Former President Clinton on Current President Bush and those now famous sixteen words - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

archer2371 · 07-23-2003, 05:57 PM

This is something that I did not to expect to come from Slick Willy....

Now these are just a few excerpts from when he was on the phone with Larry King, the link is http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/22/lkl.00.html
just so people don't think I'm trying to mislead folks by just giving soundbytes and not the source.

CLINTON: Well, here's what happens: every day the president gets a daily brief from the CIA. And then, if it's some important issue -- and believe me, you know, anything having to do with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons became much more important to everybody in the White House after September the 11 -- then they probably told the president, certainly Condoleezza Rice, that this is what the British intelligence thought. They maybe have a difference of opinion, but on balance, they decided they should leave that line in the speech.

I think the main thing I want to say to you is, people can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back in there.

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.

~Now this is me talking, what do you guys think of Mr. Clinton's statements? I think since he has actually sat in the Oval Office he knows what is going on and can give us a perspective like none other can. Now comes for the really strange part, I AGREE with BILL FRICKIN' CLINTON!!! Most of you know that I am pretty conservative from what I post on the TFP. We need to stop squabbling over how we got to where we are now, realize that we have to do something about it and deal with it, let the people make their own judgments at the polls in 2004. Rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan should be Number One and Two on the list of Foreign Policy issues at this time now. As a wise man once said "Do not distract yourself with the past and future, be in the here and now."

HarmlessRabbit · 07-23-2003, 06:13 PM

My problem with Bush's state of the union is that it's part of a long string of policies and decisions that he has made that appear to help his buddies and hurt the common man. Including:

- Talking down the US economy when he took office to get his tax cut through
- Appointing unqualified people to the SEC committees that he was supposed to be fixing
- Failing to prosecute his friend Kenneth Lay
- Faling to pressure his own appointees on FERC to stop the price gouging by Enron, Dynegy, and others during the height of the energy "crisis". Note that FERC had the power to cap prices and failed to act.
- Ashcroft, the Patriot Act, and the assault on american liberty. (And don't say it's all ashcroft. he works for bush.)
- Failing to do what he said he would do in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is just as much of a mess as it was when we started.

There's more, but that's what comes off the top of my head. Overall, the use of questionable data certainly *seems* minor, but I think it's part of a pattern of disrespect for the common man, and a desire to take care of his rich buddies.

Remember, before the war, the argument was not over whether or not Saddam was a bad guy. Everyone agreed that he was. The argument was over whether we could take our time and remove him slowly by building up a coalition force, or whether he was such an immediate threat that we needed to take him out right away. The USA and Britain said "right away". The rest of the world and the UN said we could go more slowly.

I think history has shown that the UN approach would have been better for the world, for Iraq, and for the USA. Iraq is a huge mess that is costing us a billion dollar a week, and we pissed off most of the rest of the world with our cowboy approach. The state of the union address is relatively minor, but it is also symbolic of the way this administration has behaved and I think that's why it resonates so much with the press and the people.

XXXs · 07-23-2003, 06:29 PM

As a conservative, I do believe that has to be one of the first series of statements Clinton said that I actually agree with. As he states, all presidents make mistakes. Bush made one when he included that sentence in his speech, but he did not lie.

The_Dude · 07-23-2003, 06:36 PM

i dont think he knew what he was sayin in the first place. somebody fed the speech to him and he recited it like a puppet. who is the puppet master?

archer2371 · 07-23-2003, 08:13 PM

Wow, just wow, you're older than I am and all you have to come up with is an immature response to a thought provoking question? At least HarmlessRabbitt (whom I don't agree with) gave me some actual answers.

SomeDude · 07-24-2003, 06:26 PM

I've seen some others similar to this, and personally I think we're seeing more of Clinton's personal nature. He doesn't have any political aspirations keeping him vacillating with the winds of change as when he was in office, and he doesn't have any obligation to constantly talk trash about the other side any more. Now he's free to say "Look, I been there, shit happens, cut a brother some slack sometimes. The president is not omniscient." I have a lot of respect for him for making this sort of statement, rather than holding a grudge against anybody in the GOP for the way the party basically went after him the whole time he was in office.

As for whether "the UN approach" would have been better - Iraq had been flouting the UN for over a decade. The UN has never taken any serious action in all that time, and there's no reason to believe they would take any such action given another ten years.

archer2371 · 07-25-2003, 12:27 AM

SomeDude, you hit the nail on the head my friend.

Kadath · 07-25-2003, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
i dont think he knew what he was sayin in the first place. somebody fed the speech to him and he recited it like a puppet. who is the puppet master?

From The Daily Show last night:

Caption:
"Sitting at his desk in the Oval Office, President Bush reviews the State of the Union address line-by-line and word-by-word."
(John Stewart): "Now, to be fair, this picture refers to the 2002 State of the Union Address. The caption for this year? 'President Bush enjoys the look and feel of paper.'"

The_Dude · 07-25-2003, 11:10 AM

thedrake · 07-27-2003, 11:06 AM

That was a good post Kadath. I think Bush screwed up horribly, he should admit he was wrong.

james t kirk · 07-27-2003, 06:14 PM

The state of the union speach is small potatoes.

They still haven't found any weapons of mass destruction. That was all crap too it would appear.

America should have waited a bit longer and you could have had a lot of other countries on your side.

There was a Canadian proposal setting March 31 as a deadline. I think the US rolled into Iraq on March 17, but I could be out a few days.

I fail to see how waiting 2 weeks woud have made a bit of difference.

Further there was a Russian proposal and even a French proposal that gave Iraq a dead line of a couple more months.

In hind side, it was all irrelevant anyway. For one thing, there were no weapons of mass destruction, for another, the US never had any intention in the world to abide by any UN resolution. The UN thing merely gave the US time to mobilize.

Now, you have a quagmire to pay for. It isn't worth it really. I am glad Saddam is gone, but going it alone with essentially just the Brits was a bad move.

If Bush had any brains he would start to be more of a statesman and try to mend some international fences and at the same time hopefully get some cash and troops out of Russia, France, Germany, China, and yes, Canada.

None of the above are too willing to work with Bush at the moment however.

Bush has basically given the entire world, save Tony Blair the finger and the rest of the world is content to let him dig his own grave.

07-23-2003, 05:57 PM	#1 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Former President Clinton on Current President Bush and those now famous sixteen words This is something that I did not to expect to come from Slick Willy.... Now these are just a few excerpts from when he was on the phone with Larry King, the link is http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/22/lkl.00.html just so people don't think I'm trying to mislead folks by just giving soundbytes and not the source. CLINTON: Well, here's what happens: every day the president gets a daily brief from the CIA. And then, if it's some important issue -- and believe me, you know, anything having to do with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons became much more important to everybody in the White House after September the 11 -- then they probably told the president, certainly Condoleezza Rice, that this is what the British intelligence thought. They maybe have a difference of opinion, but on balance, they decided they should leave that line in the speech. I think the main thing I want to say to you is, people can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back in there. 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. ~Now this is me talking, what do you guys think of Mr. Clinton's statements? I think since he has actually sat in the Oval Office he knows what is going on and can give us a perspective like none other can. Now comes for the really strange part, I AGREE with BILL FRICKIN' CLINTON!!! Most of you know that I am pretty conservative from what I post on the TFP. We need to stop squabbling over how we got to where we are now, realize that we have to do something about it and deal with it, let the people make their own judgments at the polls in 2004. Rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan should be Number One and Two on the list of Foreign Policy issues at this time now. As a wise man once said "Do not distract yourself with the past and future, be in the here and now." __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

07-23-2003, 06:36 PM	#4 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i dont think he knew what he was sayin in the first place. somebody fed the speech to him and he recited it like a puppet. who is the puppet master? __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

07-23-2003, 08:13 PM	#5 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Wow, just wow, you're older than I am and all you have to come up with is an immature response to a thought provoking question? At least HarmlessRabbitt (whom I don't agree with) gave me some actual answers. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

07-25-2003, 12:27 AM	#7 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	SomeDude, you hit the nail on the head my friend. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

07-25-2003, 11:10 AM	#9 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	LOL __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

07-23-2003, 06:13 PM	#2 (permalink)
HarmlessRabbit Junkie Location: San Jose, CA	My problem with Bush's state of the union is that it's part of a long string of policies and decisions that he has made that appear to help his buddies and hurt the common man. Including: - Talking down the US economy when he took office to get his tax cut through - Appointing unqualified people to the SEC committees that he was supposed to be fixing - Failing to prosecute his friend Kenneth Lay - Faling to pressure his own appointees on FERC to stop the price gouging by Enron, Dynegy, and others during the height of the energy "crisis". Note that FERC had the power to cap prices and failed to act. - Ashcroft, the Patriot Act, and the assault on american liberty. (And don't say it's all ashcroft. he works for bush.) - Failing to do what he said he would do in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is just as much of a mess as it was when we started. There's more, but that's what comes off the top of my head. Overall, the use of questionable data certainly seems minor, but I think it's part of a pattern of disrespect for the common man, and a desire to take care of his rich buddies. Remember, before the war, the argument was not over whether or not Saddam was a bad guy. Everyone agreed that he was. The argument was over whether we could take our time and remove him slowly by building up a coalition force, or whether he was such an immediate threat that we needed to take him out right away. The USA and Britain said "right away". The rest of the world and the UN said we could go more slowly. I think history has shown that the UN approach would have been better for the world, for Iraq, and for the USA. Iraq is a huge mess that is costing us a billion dollar a week, and we pissed off most of the rest of the world with our cowboy approach. The state of the union address is relatively minor, but it is also symbolic of the way this administration has behaved and I think that's why it resonates so much with the press and the people.

07-23-2003, 06:29 PM	#3 (permalink)
XXXs Upright	As a conservative, I do believe that has to be one of the first series of statements Clinton said that I actually agree with. As he states, all presidents make mistakes. Bush made one when he included that sentence in his speech, but he did not lie.

07-24-2003, 06:26 PM	#6 (permalink)
SomeDude Upright	I've seen some others similar to this, and personally I think we're seeing more of Clinton's personal nature. He doesn't have any political aspirations keeping him vacillating with the winds of change as when he was in office, and he doesn't have any obligation to constantly talk trash about the other side any more. Now he's free to say "Look, I been there, shit happens, cut a brother some slack sometimes. The president is not omniscient." I have a lot of respect for him for making this sort of statement, rather than holding a grudge against anybody in the GOP for the way the party basically went after him the whole time he was in office. As for whether "the UN approach" would have been better - Iraq had been flouting the UN for over a decade. The UN has never taken any serious action in all that time, and there's no reason to believe they would take any such action given another ten years.

07-27-2003, 11:06 AM	#10 (permalink)
thedrake Banned Location: Iowa	That was a good post Kadath. I think Bush screwed up horribly, he should admit he was wrong.

07-27-2003, 06:14 PM	#11 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	The state of the union speach is small potatoes. They still haven't found any weapons of mass destruction. That was all crap too it would appear. America should have waited a bit longer and you could have had a lot of other countries on your side. There was a Canadian proposal setting March 31 as a deadline. I think the US rolled into Iraq on March 17, but I could be out a few days. I fail to see how waiting 2 weeks woud have made a bit of difference. Further there was a Russian proposal and even a French proposal that gave Iraq a dead line of a couple more months. In hind side, it was all irrelevant anyway. For one thing, there were no weapons of mass destruction, for another, the US never had any intention in the world to abide by any UN resolution. The UN thing merely gave the US time to mobilize. Now, you have a quagmire to pay for. It isn't worth it really. I am glad Saddam is gone, but going it alone with essentially just the Brits was a bad move. If Bush had any brains he would start to be more of a statesman and try to mend some international fences and at the same time hopefully get some cash and troops out of Russia, France, Germany, China, and yes, Canada. None of the above are too willing to work with Bush at the moment however. Bush has basically given the entire world, save Tony Blair the finger and the rest of the world is content to let him dig his own grave.