IMHO, Clinton's statement about Bush's "mistake" was uninformative

[w4rma]

Maybe it was informative about Clinton, but it didn't help explain the situation to Americans. It wasn't "statesmanlike". It was intentionally ambiguous.

Everyone is running around trying to figure out what he meant. The folks who were inclined to like him, likely think that he meant something similar to their beliefs. The folks who were inclined not to like him, likely think that he meant something opposing their beliefs.

I do not like this type of politics. IMHO, this type of politics where folks can't figure out for sure what the politician meant is why voter turnout is so low. I want to know why politicians vote one way or another and I want other folks to know why, also. Clinton's ambiguousness works against educating the populace about politics.

I'd rather be told something bluntly and unabiguously and disagree with them than watch everyone try to figure out what some politician "really" meant.

"The preeminence of representative government {is maintained} by showing that its foundations are laid in reason, in right, and in general good." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1810.

[annagull]

1. I like Bill--but I think that was a stupid statement

Maybe he just really wants to stay out of it, and that was the best he could do on live tv. Or maybe because he supported this war he feels the need to defend it no matter what. Whatever the reason, I don't think there are any "hidden messages"--reminds me of the "secret plans" people were saying the Dems had before the last election.

[seeker4ever]

2. Another reason why I like Dean.

I hate that "say a bunch of words and say nothing" crap.

[tomp]

3. i agree totally!

i call it the other shadow government, the guessing game, only the best tea leaf readers know what's going on. it is exceptionally bad for the country to not know what's really going on, and it points to the general dishonesty of 99% of politicains.

[diplomats]

4. Actually, I think he meant what he said about moving on

it turns out the CIA is about to release more damning info beyond Nigergate, and the 9/11 report out tomorrow says there's no link between Saddam and al-Qaida. I imagine Clinton knew this. So it is time to move on - to even more embarrassing scandals for Chimpy.

[tomp]

6. why give up the bird in the hand?

there's no reason. so these other revelations come out (i'll believe them when i see them, btw). why not have three things to attack bush with instead of two? no good reason.

[lanlady]

5. not to mention uninformed--

An "understandable mistake" when the CIA had been carping for months about it? C'mon, Bill, aren't you reading the news?

The comment was unnecessary. He should have said "each president acts on the information presented to him" and left it at that.

Bill wants soooooo badly to be liked by everybody. That is a big personality flaw.

Protocol dictates that presidents don't criticize each other directly. The Bush folks, who haven't an ounce of class in their collective bodies, have broken that rule repeatedly. Clinton owes these people nothing.

His assinine remarks belong on the Clinton Wall of Shame, right up there with the Monica mess.

I really do like the guy.... but sometimes it's damn hard to keep liking him.