Pepperdine College in 2006 - he explained that if a war was not a war of last resort, it is not a just war. In 2004, I thought that was what he was implying from rusty memories of a Catholic childhood. Kerry has also in early 2006 called the war immoral.

Kerry was labeled anti-war through the first half of 2003. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards weren't.

.

You have the comments in quotes as if Hillary said it and your headline looks like it came from her mouth vs. someone with the campaign.

Hillary has not actually made a response.

eom

I wish she'd sent out an unpaid volunteer to make the statement :-)

Did I suggest she should? No - I don't think she should and hope she does not.

The point is that the heading was misleading - just wanted those who don't actually read the article to realize the heading was incorrect and she has not dignified the little piss ant with a response.

she's not responding directly and she has to do that to every right wing attack through 2008 if she wants to win. Hillary needed to point out exactly where Petraeus wasn't telling the truth. She also needs to point out that the Republicans lied us into this war by attacking the patriotism of anybody who questioned the war. Hillary needs to point out that Rudy is continuing this legacy of dishonesty.

That would put Giuliani on defense. It would send a signal to the rest of the right wing that they can't get away with slime ball attacks.

Its great though that she at least responded. Past candidates didn't.

or even report it.

Say the media decided to not report that Hillary countered Giuliani but kept repeating his attacks against her - would you say candidate Clinton didn't respond at all?

Kerry responded to everything - and the media made it APPEAR as if he didn't by downplaying the counter or not giving it the heavy rotation they reserved for the attackers. Same thing with Gore's campaign. He responded - media chose to lower the volume on all his responses.

There is a research forum thread on this if you care about sticking to the truth:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

The swift boat stuff about Kerry's war record was irrelevent. The big hit was about Kerry's 1971 testimony before Congress which included a statement by Kerry that US troops committed attrocities in Vietnam. Kerry never defended that testimony. He was too weak to apoligize for it either. Kerry found a squishy "It may have been a little over the top" dodge for answering the swift boat attacks.

I remember when the campaign started the Republicans claimed that Kerry voted against a long list of weapons systems. Those of us on the net who wanted to defend Kerry waited weeks until finally Slate Magazine debunked the tale. Kerry didn't respond to it.

Kerry was attacked for his use of nuance. Did he ever defend nuance? It contrasted favorably with Bush's overly simplistic black and white world view.

Bush sold himself as being the strong person who could protect America against terrorists. Kerry never once brought up how Bush let go Zarqawi. If Kerry had brought that up on the night when Zarqawi was all over TV cutting that guy's head off Bush would have been finished. Kerry never brought up how Bush ignored terrorism before 9/11.

The list goes on and on.

The thread you linked to was reposted many times and I've responded to it before. I followed the 2004 campaign obsessively and read all Kerry's press releases and speeches.

The worst of Kerry was when the swift boat attacks you refer to were chewing up airtime. Kerry ASKED BUSH TO PROTECT HIM FROM THE ATTACKS. Make them stop! Didn't he realize what a pussy that made him look like?

diligent as you claim, you would KNOW THAT and be trumpeting that instead of protecting the media.

DNC let the RNC steal that election for Bush. I will bet you know that given your position.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/washington/15fact.html?ref=washington

Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts and the party’s standard-bearer in 2004, called the advertisement “over the top.”

He supports MoveOn and the their basic message and still thinks their wording was over the top - that is hardly damning.

And let's be clear - just because your little establishment clique can gain all the access it wants to newsmedia doesn't make them better leaders - they have compromised our party for decades and they have LOST the trust of us 'goo-goos' you all love to mock.

blm.

The only time the corporatemediawhores turned up the volume on a Dem was Dean's mike!

And they always like the Dem candidate they want until the general and then they bring out the heavy artillary via swiftboatforliars and indstrial strength plows to bury the truth and what the Dem candidate actually stands for.

When this country has a free press and leaves its cmw in the gutter where they belong Then we'll get back on the long road to healing and making our country an example for great come-backs.

The Clinton Machine is the most adroit political machine in the history of American politics.

There's hardly a comparison between the two. The RW has virtually the entire MSM in it's back pocket as well as hundreds of millions of dollars supporting 'think tanks' that do nothing but spout talking points supporting their failed ideology.

I'm trying to articulate how tough the two of them are without painting them in a negative light...

straddling and checking the barometer? Yeah, that's what I just love about them. :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

They are the reason the Democrats have not gone after Bush on the war lies.

"The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," she said. "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.

"But I think that in the case of the administration, they really believed it."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/

remember Rudy has some shady people in his campign like the guy who made the ad against Harold Ford with the girl saying Harold CALL ME so don't just automatically assume Hillary is going to steam roll over Gouliani. Look how long it took her to respond and in my opinion it was a weak response.

just like she said she would. Weak or not, she's quick to respond. IMO it's a pretty good response, the occupation is what's important, not her non connection to MoveOn ad.

that might make Rudy STFU. Maybe not.

She'll tear him a new one if he doesn't watch it.