B. Clinton defends Bush. Says he supported "the Iraq thing"

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

(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 Lie."

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.
_____________________________

to say that clinton did not support the war... sheesh. gimme a break.
He waged war on Iraq himself. and called for a US sponsored "regime change". He bombed Iraq.

what a *%$#!! dumbass

ain't her fault her husband is a dumbass.
Hillary's record speaks for itself.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

she is such a dumbass. a warmongering lying dumbass.

:thumbsup:

You said it well!

:)

the Clintons carpet-bagging in NY as it did when W. Va. had a Rockefeller for Governor. The oligarchy marches on.

peace and low stress

The PNACers approached Bill--at the height of the Monica scandal--and
begged him for war with Iraq.

Dozens of PNACers--many of whom now reside in the upper echelons of BushCo--
signed a letter that requested this war. That letter was sent to President
Bill Clinton and he responded with a "No", suggesting that the time wasn't
right because he was embroiled in scandal.

President Clinton knew these thugs had been shopping around this war for years.
After 9/11, the PNACers didn't need to ask permission. They simply started the
war they'd wanted for years---by riding the 9/11 fear wave.

Bill Clinton said nothing about these criminals approaching him in the '90s.
He fell silent--as did his wife--as the neocons launched their war plan.

Hillary knew all of this as well. She had front-row seats to the deception
and the perversity--just like her husband. She stood on the floor of the
Senate and parroted the Bush talking points. Hillary suggested that there
was an Al Queda/Saddam link and she also said that Iraq could use nuclear
weapons in the future. She was part of the marketing run up to the Iraq
war---and she damn well knew it was a lie-based farce!

This disgraceful sham has EVERYTHING to do with Hillary Clinton!

So how do we draft Gore in time!?

He wouldn't go in without the allies. But he DID want to go in - just not on his own.

version so we can recommend posts. Yours would be one of those. Excellent!

We need another Clinton in the White House like we need another four years of the current asswipe.

But don't throw in your hand!

He also believed that Iraq had WMD's. I will give him credit for not jumping the gun and starting a war. I also think Bill is trying to cover for his wife's mistake.

of hundreds of thousands of deaths.
lest we forget what a great guy he is.

fuck he wants..he did the same thing with the blue dress incident..but this had hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed and not a bloody wink of a conscience.

bill clinton is a pandering a$$hole.

He certainly likes the limelight for somebody who is "retired".

we need air..and it turns out he's an A$$hole with no conscience.

That limelight is our gift because now we know exactly where we stand with mr clinton.

He says he supports him but bush should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over.

The UN had to that point found nothing and were hindered by the US insisting to poke Saddam with a sharp stick. If I recall correctly the UN inspectors called the US's intelligence, "garbage after garbage after garbage." They went on to say it was circumstantial, outdated or just plain wrong.

I really don't see how Clinton support bush and say the UN inspections should have been completed at the same time.

when the weapon inspectors were proving that use of force was not necessary and because of that they were not ALLOWED to finish.

So Clinton was siding with Bush's decision to invade and his conduct of the war at the exact same time the Dem candidate was opposing that decision and was putting forth a military plan to stabilize Iraq and bring UN and NATO troops in to take over the mission after the Iraqi elections.

What Clinton believed was correct, and had everyone done what he wanted, there would have been no invasion of Iraq. Clinton wanted the UN to handle the inspections, not the US. (Maybe he didn't believe our intelligence either.) If the UN HAD handled the inspections, they would have concluded NO WMD and therefore no reason for war.

As a private citizen, Clinton could no longer do anything about was what BUSH was going to do -- which was his usual lying, cheating and stealing. Clinton could not stop Bush any more than you or I could -- even though he (like most of we) knew damn well that Bush was about to screw the international pooch on Iraq for all the wrong reasons.

Yes, Clinton could have spoken out. And what would have been the result? The result would have been tirade after tirade by talking head after TV talking head about how that corrupt, has-been Slick Willie should keep his nose out of our noble President Bush's business. Etc. etc.

Don't you remember how Bush was God in those days and could do no wrong? 87% approval ratings? God, I do.

Clinton could certainly have been more anti-war than he was. But he was NEVER pro-war, as so many with Clinton Derangement Syndrome now retrospectively accuse him of being, and it wasn't his job to keep Bush from invading Iraq.

At bottom, it was ours.

for a Dem president siding with a Dem nominee is there? In fact - it should be EXPECTED.

The American people were buying what Kerry was saying - why did Bill have to give more public support to Bush on decisions the Dem Nominee was attacking while putting forth his own plans and positions?

If Clinton was sincere, then why did he not side with Kerry's view of Bush's Iraq decisions in any public way IF they matched his own views at the time as he now claims?

I was blaming him for now making a statement I see as stupid, as I explained. Not for not stopping the war or not speaking out then. I certainly didn't lay blame for the war at his feet nor call him pro-war as your reply implies.

You've done a nice job of validating his statement to yourself, but you don't in any way address why Bill Clinton felt the need to say such a thing at this point in time.

Just as an example, consider what then-Governor George W. Bush said about him when he sent US forces into Bosnia:



And yet he is supportive of what is distinctly Junior's never ending war. I just don't get it.

to be talking about the invasion and occupation of another country as "a thing".

trying to break through that wall of support for Bush by criticizing and opposing Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq war - gee - wonder why a Democratic president would do that in an election year so crucial for Dems and this nation?

Hillary2008?


Historian Brinkley observed this in April2004:
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Bill on Larry King Live, June2004:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

Woodward's observations at the WH on election night:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

weapon inspections were working to prove force was not necessary. All his plans as the presidential Dem nominee were dealing with the reality of Bush's decision and were geared to bring the UN and NATO in so our troops could start coming home within 6 months of Iraqi elections.

I know that was never good enough for you - but, it sure would be preferable to what we are living with.

:kick: for triangulate

peace and low stress

way back when, he didn't believe bush was a liar and that Iraq did have WMD. Oh my goodness....oh my good gracious. 99% of the country didn't believe bush was a liar.

that.

and just what are you saying? that 99% of the country believed Bush???

was also the one advising Tony Blair.

Sorry, but you really can't get away with saying shit like that, here, of all places.

Too many of us were calling, faxing, emailing article after article to Dems -- including Ms. Hillary Clinton -- that proved Bush was a liar and that the whole WMD/Osama/Saddam thing was utter bullshit fabricated by the Iraqi Survey group.

Too many of us marched repeatedly with hundreds of thousands of other Americans across this country to stop the insanity.

Bill Clinton had plenty of opportunity to know the truth of exactly what was going on. Why he chose to believe -- or pretended to believe -- otherwise, is only for him to know.

That he is trying to rewrite his own history on this matter is revolting.

other than I'll take your posts with a huge grain of salt from now on.

just an innocent little ol' bystander.

""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."""

This is getting effen crazy. wtf is happening.
lets go trash Nader again for saying there really isn't much of a difference between the corporate parties.

jesssssus cripes.

I prefer to believe that liberals do not intentionally misrepresent the truth in order to slander people they don't like. That's what makes me suspect that the people who keep posting this quote on DU, claiming that it shows that "Clinton supported Bush's war," are not actually liberal Democrats, but wingnuts of the ilk of Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly, et cetera. Because it is THOSE types of deliberately unintelligent people -- and the twerps like them in the MSM -- who keep trying to perpetuate and promote this pitiful piece of propaganda.

Let's examine this seemingly unkillable lie. Let's look at Clinton's quote and see what it REALLY says:

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.

This lead sentence encapsulates the lie that wingnuts keep quoting. Note that it is NOT what Clinton actually said, instead it is the writer's deliberately unkind INTERPRETATION of what Clinton said. It is written so as to make the reader think that Clinton supported Bush's war from the start and still does so. But that's a lie. As we read the article, we'll find that Clinton said no such thing. But careless (like you?) or prejudiced (like you?) readers will not notice that -- which, of course, is just what this lying 'reporter' is counting on.

"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" (not "My Lie" as it appear in your quote).

'Defending Bush from the left about his reasons for invading Iraq' is NOT the same thing as supporting Bush's invasion of Iraq. What Clinton says here -- speaking as an ex-president -- is that Democrats shouldn't be too quick to condemn or oppose Bush's actions, because they don't have the same picture of things that he, as president, does. For example, Clinton supported Bush in asking for a UN resolution to use force, even though many on the left (like me) did not. And note how he says that he thinks Bush should have waited for inspections to be finished before launching any (UN sanctioned) attack. That is exactly the same thing as saying: "I DID NOT agree with Bush when he launched his attack. I think he was wrong to do so as long as Saddam was complying with UN inspectors."

That is a long, long, long way from 'agreeing with Bush to invade Iraq." Can you wingnuts not see that? Of course not. Because you don't want to, and there is none so blind.

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.

I disagree with Clinton here. I DO think the invasion was all about oil and imperialism. But Clinton is a very smart man who knows a thousand times as much as I do about this subject, so I must grant him his right to say whatever he wants to. But that has nothing to do with the slander that he 'supported' Bush's invasion. Nowhere in this quote is that said or even implied by Clinton. Yes, there are implications, but they are all generated by this lying reporter who, along with so many other unfortunate Americans, have been afflicted with Clinton Derangement Syndrome (CDS).
_____________________________

to say that clinton did not support the war... sheesh. gimme a break.
He waged war on Iraq himself. and called for a US sponsored "regime change". He bombed Iraq.

As to your personal comments above, as far as I know, Clinton never invaded Iraq and I don't remember a single American or Iraqi civilian casualty during the Clinton years. I don't remember the National Guard being mobilized or USO trips or any of that good old, HOO-AH stuff that goes along with a good old 'Merican war. In fact, all I remember about the Clinton years is peace and prosperity and hope -- oh yeah, and a bogus, political assassination attempt called "Monicagate."

I bet I know whose side you were on during THAT, too.

what a *%$#!! dumbass

I can't argue with that.

delusional.

And here we are, another election, and Billy Bob Peckerwood is still defending his 'brother' george.

Poopy must be soooooooo proud.

You just know ..daddy poop is proud.

And, us? Do feel this is just a little bit Surreal?! Ol' bill musta been bought out, Big Time.

to make him back the repubes like he does? Especially Chimpy.

Maybe the deal was to put all the administration's weight behind the MSM to shove his damn wife down our throats.

actually happened. And the m$$$$$$m is at the rotten core of most if not all of America's sliding into the slimey abyss.

Thanks for connecting the dots..sometimes it takes me awhile. The corporatemediawhores do what their corporateMasters tell them they better damn well do or they're OUT.

DU has become the greatest place on the internets to trash whatever Democratic candidate that you see fit to, with nothing but snide comments and innuendo to back you up.

I think that DU is calling out the triangulators.

I opposed this war because the risk of WMD did not justify a 50 year sacrifice from our troops.
We could have dealt with this (sabotage, diplomacy, sanctions, inspections) in a way that would not have put American lives at risk.

Bigdog is saying that he supported violence to address the WMD threat. I never thought this was accurate. I thought that violence would make America less safe.

America is less safe.

But, for the record, I really can't stand the thought of HRC in the White House again. I won't try to stop her. She don't need my help, or any DU'ers. She will be the next Pres. At least the neo-cons will be more pissed then the liberals will be.

I don't see things that way. I see things as they were back then. I remember both Clinton's saying they were against the unilateral use of force, they wanted to let the weapon inspections run their course before using any kind of force. Which would have shown that the WMD line was bullshit. I also remember people saying on all the news networks that Bill Clinton had no reason to get involved in the national discourse since he was no longer president and I remember a lot of so called Democrats agreeing with that sentiment. I remember the Dixie-chicks and all the other people that were ridiculed in the media for having the slightest question about Iraq and why we were going their. I remember the fear I felt at being labeled un-american for not agreeing with the war in Iraq. I don't blame any of our Democratic candidates for their vote at that time, because I see were much more damage could have been done to our county had the republicans had won an even larger number of Senate and House seats.

But at least we will get the white house next year. That is better then the GOP winning. I can be thankful for that.

Peace and low stress.

I rank it right up their with "If your not with us your against us." I hope we do win the white house next year, that will be a hard thing to do if we start calling ourselves traitors to get a couple of primary votes. Peace to you as well.

The right, honorable Maurice Hinchey (NYSCD 22) opposed the war from the start. Hinchey felt that a violent attack on Iraq would make America less safe and that the threat of WMD was not sufficient to justify invading.

He is not smarter then the Clintons. Perhaps Hinchey was able to take these positions because he is safe in a liberal congressional district.

But what does that say about the Clintons? Bill was not up for election. HRC was destined to win her reelection by a 70 / 30 split (I don't even remember who ran against her... the first time it was Lazio. The Mills ran against Schumer. I think Faso(?) ran vs. HRC the second time I think).

So the Clintons were politically safe to make the right call (unless they were already scheming for 2008 - very possible / probable).

This means that the Clintons can only be as "left / progressive" or correct as the opinion polls allow them to be. In other words, it is better to be strong and wrong (Bush policy on Iraq) then it is to be weak and right (like myself, or Hinchey).

So Bigdog and HRC "opposed" the war in the same way that Hagel and McCain opposed the war - Bush mismanagement sucks.

Now we will get to see HRC "win" this war with proper management, as opposed to mismanagement.

All that is left for the liberals is to try to avoid war with Iran. A case can easily be made for Iranian regime change. We need to do the hard work.

""I prefer to believe that liberals do not intentionally misrepresent the truth in order to slander people they don't like.""

Clinton just pretends to be a liberal to sucker people in. and it obviously works! any friend of George and Seniors and anyone who is supposedly a 'liberal' (like a Joementum this clinton thing is) and defends the crimes the Bushes have done - the enormous death and suffering to so so many in so many ways - is someone I do Not Trust, ever. He is either complicit or the stupidest donkey on the planet.

Fascinating

"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,"

Speaks for itself. Bill doesn't need you to speak for him.

The neo-cons say "fuck-em". The neo-libs say "fuck-em, but tell them your sorry."

From the regular bombing raids flown over Iraq when Clinton was president. Of course, they didn't really make the US papers. Not to mention hundreds of thousands of deaths due to sanctions.

It's nice to see reasoned argument used here on DU - especially when there are those that would destroy the reputation of the Democrats that we are wont to support here. Bravo.

It's time for a change. No Bush's and No Clintons.

The Bigdog likes his chimp...

:shrug:

really.
maybe.

Colin Powell was the devil
Mohammed was an architect prior to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden, I found myself in love with the whirl
So the only thing left that I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long.


:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

bill has no fucking conscience what's so ever.

And should this reflect on hillary? ...you bet your sweet :kick: Because she's no better.

Madeleine Albright will be featured on tonight's season finale of Iconoclasts along with actress Ashley Judd. Airs @10PM on The Sundance Channel! For More info, visit: http://www.sundancechannel.com/iconoclasts/

He went, but that does not mean our troops should not come home now.

bombing Iraq from the get go.

attack on Iraq.
for war on Panama, war on Grenada, war on Iraq 1...

their policies killed many, many people.

Hip boots are need these days with the swell of bullshit.

Five foot high and rising.

If Hillary becomes Pres. she will not press for Prosecution of Busholini for his many Crimes.
In exchange for that Bill & Hill would not go against Busholini full out while he still occupies the WH. Hillary could chide Busholini but never call him out regarding the on going Criminal Activity or demand Impeachment.

...that Hillary Clinton is the candidate of choice for the neocon criminals.

Is she refusing to denounce her Iraq war vote and is she cheerleading for the
next step of the PNAC plan (Iran), as a show of support for Democrats? HA!
She's giving a wink and a nod to the warmongers---letting them know that she's their gal.

She's such a horrendous disgrace.

The neocons and the Clintons are intertwined. The Clintons stand by and watch
our civil rights destroyed and they say nothing as Habeas is stripped and our
Constitution is ripped to shreds. Any DUer who held a Congressional seat would
have spoken out against these BushCo atrocities in spades. Hillary
could have obliterated and exposed their agenda--with her power position as a
Senator from New York on the Senate Armed Serviced Committee.

She's silent. She's compliant. She's used her position to enable BushCo, not
stop them.

I don't think I've ever loathed a Democrat more, than I have Hillary. She's
a traitor and a sell out.

We're all shown pictures of young Bill and Hillary when they were idealists and stood for something.

Sorry America, those days are gone and those people are dead.

And your ranting a raving proves nothing.

that's amusing, thanks. great for the antiwar march sign.

Hilary lovers at least admit that you are going to vote to perpetuate the Iraq War!!!!!! and the billions made by the insurance industry (health insurance specifically)! and now that you ahve the support of AT&T and the Carlyle Group, just delete the D after her name once and for all.

Ever since then he joined up with the RWing Plutocracy.