Bill Clinton changed his line from "I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning" to

"I oppose the Iraq war" (present tense). No link, but I heard it on Hardball that he changed that line after he said it to the next campaign stop. So he knows he got caught or he wouldn't have changed that line (for all of you defending what he said EARLIER today).

if it was true.

We debunked this whole story last night..even though you choose to ignore the truth of the matter and prefer spending time parsing Matthew's grammatical style or lack thereof..

Meanwhile your guy needs defending from distributing PAC Money to Congressional officials in Primary States who have endorsed his presidential run. Obama's "new politics" seem worse than the old politics, he said, was based in corruption.

Take a look:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3767745

And if the story's been debunked, why did he CHANGE his remarks? Hillary is 60.

You post Chris Matthews heresay as a threadworthy topic? laughable..

When we like to see a link to something more authentic than third party heresay!

And the sheep go.. Baaaaaa!

:rofl:

She'll never be 44. ;)

and you will be hearing Madam President this and Madam President that, all in the course of an ordinary day!
get used to it!

Proof that you can be nasty about people who aren't even running.

Go ahead...

and that's the Clintons can lie about absolutely anything and it won't matter one bit.

than a help to his wife.

Hillary wants, I'm sure.

term for 8 years now,right?

Bad for Hillary.

Another republican talking point.

You must be so proud

It's too bad YOU do. The truth is the truth and he changed his story from one campaign stop to the next.

The repukes want to destroy the nation, and you couldn't care less.

they couldn't care less what they want. I see it's selective caring now on your part. :eyes:

and IMO, that was rather obvious.

If not you, many other of her supporters did.

You'll have to ask other supporters to defend themselves. In the meantime, you should try to defend your own words, and let the others worry about their own words.

I notice you never defend Obama (instead you attack Clinton) and here you won't defend yourself (instead you attack Clinton supporters). How do you make it through the day clinging onto so much negativity?

to win the nomination. If you deny that you're denying reality. I've said MANY positive things about Obama. I want him, not Hillary, not Edwards, to be our nominee.

How do you live with so much negativity

And it was Hillary Haters who started the threads saying the repukes want Hillary. You must be hallucinating

it was people against Hillary who said the Repubs. want Hillary. It was her supporters saying who the hell cares what Repubs. think! Duh!

All you have are attacks and negativity.

a pattern I guess.

It's OK to start attack threads, but it's wrong when someone defends against the attack

I realize Obama supporters can't handle the heat, so they whine

Not the first time.

:hi:

:nopity:

:hi:

Keep speaking the truth! :hi:

same to you! :hi:

...made me laugh. You are right, however - he "nuanced" his position.

Slightly off-topic, here's a pithy little quote from one of Bill's old best buddies from Up Here:

"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- Jean Cretien

call people republicans, choose who is a democrat or just point at another candidate when someone speaks about something negative about the Clinton's? I noticed above that after you spoke about Bill Clinton, someone then said something about "your guy"? I don't understand how when faced with a negative situation, responding about that persons candidate negatively does anything to clear the negative accusation so we can all learn something versus the playground tactics, are children allowed on this board or is there an age limit? I have also noticed that most Clinton supporters around here seem to attack people instead of talking politics like adults so we can make an informed decision for our children's future, its never about the candidate its always a smart ass crack on someone personally.

I would love to see allot of the DU members talking politics in person because I would bet everything that these same internet bullies would tone down their personal attacks in fear of being smashed in the ground for their PERSONAL attacks. They obviously have some kind of personality issues that they cant deal with in real life so they do their dirty work in hiding. Maybe then we could actually learn something about all the candidates instead of turning DU into just another spin room with little being accomplished.

thanks for that thoughtful post. :hi:

You slippery devil!!!

Please.....we don't need this little guy prowling around at night in the white house.

GO EDWARDS 08.

in the morning? I'd say most, if not all politicians would say almost anything to get elected.

:shrug:

:hi: By the way ...I do like Obama even though I stick up for all the Hillary bashing. All the media do too. Someone needs to say something positive...besides Clark. But I'll happily jump on Obama's bandwagon should he win. But I'll definitely be out stomping the streets for him in 2016...especially if he's previously VP or something important in the next administration. Then we could agree on everything!

and I'll support whichever Dem. wins the nomination! No hard feelings. :hi:

:D

or day?!?

And if you didn't, I would've. :D :hi:

"My plan is not a universal plan" and back to "My plan is a universal plan"

And he doesn't like mandates, except when his plan has mandates. Mandates are OK when he does it

"Slick Willy" is back.

Complain to the mods if you think I've broken any rules

Go make your own thread about it, that way they don't have to look at the ugly facts!!!

How sad is that?

which was not the case in the land of truth and honesty.

Clinton is one of the last people I would vote for, but it's totally stupid and short sighted to go around calling other Democrats names like that.

Besides, the name doesn't even apply in this instance since he's not being slick when he is so blatantly caught misrepresenting the truth. If he was being slick, he would be believable.

Memo to all the name callers: Grow up. One of the candidates being called names is going to be the face of our party. If you are a name caller, at least take your candidates banner off your profile so it will not sour me to them by association to you. Can I change my screename to grumpy_old_fireman?

Bill Clinton isn't running for president. He TRIED to be slick by slipping that line in. He got caught and changed the tense. I don't want him and his wife representing me, but I'll take them over a Repub. But he's campaigning for his wife. His wife said she based her vote for the IWR in part after consulting with Bill. They can't have it both ways.

but I always believed that many Obama supporters were more repuke than dem. Obama's jesus-speak and his supporters use of rightwing sources has convinced me my initial suspicions were correct

Operation Rescue folks, Sartorum, Allen, Brownback and more.

In Obama's defense, he is reaching out to black churches. Hillary isn't reaching out to anyone, she is joining a group with pretty conservative folks who want to replace the social gospel of standing up for the poor, etc with something more personal and less into social justice.

Is that why articles about the Fellowship have been on the internet for years now?

When you say it by regurgitating republican smears, I think you do the opposite.

I hope you realize the poster you responded to is the sort who posts anti-Clinton stories from over a decade ago using rightwing sources

You never know

Especially since you may not be well aquainted with them yet.

And a belated welcome to DU! :hi: Enjoy your stay.

It doesn't look like it will be a long stay...

I'm a liberal, through and through.

I don't think I made an attack, but If it makes you feel better, twist it around on me. You're the one who is hateful, my friend, and I'm only calling it like I see it.

Hopefully, most Obama supporters aren't like you. If I keep reading this crap on here and if my candidate is out on Feb 5th, I feel like my vote is shifting to anyone but Obama. Good work.

I'm confident in myself and my beliefs and regardless of your opinion, I will continue to call a liar a liar no matter WHO she or he is and no matter from which party they're from. It's a shame your loyalty to a candidate is blinding you to the point you feel you have to attack others to protect them.

My candidate is NOT Clinton. I am not a fan of Hilary or Bill. But, I will not let that cloud my loyalty to the party.

Who did I attack, by the way?

I don't disagree with you calling someone a liar. I disagree with right wing hate radio language like "Slick Willy" or calling Obama "Osama" or calling Edwards "Brecht Girl."

As far as I know, liberals don't use hate speech.

unless you can show me a post anything LIKE what you claimed. :eyes:

Opposed Iraq from the start. That is insulting. How dumb or uninformed does he think his listeners are? We all know that neither he nor his wife opposed Iraq from the start. Both of them are on record as supporting it. This goes way beyond parsing words or exaggerations or even little white lies. This was a pretty blatant bald faced lie. Nothing slick about it. Pretty damned clumsy.

Well, I bet Hillary is furious at him! This was really bone-headed on his part. Iraq is an issue Obama wants to be raised. And who raised it, and gave it more air time? Bill!

I bet Obama is very happy indeed Bill opened his mouth about Iraq. And even more delighted Bill had a "Clinton moment" about the truth....

Anybody who HONESTLY reads and interprets what Clinton said about "supporting" Iraq" knows that he did NOT support Bush's invasion and never, ever, ever, was for it.

What he says he supported was "going back into Iraq with UN inspectors to locate WMD." It was the UN inspections Clinton supported, not Bush's war. He has NEVER gone on record as supporting the invasion itself, although he did say -- back when only 600 American soldiers had died - that he hoped the effort (invasion) turned out to be "worth it."

To intentionally misinterpret what Clinton said in order to make it look like he supported Bush's fiasco is nothing but Clinton Derangement Syndrome (CDS) is action. TIME magazine has always suffered from CDS (so has the WP and NYT) and now it seems to have spread to DU where, once, people tried to be honest and truthful in their comments.

These days, DU sometimes looks more like FR.

have you never seen this video clip, I'm sure you can video google it

."It is...illogical to believe that stocks would not get into the wrong hands," Clinton said just days after the war began. "It's easier to deal with the production and spread of this stuff than deal with the aftermath."


"I don't think it will be a big military problem if we do it."

In a June 2004 article in Time magazine, Clinton also suggested that he would have acted the same way Bush did.
"So, you're sitting there as president, you're reeling in the aftermath of (Sept. 11), so, yeah, you want to go get (Usama) bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, 'Well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that.' That's why I supported the Iraq thing," he is quoted telling the magazine.
========================
That's. Why. I. Supported. The. Iraq. Thing.

I am just so impressed at how much you opposed it "from the start".


Bullshit!

eom

and if he was right that he was against it from the beginning, why did he change his line from the past tense to the present tense???

Many of us are sick and tired of hearing the Clintons lie, triangulate and embarrass the Democratic Party over and over again and feel that it is time for them to finally be shown the door.

This latest of Clintonian misbehavior is tacitly a symptom of a larger problem: allowing the Clintons to make it more difficult for Demorats running in 2008 to not be sucked into their divisive, dishonest and arrogant vortex.

Bill Clinton is on record saying he sided with Bush on the war "against the left". It's on video. It's in print. It's a fact.

For him to try to lie his way out of this latest tact is transparently obvious that both he and his wife are not to be trusted. Period.

Some can call those who see the obvious "haters", "sexist", "picking on her" or the cute Clinton Derangement Syndrome to try to shut down the dialogue. Most people see past this nonsense and the sinking poll numbers for the Clintons is an obvious indication.

Keep diggin', Bill.

Isn't there an endowment out there you can manage or something?

People are sick and tired of your shallow brand of politics.

Right out of the republican playbook.:crazy:

And I love Bill Clinton when he's NOT lying like this.

or maybe it's just habit

edited to "Big Doggie".

and when called on it, they try to hide it. Just goes to show how dishonest some can be

Who's afraid to tell the truth?

I love it when the kiddies run wild

:shrug:

Bwaahahahahaha!!

If it's not a repuke phrase, why did you edit it out from one of your posts?

Silly. That's the only reason. He is, after all, "Slick Friggin' Willie" and we all know it.

I believe ya!!

I edited my post before seeing your crazy eyes.

I'll reserve that label for commenting on the next example of his slickness...and you know it's coming.

You must be proud

especially on supposedly "taboo" subjects such as your hero Bill Clinton's seamy political smarminess.

Now run along. Be a good little sheep.

Good one!!

I clearly recall that Presidents Jimmy Carter and Al Gore opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, not Bill Clinton.

Message to Bill: It's not the 90's anymore. In the 21st century, we have Google, bloggers and streaming broadband.

I like the attention he's drawing to her IWR vote and their mutual support for the Iraq war until the polls went south.

going after weapons of mass destruction, he did not say he approved of bush starting a WAR. Of course the spin is in. People don't really read the quote all the do is read the spin.

He tried, got caught, and corrected it. I saw the same show and was more pissed that they spent the majority of time on his statement as compared to the Rove blatant lie. Tweety then did one of infamous slam pieces by counting how many times Bill used "I" in his speech. Nothing about the content of the speech. He did the same thing a couple of weeks ago counting how many words it took Obama to respond to the Drivers license question. And promoting the BS that is should be a Yes/No answer.

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/031303-y-speech.htm

(snip)

Bill Clinton: But I also believe it's worth a whole lot over the long run to do this in a way that empowers international cooperation, instead of snubs our nose at it. So that's why I opted for the third way, I guess it's the third way because it's the third thing I said tonight. But you may not feel that way, you may feel that it's so bad, and that regime change is a value in and of itself-which is what my friends in Israel think. Most of my friends in Israel, whether they're Labor or Likud, favor regime change, and they're glad that the arms thing gives us an excuse to have regime change. Or you may believe that he (Saddam) presents no problem to us, he's weaker than he was in 1991, and he's sure not going to use or give away that stuff while we're looking down the barrel at him. That's the last thing in the world he's going to do. So why do we want to go to war, because once you start dropping bombs, I don't care how precise they are, innocent people will die.

This is not an easy issue. I could stand up here in a debate and make a case for either of the three courses, but I believe the third course is the correct one, and by the way, the only course that gives us a chance to have disarmament without war. Because if you ever thought a huge majority of the UN was hell-bent on disarmament, and prepared ultimately, if he forced us to use force, that's the only circumstance under which Saddam Hussein at length would disarm. That's another reason I favor the third course. It's the only we might have disarmament without war, as well as keeping the global community together.

(snip)

Do you believe this matters? If you believe it matters-as I do-then you have to decide if it matters whether we bend over backwards to try to disarm him in a way that strengthens rather than divides the world community. If you don't think it matters, then you're with a lot of the people in the current administration who think that we'll just go over there and this will take a few days, after we win-victors always get to write history-everybody will get over this and we'll get everybody back together and they'll be glad he's gone because he's a thug and a murderer.

and Hillary voted FOR the IWR and AGAINST the Levin/Reid amendment whih would've allowed further diplomacy. She voted for it after consulting her husband, she said.

for no reason other than "I believe it when he supports my already existing beliefs"

and his wife voted for the IWR after consulting him. Spin away!

I posted this on another post so if you've already red it...please ignore. Please be sure to read the beginning and end.

Also keep in mind that as an x-president he shouldn't go against the president especially "In a time of war".


Clintons urge caution on action against Iraq
August 31, 2002 Posted: 10:18 AM EDT (1418 GMT)


Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Bill Clinton during a visit to the New York State Fair on Friday.

________________________________________





________________________________________
SYRACUSE, New York (CNN) -- Former U.S. President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton urged the Bush administration to use caution before any military action against Iraq.
Describing her visit to U.S. soldiers injured in Afghanistan and recovering at Washington's Walter Reed Medical Center, the Democratic New York senator asked President Bush to seek congressional approval before any attack on Iraq.




CNN NewsPass Video



• Bush makes Iraq case to Congress



• Iraqi minister scolds U.S. at U.N.





MORE STORIES


• General: U.S. ready to attack Iraq



• Iraq: No new U.N. resolutions



• Bush outlines first-strike doctrine





EXTRA INFORMATION


• Profile: Hans Blix



• Gallery: Reactions to Bush's speech on Iraq



• Timeline: White House states case for Saddam violations



• Interactive: Chemical weapons



• Timeline: U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq



• Map: Area controlled by Kurds



• Interactive Map: World stances on Iraq





RESOURCES


• On the Scene: Rula Amin: Iraqi people relieved



• Text of Iraq letter to U.N.



• U.N. resolutions on Iraq



• U.N. Security Council



• Transcript: Bush address to U.N. General Assembly



• In-Depth: The Unfinished War






"I have personal faces I can put on this debate, and I want to be sure that the president comes with his arguments and information and evidence and that we debate it, and then as a nation we'll stand behind the decision," she said while attending a state fair in upstate New York.
Administration lawyers have concluded President Bush doesn't need congressional approval to launch an attack on Iraq, although White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the president would consult Congress.
Fleischer did not say whether consultation would include a congressional vote approving military action, as was done before the Gulf War in 1991.
The former president said the U.S. military could easily win an attack on Iraq and displace its leader, Saddam Hussein, but he questioned whether it should be done.
"Everybody knows that he's been a thug, hasn't been good for his people, hasn't been good for the region. There's no question people would be better off without him," Clinton said, but warned: "You don't do things just because you can."
While he said he has no doubt the Iraqi leader has stocks of biological and chemical weapons, and has used them on his own people, Clinton said there should be a "large-scale public debate" on whether to wage war.

diplomacy, and said she consulted Bill before making her decision. Not to mention he changed his line from saying he opposed it from the beginning to he opposes it present tense. And here's another quote from Bill:

"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."

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

He's as pathetic as the Obama/Edwards supporters here.

People really do need to read in between the lines instead of just reading the lines that are hand selected to make someone look bad.

They're really starting to turn me off to their candidate, and that's saying a lot!

I love the truth wherever it may be.

I don't expect some people who are firmly in the Clinton camp to get the fact that Bill Clinton got caught AGAIN in another lie.

It's part of the Clinton legacy that we Democrats have to wince and roll our eyes over. We've had to deal with this typical behavior for a decade and now we have to endure people saying that this usual behavior is "change".

Surely it is true that the Republican Party wants the Clintons to run against in 2008. That's a no-brainer. It would be the easiest road for them to not only get the White House but also grab lots of other seats in the House and Senate due to the Clintons dragging our Party down.

credit for bringing her down is now the place to find truth?

what the hell is wrong with you people?
Read this:


On the eve of war with Iraq, former President Clinton said we should avoid war and seek a new U.N. resolution. Here's what he said in New York on March 14, 2003, less than a week before the war began:

Do you believe this matters? If you believe it matters—as I do—then you have to decide if it matters whether we bend over backwards to try to disarm him in a way that strengthens rather than divides the world community. If you don’t think it matters, then you’re with a lot of the people in the current administration who think that we’ll just go over there and this will take a few days, after we win—victors always get to write history—everybody will get over this and we’ll get everybody back together and they’ll be glad he’s gone because he’s a thug and a murderer. That’s what they think. If you believe it matters to keep them together, then you’ve got to support some version of what Prime Minister Blair’s doing now, which is to say, okay, he’s finally destroying his missiles. And the administration, to be fair, is nominally in favor of what Blair’s trying to do.

He’s finally destroying his missiles, so let’s give him a certain date in which, in this time, he has to destroy the missiles, reconcile the discrepancies in what we believe is the truth on chemical weapons, reconcile the discrepancies on biological weapons, reconcile the issue of the Drones, and offer up 150 scientists who can travel outside of Iraq with their families for interviews. If you do that, then we’ll say this is really good-faith disarmament, and we’ll go on without a conflict. Now if that passes, however, then you have to be willing to take yes for an answer. You see what I mean? I’m for regime change too, but there’s more than one way to do it. We don’t invade everybody whose regime we want to change. There’s more than one way to do this, but if that passes and he actually disarms, then we have to be willing to take it, and then work for regime change by supporting the opposition to Saddam Hussein within and outside Iraq, and doing other things.

After the war commenced, President Clinton repeatedly said he would not have invaded Iraq; he would have waited for inspectors to finish their job.

President Clinton: 'I would not have done it until after Hans Blix finished the job.' According to an article in TIME magazine, President Clinton said, "I would not have done it until after Hans Blix finished his job. Having said that, over 600 of our people have died since the conflict was over. We've got a big stake now in making it work. I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn't agree with the timing of the attack."
President Clinton: 'I thought that we should not have gone in there until we let the UN Inspectors finish their job.' On CNN’s The Situation Room, Clinton said, “Well, at the time, Wolf, I thought that we should not have gone in there until we let the U.N. inspectors finish their job. That was, after all, the understanding the Senate had when it was asked to vote to Congress to give the president authority to go in.”
President Clinton: 'I don’t agree with what was done when it was done.' On CNN, Clinton said, “The question is, what's now best for the American people, for the war on terror, and for the people of Iraq, and the stability of the Middle East? We don't want to set a fixed timetable, if that led to chaos, the establishment of permanent terrorist operations in the Sunni section of Iraq, and long-term greater instability in the Middle East. So, whether you are for it or against it, it seems to me you should all be praying that it succeeds. I am. And so -- and I didn't agree with what was done when it was done. But we are where we are.”
11/27/2007 7:17:05 PM #

And no matter WHAT Bill said, can you explain why he changed what he said from "I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning" to "I oppose the war" now? And can you explain why Hillary voted FOR the IWR after consulting with her husband???

He said that he wanted to have credit for taking her down. look for a link your damn self.

The explanation for IWR: how many times do you have to hear the explanation? My god, it was NOT A VOTE FOR WAR. That is the REPUBLICAN talking point.

:rofl: He has claimed Hillary the clear winner of every single debate up to the Philly debate. And he STILL thinks it will be a Hillary-Rudy race.

you heard on cable news.

Also, they showed video clips on Hardball.

MATTHEWS: Bob, where would you put Hillary Clinton on this war, after all is said and done? I‘m amazed now that Bill Clinton has come out and said he‘s Jerry Rubin. I mean, he‘s now become—announced the fact that he‘s been against the war—I love the phrase, “from the beginning.” Within a few hours, by the way, the verb—the verb tense changed from the past to the present. This is like the old “is” is question. He‘s now against the war, having promised the voters a few minutes before that that he was against it. Now he‘s just saying he is against it, a lesser claim. I don‘t remember him speaking out against the war back in 2001, 2002 and 2003, do you?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22025182/

dumbass that he is.
He continued bush1 sanctions (that led to the death of thousands) and he dropped bombs on Iraq, with the avowed goal of "regime change"

sick shit, that.

can see that he wasn't perfect. Hillary is definitely not my first choice.