Clinton's defense of Bush surprises fellow Democrats
 

"Former president accepts explanation on State of the Union"

"Clinton, in a phone interview Tuesday evening with CNN's Larry King, said he thought the White House had addressed the controversy surrounding a disputed claim in Bush's State of the Union address. "

"I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying 'we probably shouldn't have said that,' " Clinton told King."

"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 a while. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now. That's what I think."

Clinton also said Tuesday night that at the end of his term, there was "a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for " in Iraq.

"So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'"

Clinton told King: "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."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...otu/index.html

so where are they then?

Funny to see right wingers who said that Clinton couldn't be trusted on anything because he lied about sex suddenly hoping he can defend the lying to provoke war of their leader.

If right wingers think Clinton is a liar, then what does it matter what he says about Bush's lying? :1orglaugh

Bush is in a free fall and there are other Bush lies that will probably come out in the media before the election.

2004 is looking like it might be an interesting election cycle after all. :)

Of course Clinton isn't going to attack Bush. Clinton is a brilliant politician.

He know's history can change the perception of events...such as the blue dress looks like nothing in comparison.

In addition, it makes Bush administration look like they ignored the warnings of the Clinton administration on the growing threat of Osama and other international terrorists.

read between the lines.

:2 cents:

What specific lie/lies are you referring to that were used to "to provoke war"?

Come on Bush ass kisser, try Google.

:1orglaugh

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...701EDT0740.DTL

The White House has teamed with GOP congressional leaders in an aggressive damage-control campaign to counter embarrassing questions about prewar intelligence and lapses by President Bush's national security team.

But the effort is being hampered by an ever-changing White House story -- from first blaming the CIA and then the British to new revelations by Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley that contradict earlier statements by his boss, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

In his first two years, Bush lied and exaggerated repeatedly. He lied about the number of stem cell lines available, the benefits for poor people of his tax cuts, his commitment to carbon dioxide emissions reductions, the cost of the war, and much more.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/07/24/clinton/

I am fully aware of what you and those like you generally call "lies"...it has yet to be proven that the President "lied".

FYI...I am not a fan of the President...did not vote for the President and will not vote for the President.

Did Bush have cause to believe that Saddam had WMD to give to al-Qaida? In his speech to the nation two days before launching the war, he said: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess WMDs." Yet both U.S. Rep. Jane Harman of California, a moderate and pro-war Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee (which is examining the prewar intelligence), and Richard Kerr, a former deputy CIA director who is conducting an internal CIA review, have said that the intelligence on WMD in Iraq was full of caveats and qualifiers. In other words, it was not no-doubt stuff. They also have reported that U.S. intelligence had not unearthed any evidence of operational ties between Saddam's government and al-Qaida.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...ida/index.html

If Bush came out and said "I'm black and 3 foot tall," people like you would continue to say there was no "proof" that he lied.

How can you prove he's not black? Just because he doesn't look black to you doesn't mean he doesn't look black to Rush Limbaugh. :1orglaugh

All politicians give off the image that they are a bunch of scum. This includes Clinton, Bush, et. al before them. Plain and simple, every politician will have his "haters", because as a politician no matter what you do, somebody's pissed... Fight gun violence, the NRA and hickville slams you. Fight for gun rights, every person that knows somebody that has been killed by a gun, is gonna want to strangle you. Welcome to left-wing vs. right-wing politics in america. I prefer to remain "independent" as I like certain initiatives from both the Republicans and Democrats. Did we need any more justification after 9/11 to rid the world of tyrants? How many more deaths is it gonna take before we don't have to justify cleaning up psychotic, torturing, and nuclear-weapon pursuing regimes..

The point is...the Congressional Intelligence Select Committees are reviewing intel reports...in closed hearings (as is SOP)...the Senate Select Committee has announced that public hearings will begin in September. When the Select committees issues a "result report" then it will be determined whether or not the Administration lied or if the intel supported the Administrations statements. In the meantime everything else is speculation.

FYI the Select Intelligence Committees had access to, and were provided with, the same intel provided to the Admininstration prior to the invasion of Iraq. They are the overseers of the 14 different intel agencies. Maybe Jane Harman should have spoke out prior to the invasion if she thought the intel did not support the Administrations statements. Is she now playing partisan politics or was she just not doing her job when she was presented with the intel prior to the invasion?

You're right. That's why it's irrelevant what republicans think or say about Clintons comments. The real question here is what is the democrats reaction to their own president defending Bush and saying the people calling Bush a liar are wrong. Do YOU now say Clinton is full of shit? Or do you say Clinton is right. If Clinton is wrong, what did he say that was wrong?

My first thought when I read this story was that Clinton doesn't want a democrat to win the presidential election this go around because he wants his wife to run in 2008.

King, ya know I used to bend myself double always trying to see the good part in someone... I quit that several years ago. I see you still are trying. Cmon, if it quacks waddles, swims, and shakes water from its wings, Its a freaking Duck.

Bush has had WAYYY too many things laid at his door and everyone is all Oh, nothing proven! But I have yet to see someone with 50 million to pursue his tailend. (where is a demmy 'Starr')It would take 10 bucks and a PI on coffee break to lay evidence down on Bush.

Comes a time to admit that the septic tank needs drained when the stink drives the flies away.

Clinton wants ALL attention in Cali where he is about to attack the GOP for Davis... So of course he wants the Uranium thing ignored for NOW... he probably will readdress it later when even more evidence shows up that this administration is being way less than truthful.

The Clinton's want Bush to win in 2004. That would make things much easier for Hillary's run for President in 2008.

I thought it was Talk Radio with you, now it's just Rush Limbaugh?

I will wait on the results of the Congressional investigations to be completed.

He does seem to be a fan of talk radio. :)

Because gawd knows, they will come up with the definitive answer! No one else but this Congressional committee could ever come up with the truth! They are OMNISCIENT!:1orglaugh

I mean..WHO are you going to believe?

A liar?

OR










another liar?:)

The Select Intelligence Committees are the only ones that have access to the intel of the 14 agencies. No other members of Congress do...no one on this board does and no one in the media does. So it is entirely in their hands...unless an independent committee is formed...which some in Congress are calling for...and may happen before all is said and done. Until they issue a report everything said or written by anyone else is speculation or BS.

All this time I thought the President of the United States was the only one that had access to all the intel.

If you can't trust your Prez..who can you trust?

Not critics with an agenda for sure.

Excellent post dude :thumbsup