Okay, I think I understand where Clinton was coming from. He took

[harrison]

up for George about Nigergate and said in the position of President you can't make all the right calls. However, he knew this 911 report was coming out which totally undercuts the connection between Saddam and Al Queada. Clinton's comments actually help set up * for the fall.

If Nigergate was a "mistake", a bad call. What is the Saddam/Al Quaeda connection about?

It isn't a mistake; a bad call. It is a lie.

It seems to me that Clinton set * up so he could be knocked down like a bowling pin.

In other words, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Folks are not going to like getting fooled twice.

Last night I really thought Clinton had something up his sleeve like making sure that the Dems don't win in 2004 so Hillary can run in 2008. However, I am really not so sure.

If the press runs with the no connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda the way they did with Nigergate, then * is really going to be hurt. Clinton's remarks actually set * up, it seems to me.

OF course, I admit that I am giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt now. I wasn't before.

[LiberalLibra]

1. All a person had to do is READ Clinton's words and be able to......

....comprehend what they were reading to know Clinton was being tactful but WASNOT DOING DEFUS ANY FAVORS by what he said.

[MrBenchley]

10. I'll bet the Appointistration didn't think it was helpful

to have the Big Dog speak up when he did....

All he did was remind America what the GOP's hypocrites did about a harmless fib concerning consensual sex...

[StClone]

16. Delicious

If anyone thinks Bush being defended by Big Dog is a favor they mustn't listen to Rash Limwad. In Rash's mind Bill is evil. Kind words from the Evil One does not aid Bush it pulls Freeper world into an unimaginable surrealistic inside-out extreme.

[lcordero]

2. If that's the case then, shame on me one million times

x(

[barbaraann]

3. I respectfully disagree.

The truth is that George W. Bush did not make a mistake. He purposely deceived the American people. And Bill Clinton distorted the truth about that deception.

[tomp]

7. i agree. my reading comprehension is just fine.

liberallibra needs an upgrade/overhaul on his/her shit-detector.

[CWebster]

11. bingo

there is nothing more to be said.



Face it.

[BurtWorm]

23. Not really.

It's true that the British said Saddam was looking to buy uranium in Africa--they named three countries, including Niger, as able and possibly willing to sell uranium to Iraq. What is clearly not true is that the Niger doument the Bushists tried to cite in October but were dissuaded from citing by the CIA was authentic. It's apparently true, however, that the Bush people knew that document was bogus since March 2002 at least. But it isn't clear why they seem to have put more stock in British intelligence on Iraq's nuclear program than in the CIA's and IAEA's more skeptical analyses.

Of course probably every one here at DU suspects the Bushists of picking and choosing whom to "believe" based on the effect they thought the information would have on the American people--in other words of purposely distorting the shaky nuclear evidence because it scared people more than the chem and biological evidence. That is certainly my feeling.

[ShaneGR]

4. This is good

:-)

[ewagner]

5. More simple than that

I think Clinton was show what the Repubs SHOULD have done while he was pres. This would have been the proper way to handle Clinton's indiscresions without dividing the country. Compare and contrast. That simple.

btw: Bill said we (dems) should "move on" (wink, wink, nod, nod)
;-)

[Loonman]

6. Subtlety and refinements

I don't expect the extremist glory riders on either side of the fence to understand the subtleties in Clinton's words.

It's all a big chess game.....and Boosh is a horrible chess player(I would imagine).

[NNN0LHI]

8. He knew about this too. The last thing we needed was for the voters to...

...rally around their president because all of the Dems were picking on poor little Bush baby. That was Roves plan. And it didn't work. Don

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030724.asp

Congressional Democrats Surge in Public Ratings on Economy

Also improve standing on foreign affairs, federal budget deficit, and situation with Iraq

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll shows that since January, there has been a significant shift in public sentiment about which of the two political parties in Congress can best deal with selected issues. The largest shift has been in the area of the economy, with Democrats now favored by 17 percentage points, while Republicans were favored by one point last January. Democrats' ratings have also improved in the areas of foreign affairs, the federal budget deficit, and the situation in Iraq (note: the poll was conducted before the Tuesday announcement that American forces had killed Saddam Hussein's two sons). On four other issues, there has been no change in ratings.

The poll, conducted July 18-20, asked the public to rate which party would better handle a list of eight issues. Republicans in Congress hold a 26-point edge over the Democrats on the issue of terrorism, as well as a 15-point advantage on handling the situation in Iraq, and a five-point advantage on foreign affairs in general.

By contrast, the Democratic advantages are all in the area of domestic issues: prescription drugs for older Americans, unemployment, the economy, the federal budget deficit, and education.

more

[blm]

9. I'm seeing it your way the more I read.

Thanks for staying on this.

[Northwind]

12. When critisizing something Clinton says

One should always remember that he maintained a 70% approval rating AFTER being impeached, and that an incredibly vicious politcal blitzkrieg was unleashed upon him almost the moment he took office (I was seeing Impeach Clinton bumper sticklers here in Texas in '93), yet he was and is a very popular President.

The man is so politically savvy he makes every single one of us on this board look positively un-evolved. Never assume anything he says is being said in a vacuum, and never assume you know what he is thinking, because he is ten steps ahead of you or probably anyone else.

[madrchsod]

13. i see this morning

the pro ******* crowd is fighting back.......no matter what he said,no matter what he`s done,it`s always his fault -is this du?

[Northwind]

15. Would you please

Explain what you just said? I cannot make sense of it. Is "pro *******" supposed to be "pro Clinton?" Because if so, I want to point out that "poltically-savvy" is not necessarily an endorsement. Karl Rove is savvy, Tony Blair is savvy. And I sure as hell do not endorse those a-holes.

[gasperc]

14. He can say dopey things like" I think I raised your taxes too much"

remember that one? hello, Bill, what were you thinking?
But, all in all, it may be as simple as, president's make mistakes, SO STOP FUCKING BLAMING ME(CLINTON) FOR TERRORISM. Get my drift. Or, in other words, they gave me(Clinton) some of the same bullshit intelligence but I saw through it, I wasn't looney to go it alone and invade leaving us in a tar pit that the republican controlled congress would drag me over hot coals.

[On the Road]

17. The Niger Document was a Forgery

but the claims made by Bush and Blair were broader, namely that Saddam had attempted to purchase uranium in Africa. (The Daily Howler has been making this point recently.)

I think this is what Clinton was referring to as being a mistake. We don't know what the intelligence is -- it may be wrong, but it's different from citing an obvious forgery.

Rightly or wrongly, Clinton wanted to get Saddam, too, he just didn't try to fabricate a war over it. Personally, I think Bill was just speaking his mind without a political agenda. If there was one, it may have been the perception that Dems are in danger of hurting themselves by becoming attack dogs on this issue. Going on the offensive is a delicate balance, and Clinton always seemed to do well at it without appearing like a hack.

[bluedem]

18. I'm with the "fool me once" crowd here. I think Clinton accomplished

two things with his comments. One is that perhaps he knows about some other damaging information that's coming out on Bush. So he takes the high road on one issue says to move on and then BAM! More info comes out and he and everyone else know we don't want to be fooled twice.

The other is for selfish reasons, trying to act forgiving so that perhaps he gets some forgiveness himself (not that I think he needs it).

[bluedem]

19. I'm with the "fool me once" crowd here. I think Clinton accomplished

two things with his comments. One is that perhaps he knows about some other damaging information that's coming out on Bush. So he takes the high road on one issue says to move on and then BAM! More info comes out and he and everyone else know we don't want to be fooled twice.

The other is for selfish reasons, trying to act forgiving so that perhaps he gets some forgiveness himself (not that I think he needs it).

[bluedem]

20. I'm with the "fool me once" crowd here. I think Clinton accomplished

two things with his comments. One is that perhaps he knows about some other damaging information that's coming out on Bush. So he takes the high road on one issue says to move on and then BAM! More info comes out and he and everyone else know we don't want to be fooled twice.

The other is for selfish reasons, trying to act forgiving so that perhaps he gets some forgiveness himself (not that I think he needs it).

[NewYorkerfromMass]

21. that's the 3rd time you said that

:)

[bluedem]

22. I need to be HEARD! Actually, I don't know what went wrong. Sorry!

.

[hang a left]

24. I agree whole heartedly

he doesn't want everyone's eggs in one basket. I would like everyone to come back in two weeks and revisit Bill's remarks. I think alot of people's opinions could be swayed by coming events. Let's hope so anyway. Have a news-worthy day.

[Hamlette]

25. if you are at all concerned about the big picture

we do have to be concerned about what the hell is going on in Iraq now.

What we have to do at this point is stabalize Iraq and it's possible the US can't do that. We need the UN.

The smart answer here is to dig at Bush enough to make him relent on allowing the UN in. Then figure out a way to get those other countries in (the more they think we hyped in the more reluctant they will be). Then when we get Iraq on the back burner which will hopefully occur before the 2004 elections, we expose Bush for all the lies.

Clinton didn't say move on. Clinton said let's figure out how to fix Iraq then worry about how we got there.

If you say it doesn't matter what happens to the rest of us or the rest of the world in the process the only thing that matters is getting rid of Bush you have become what we hate the most in them: the ends justify the means. It doesn't.