Did Bill Clinton cheerlead for Bush on war in Iraq or didn't he?

[blm]

I'm not quite sure why some are challenging this as if it never happened, but I am willing to put it to a poll of DU.

It can either be yes he did or no he didn't.

For full disclosure - I believe Clinton publically sided with Bush on war issues throughout 2001-2006 way more than he ever sided with our Dem candidates in 2002, 2004 and 2006.

[noamnety]

1. His own words

"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,"

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

[blm]

2. June 19, 2004 where he sided closer to Bush militarily than to Kerry.

.

[flpoljunkie]

4. Wow! "I have repeatedly defended Bush against the left on Iraq..." -Bill Clinton

Thanks for the link, lwfern.

[sandnsea]

12. Typical triangulation

And not what we needed in 2004 when Kerry was trying to build a case that Bush had been dishonest about reasons for going to war.

[DURHAM D]

3. I assume you are driving issues about Hillary - not Bill

with the poll.


Blah, Blah, Blah

[blm]

6. This is about Edwards saying Bill Clinton advised them on Iraq before vote.

And yeah - both Clintons DID side more closely with Bush militarily for the last four years more than they did with Dem candidates in 2002, 2004 and 2006.

[The Count]

19. Edwards was in the Senate Intelligence Commitee and said Bush didn't

mislead him. So, now it's not Bush's fault, not Edwards, all Clenis - all the time. You may get me to vote for Hillary yet!

[blm]

26. I blame Bush for EVERYTHING - and my rap against Bill is that he DOESN'T blame Bushes

at all. You think it's OK for him to direct blame AWAY from the Bushes for the last ten years but get mad at me for not liking it one bit.

[orleans]

37. you know those presidents....they always stick together

(i guess except for jimmy carter who seems to be more of a free thinker)

[Cha]

72. "Free thinker"! What a

CONCEPT!

[cui bono]

41. And according to Chalmers Johnson Bill Clinton was more dangerous as a

warmonger because he was more successful at it. Heard him today on Ian Master's show, it was very interesting.

[SquireJons]

44. Do you agree with Johnson?

So, by stopping a run away war in the Balkans that no one was doing anything about, Clinton was a warmonger? I don't buy it for one second. Without Clinton's personal intervention, Eastern Europe might be an all out war by now, but for certain, we would have competing images of carnage on our nightly TV's. Anyone who thinks Bill was a warmonger needs to pack up and move to utopia where butterflies will bring you your morning tea. A president makes life and death decisions every day (or in the current case, the VP makes death and death decisions each minute of each day).

If Clinton was a warmonger, then what the hell is bush?

[Cha]

71. Tough shit,

you don't like it.

[DURHAM D]

74. Nice talk -

what are you - 3?

[Cha]

76. Yeh,

blah, blah, blah.

[IndianaGreen]

5. Clinton repeated the lie that Saddam had WMDs

Clinton put George Tenant in charge of CIA, the man that gave us the "slam-dunk" comment about Iraq having WMDs. Clinton is responsible for 8-years of sanctions that caused the deaths of over a million Iraqi children.

[Kolesar]

18. Weapons inspector Scott Ritter tags SOS Albright for "gaming" the inspections

More correctly, Albright (and President Clinton) was sneaking CIA-types into the inspection teams to gather intelligence. Clinton was obviously continuing hostilities with Iraq.

I contemplate what would have happened had not King George attacked Iraq in 2003. I am sure that one result would be that he would be emasculated by the neocons in the Republan Party. The more notable result would be that Iraq would have incrementally reestablished itself as an oil producer with Russian and European investment. The sanctions and no-fly zones would have evaporated. Saddam would have become a second-tier regional power with their own Cold War with Iran. The US would have been without desirable military bases in Arabia, having been evicted from Saudi Arabia (under Osama's pressure) and holed up in the nation of Qatar.

[blm]

20. I don't get the revisionism of so many now pretending Clinton had nothing to do

with protecting Bush on his march to war.

Clinton was STILL the leader of the party at that point before the 2004 campaign had a nominee. And even after the head of the DNC was still answering to Clinton just as he his today.

[fooj]

31. Clinton has been protecting the BFEE for a long time...

Would anyone like a tall glass of Iran/Contra? That among many others...

[Cha]

73. Does that mean clinton

LIES? :wow:

[welshTerrier2]

7. minor edit

hi blm ... the last line of text in your OP says "Dem candidates in 2002, 2002 and 2006"

the middle year should say "2004"

[thethinker]

8. Who can deny it

On Friday, the Sean Hannity (or is it Shawn Hannity?) RW talk radio show was playing speeches by both HRC and Bill Clinton that were made prior to invading Iraq. They were not playing sound bites, but I think the entire speeches. They sounded more pro war and hawkish than Bush did at the time.

I had forgotten.

After they played these speeches, they ask how the democrats could be trying to blame Bush for Iraq. It has been bothering me ever since.

[blm]

10. Those voting that Bill did NOT side with Bush publically aren't offering reasons

why they vote No. Yet they have time to accuse those who say Yes in this poll of lying about Clinton's public support of Bush on OTHER threads.

[vssmith]

14. No, it is Sean Insanity

[blm]

17. Not the point. CNN has transcripts of Clinton in his own words saying as late as 2004 he defends

Bush on his decision to go to war in Iraq.

They are posted above.

[orleans]

39. see what happens when you listen to hannity? you gotta stop

listening to hannity.

(and i would find what he played disturbing also)

[JNelson6563]

9. We've always been at war with Eurasia

;-)

[Miss Chybil]

11. Why didn't he jump on board in 1998?

January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

As I said in another thread: It seems he could have derailed his own impeachment by getting into bed with this cabal back then. If he's such a war-monger, why didn't he?

[blm]

15. That wasn't the point - in 2002 he took a different viewpoint and SIDED with Bush.

And furthermore, back in 1998 Clinton WANTED to go into Iraq when Saddam wouldn't let weapon inspectors back in, but the ALLIES wouldn't agree to an invasion, so Clinton did the WISE thing and held back. But if the allies had said they would support him, he would have gone in then.

[Gloria]

24. See post #23. Clinton did cave in to them, Oct 31, 1998

[madfloridian]

13. If you believe this 2000 article by Pilger....blame for Iraq should be wide.

It is about Iraq, and it is called Squeezed to Death. My opinion to blm's question....of course the Clintons knew Iraq was no threat. They should have said so before the shock and awe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,232986,00.html


Half a million children have died in Iraq since UN sanctions were imposed - most enthusiastically by Britain and the US. Three UN officials have resigned in despair. Meanwhile, bombing of Iraq continues almost daily. John Pilger investigates

Saturday March 4, 2000
Guardian Unlimited

Wherever you go in Iraq's southern city of Basra, there is dust. It gets in your eyes and nose and throat. It swirls in school playgrounds and consumes children kicking a plastic ball. "It carries death," said Dr Jawad Al-Ali, a cancer specialist and member of Britain's Royal College of Physicians. "Our own studies indicate that more than 40 per cent of the population in this area will get cancer: in five years' time to begin with, then long afterwards. Most of my own family now have cancer, and we have no history of the disease. It has spread to the medical staff of this hospital. We don't know the precise source of the contamination, because we are not allowed to get the equipment to conduct a proper scientific survey, or even to test the excess level of radiation in our bodies. We suspect depleted uranium, which was used by the Americans and British in the Gulf War right across the southern battlefields."

That was in 2000. Guess who was doing the bombing? Guess who knew what was going on?

Six other children died not far away on January 25, last year. An American missile hit Al Jumohria, a street in a poor residential area. Sixty-three people were injured, a number of them badly burned. "Collateral damage," said the Department of Defence in Washington. Britain and the United States are still bombing Iraq almost every day: it is the longest Anglo-American bombing campaign since the second world war, yet, with honourable exceptions, very little appears about it in the British media. Conducted under the cover of "no fly zones", which have no basis in international law, the aircraft, according to Tony Blair, are "performing vital humanitarian tasks". The ministry of defence in London has a line about "taking robust action to protect pilots" from Iraqi attacks - yet an internal UN Security Sector report says that, in one five-month period, 41 per cent of the victims were civilians in civilian targets: villages, fishing jetties, farmland and vast, treeless valleys where sheep graze. A shepherd, his father, his four children and his sheep were killed by a British or American aircraft, which made two passes at them. I stood in the cemetery where the children are buried and their mother shouted, "I want to speak to the pilot who did this."

And from a nation with 95% literacy Iraq was bombed and sanctioned into these alarming statistics. Guess who knew?

The change in 10 years is unparalleled, in my experience," Anupama Rao Singh, Unicef's senior representative in Iraq, told me. "In 1989, the literacy rate was 95%; and 93% of the population had free access to modern health facilities. Parents were fined for failing to send their children to school. The phenomenon of street children or children begging was unheard of. Iraq had reached a stage where the basic indicators we use to measure the overall well-being of human beings, including children, were some of the best in the world. Now it is among the bottom 20%. In 10 years, child mortality has gone from one of the lowest in the world, to the highest."

And did you ever hear of Silent Spring?

Baghdad is an urban version of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. The birds have gone as avenues of palms have died, and this was the land of dates. The splashes of colour, on fruit stalls, are surreal. A bunch of Dole bananas and a bag of apples from Beirut cost a teacher's salary for a month; only foreigners and the rich eat fruit. A currency that once was worth two dollars to the dinar is now worthless. The rich, the black marketeers, the regime's cronies and favourites, are not visible, except for an occasional tinted-glass late-model Mercedes navigating its way through the rustbuckets. Having been ordered to keep their heads down, they keep to their network of clubs and restaurants and well-stocked clinics, which make nonsense of the propaganda that the sanctions are hurting them, not ordinary Iraqis.

This was John Pilger's view of Iraq in 2000. Of course those in high levels of our government knew what was going on.

There is a time to speak up with the truth. And some in our party did not. I think perhaps it might excuse some others who trusted.

[madfloridian]

16. A paragraph from the article about being "too idealistic"

"In Washington, I interviewed James Rubin, an under secretary of state who speaks for Madeleine Albright. When asked on US television if she thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children was a price worth paying, Albright replied: "This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it." When I questioned Rubin about this, he claimed Albright's words were taken out of context. He then questioned the "methodology" of a report by the UN's World Health Organisation, which had estimated half a million deaths. Advising me against being "too idealistic", he said: "In making policy, one has to choose between two bad choices . . . and unfortunately the effect of sanctions has been more than we would have hoped." He referred me to the "real world" where "real choices have to be made". In mitigation, he said, "Our sense is that prior to sanctions, there was serious poverty and health problems in Iraq." The opposite was true, as Unicef's data on Iraq before 1990, makes clear."

Jamie Rubin is married to Christiane Amanpour of CNN.

Maybe I am too idealistic. I don't think it was worth it.

[Imagevision]

21. Bill selling Bush's war is one of the things that make me leary of Hillary

Haning with Sr. Bush the past 2 years is the other!!

[AtomicKitten]

22. Did Kerry say he would still vote for the war knowing there were no WMD?

Yes, I do believe he did.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52839-2004Aug9.html

Thanks for illustrating that blaming IS fun!

[cui bono]

42. I missed the part where the OP blamed him for anything.

Criticism is not blame.

[AtomicKitten]

45. "cheerleading" is blaming

it's a loaded question --- by that criteria the blame SHOULD be spread round, doncha think?

[blm]

56. PUBLICALLY SUPPORTING is cheerleading. Clinton boasts of supporting Bush on this so

why is it difficult for you to ACCEPT that truth?

Clinton supported more than the IWR - he supported the DECISION Bushmade to go to war even though some senators were saying that the weapon inspectors were proving military force was NOT needed so Bush should NOT rush to war.

[AtomicKitten]

63. as usual you are being overwhelmed by your gross exaggerations

Your tin foil hat is on too tight.

By your standards, Kerry is a war-mongering cheerleader too.

Frank: What happened was the antiwar movement supported a pro-war candidate, which not surprisingly, was an utter disaster. How can a movement back a candidate that supports everything it opposes? There is no question that during the campaign John Kerry was a relentless warmonger, as William Safire put it. Kerry was the newest neocon who even out-hawked Bush. True enough. Most people that supported Kerry didn't support his position on the Iraq war, which was shown by a USA Today poll taken during the Democratic convention in Boston.

If you mentioned this paradox in mixed company during the campaign you were likely to hear all sorts of tepid excuses. Like, "Oh, Kerry really isn't for the war, he's just being tactical," or, "Well, at least he's not a neocon, they are really dangerous ya know!" Or something ridiculous like that. All these excuses, despite the fact that Kerry during the 1990s supported the Iraq Liberation Act, which endorsed the military removal of Saddam Hussein. All this despite the fact that Kerry continues to support some of the most violent and grisly U.S. military ventures in Colombia and elsewhere. This, despite the fact that Kerry's key foreign policy adviser Richard Holbrooke played a significant role in perhaps the largest U.S.-backed genocides of the last century – as Holbrooke helped supply Suharto's bloody regime in Indonesia with bundles of illegal weapons. Apparently it didn't matter at all to these supposed antiwar folks that Kerry stood shoulder to shoulder with President Bush claiming that Iraq had those pesky weapons of mass destruction hidden under its turbulent soil. None of this mattered in the least. Talk about the collapse of a movement.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zeese.php?articleid=6270

[Gloria]

23. Here is Clinton's history on setting the stage...

Iraq Liberation Act on Oct. 31, 1998 which reads: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

He caved to intense lobbying by PNAC and CPSG (Center for Peace and Security in the Gulf chaired by Richard Perle).

The ILA authorized the president to provide "the Iraqi democratic opposition" with $2 million in support of radio and television broadcasting and $97 million in military and other defense support. The money went to the Iraqi National Congress--the most recognized leader of the group was Ahmed Chalabi, convicted in absentia for embezzlement and fraud while chairman of the Petra Bank in Jordan.

source: The Bush Agenda, Invading the World, One Economy at a Time by Antonia Juhasz--a MUST read....

Clinton sold out a long time ago and that's why I don't want that bunch back in office again!!!

[AtomicKitten]

25. Sounds familiar ... hmmmm ... oh yeah .... Just like Kerry did

... when he refused to back down from his 'yes' vote on the IWR, pandering for votes before the 2004 election.

Ugh.

Hey, I'm getting into this blaming thing.

[The Count]

29. Bunch of craven politicians cowards pointing fingers - ain't it a beaut?

They all have blood on their hands - but are now counting fingers...

[AtomicKitten]

32. The bloody finger-pointing is pathetic

Clinton never gave a blank check to a war-mongering moron.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.-- The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary.

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. Even Dennis Kucinich voted for this law:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1998/roll482.xml

[The Count]

27. President Clinton: Get Bin Laden Before Pursuing Saddam

President Clinton: Get Bin Laden Before Pursuing Saddam
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAHEQECR5D.html

SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) - Former President Clinton urged the
Bush administration
Thursday to finish the job with Osama bin Laden before taking
on Iraq.

"Saddam Hussein didn't kill 3,100 people on Sept. 11," he said.
"Osama bin Laden
did, and as far as we know he's still alive."

Clinton, speaking at a fund-raiser for Rep. Loretta Sanchez,
D-Calif., said he
supported President Bush's efforts in Afghanistan, including
military actions and
support of the Afghan government.

[The Count]

28. Clinton leads the revolt against the war

Clinton leads the revolt against the war

> Mr Clinton also warned that a strike against Saddam would
> strip the Iraqi leader of any incentive to hold off using
> chemical and biological weapons. He said: "Saddam Hussein
> is not a good man by our definition. There is no question
> that he has significant stocks of chemical and biological
> agents.
>
> "I think we have to assume that if he knows we're coming,
> he'll do everything he can to use them. He has maximum
> incentive not to use the stuff. If we go in, he has
> maximum incentive to use it because he knows he's going
> to lose. That's a risk and it's an issue the President-has
> to address."

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynamic/news/top_story.ht... \
_review_text_id=661436

From my leftovers links for freepers....

[blm]

30. And then he supported Bush's decision for war and said so himself PUBLICALLY

many times for the next 3 years.

[hijinx87]

33. you are beating a dead horse

bill clinton wasn't in office then. of course, we could
micro analyze everything kerry did and said from 9/11 until
election day in 2004.

[blm]

48. Bill Clinton ADVISED Senators to support IWR and Bush - just as he did PUBLICALLY.

Pretend away - in other posts TeamClinton proclaims him the greatest leader and then PRETEND he didn't lead the Democratic senators to believe that it was important to support the IWR based on what he knew as President.

[hijinx87]

50. virtually every current primary candidate that held federal office at the time voted "yes" on IWR

at least the ones that aren't named "dennis". including a
current non-candidate named kerry.

surely, SURELY you aren't holding the alleged adviser, the unemployed
and powerless bill clinton culpable for having the same opinion
that most of the rest of the known universe had at that time, are
you?

HOW does a man that holds NO OFFICE "lead" a group of sitting senators?
are they that spineless? and if they ARE that spineless, who is leading
them now? your whole little theory is much more of a condemnation of the
advised than the adviser.

[blm]

52. Yes on IWR but not all supported Bush's DECISION to go to war and pointed out

that Bush was not making the right decision by going to war when weapon inspectors were delivering REAL TIME INTEL that proved military force was not necessary.

Clintons both supported Bush on his DECISION to go to war and Bill did so often PUBLICALLY. They also supported his military decisions and stayed closer to Bush on Iraq than they did to Kerry throughout 2003-4.

[hijinx87]

58. what exactly is the difference between "yes on IWR" and "the decision to go to war"?

I think you are attempting to make a distinction where none exists.
dealing with the nefarious * administration, it should have at least
been suspected that he would use whatever congressional authorization
he got to suit his own ends. but since the clintons were behind the
curtains pulling the strings, I guess we can't hold anyone responsible
but Bill and Hill . . . and maybe Chelsea . . . and perhaps Socks, who
is still alive and currently resides with Betty Curie. Buddy, the chocolate
lab, we will have to exonerate on the eminently sensible grounds that he
wasn't alive during the period in question, and is dead now anyway.

some observations, by the way. I noticed you used the phrase "The Clintons
both. . . ", once again exposing your real motive, which is to slime hillary
with all your might.

And I still don't get why PUBLICALLY (sic) is somehow more corrupt than
PRIVATALLY (:evilgrin:).

"THEY supported his military decisions . . . .", again with the plural subject
clearly meaning that you hold both of the Clintons, but no one else in the universe,
morally culpable for starting this reprehensible war despite the fact that it was
the conventional wisdom within the democratic party.

and "stayed closer to Bush on Iraq than they did to Kerry throughout 2003-4" is
not only inaccurate, it's just petulant, with the clear implication being that the
clintons didn't support kerry during the 04 election cycle (which is flatly wrong),
and thereby are at least partially responsible for his defeat.

drop your anti-corruption facade; I'm not buying it, and I can't believe anyone
else would, either. Your obvious goal here is to blow Hillary's candidacy to Mars.

You could at least admit it.

[blm]

59. Except I've been here for years talking about IranContra and BCCi's link to 9-11

and this Iraq war and the government corruption that surrounded it.

So, maybe you should drop the facade.

There are others like me who care about how it all connects - Maybe you could jump into this thread and open your eyes, unless you are here just to side with secrecy and privilege.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=127688&mesg_id=127688

[hijinx87]

61. longevity is not equal to legitimacy.

it could just mean you have been wrong that long.

[blm]

62. Wrong about IranContra, BCCI links to 9-11 and this Iraq war? Clinton-Bush?

You claimed the anti-corruption focus was a recent ruse to attack Hillary's candidacy. My postings of the last few years have shown anti-corruption focus throughout.

You really don't care about how everything happening today is linked to serious matters that Bill Clinton inherited and ignored - I do.

try going here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=127688&mesg_id=127688

None of this should have happened the last 6 years - NONE of it.

[incapsulated]

34. Did he have a vote on IWR?

Hrm.... no. But I believe Senator Kerry did.

How did he vote again?

[AtomicKitten]

35. Oh, I know !!!!

He voted in the affirmative ... "You bet I abdicate my share of Congress' constitutionally-mandated war-declaring powers to an idiot. Yes siree Bob."

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary.

[incapsulated]

36. It must've been that Team Clinton mind-control trick

That made him do it. They did it do all those poor, innocent Senators. :(

[AtomicKitten]

38. effin mind-melding biotch

and married to St. Bubba no less. Remember Senators, you are what you vote.

[hijinx87]

54. "these aren't the 'droids that you are looking for"

http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/v_obiwan_guinness_01,3.jpg

"and vote "YES" on the IWR. you can go about your business"

[The Count]

53. Never underestimate the power of the Mighty Clenis! For it can cause earthquakes,

tsunamis, cowlicks and even curdle the milk! And when not careful, it may cause brave, intelligent Democratic senators to support Bush! Such is the evil power of the Clenis! Behold and tremble! Some brave sould may even be made to sponsor Bush's war laws! Oh, woe is them - the victims of the Clenis! Let's mourn for them. And then vote for them!

[mtnsnake]

60. Hillary caused the zero visablility whiteout that I got caught in near Watertown, NY

yesterday on I-81.

[AtomicKitten]

66. Damn the Clenis!

Here is 'snake digging out ...

[blm]

49. Yes on IWR but when Bush invaded while IWR weapon inspections were WORKING, he did NOT support

Bush's DECISION to go to war.

Clinton DID support the decision to go to war, and he was the most influential Democratic voice PUBLICALLY saying he supported BUsh's decision. Why pretend otherwise?

[AtomicKitten]

64. worse, he abdicated responsibility for declaring war to a moron

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary.

[oasis]

40. Two infallible sources of information: (1) Wikipedia (2) DU polls. (n/t)

[SquireJons]

43. The key work here is "cheerlead."

And no, he did not cheerlead. It's a loaded question.

Now, if you asked if he supported the war, I would have had to say that he did. But as President, Clinton made the loudest statement, by not invading Iraq. However once it had been done, he supported his country and troops.

Not much of a surprise there. Plus, he had his wifes political career to consider and she supported the war whole heartedly. But cheerlead? If anyone thinks that is the case, please provide a link to said activity. Defending is not cheerleading.

[blm]

47. When you PUBLICALLY SUPPORT Bush's DECISION to go to war you are cheerleading.

And he continued to PUBLICALLY SUPPORT Bush on the war throughout the last 4 years. The links are posted above in this thread and in other threads.

[hijinx87]

55. what is your hangup with "publically" (sic)?

would you prefer that he had done it in private? then you would be
screaming about another damn clinton coverup.

[AtomicKitten]

65. when you give the keys to a drunk -- you are WORSE than cheerleading

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary.

[SquireJons]

67. I disagree with your definition

Clinton is the former prez, of course his views are news. But I'm a news junkie and I never read of him doing the kinds of things that Lieberman has done. Now that's cheerleading.

Clinton didn't oppose the war once it started. I never understood why, but I always gave him the benefit of doubt because he obviously knows stuff that we don't. And he's no half wit like shrub. So, if a president who used restraint whenever possible during his eight years doesn't protest a unilateral military campaign by his predecessor, it kind of makes you stop and think.

But that doesn't make me change my mind about the war. It's just one of many things that I disagree with B.C. on, but I like him none the less. He did a great job as prez and that's the best gift he could ever give the next several generations of Democrats. For a few decades to come, he will be the standard against whom all subsequent presidents will be compared, because his numbers - across the board - were so good.

[RogueTrooper]

51. Yes

and it benefited Bush. Including talking the the October 2002 Labour Party Conference. Without his intervention Blair would not have been able to take the UK into Iraq.

[PhilipShore]

57. Yes: Clinton did -- and will -- cheerlead for Bush and any and all Wars

[unkachuck]

68. I do hope....

....he's finally endeared himself sufficently with the corporate elite....I wouldn't want him to have any regrets....

[mtnsnake]

69. I see you still enjoy spreading RW lies about the Clintons

Rush would be proud of you stirring up so much hatred towards the best president since JFK.

BTW, one thing Bill would never do is court a republican to be his vice presidential candidate like what Kerry did when he wooed McCain to run on his ticket. How pathetic was that.
http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo05172004.html

[Cha]

70. clinton cheerleaded and

the bushreich undoubtedly benefitted. Gave it more gravis..cause no matter what the fascists say clinton is still more of a leader than a sociopathic monkey/turtle.

I remember seething at the time..still don't know why he had to put his big mouth out there to kill more Iraqis and it turns out our Soldiers, too.

Probably had something to do with hillary running for prez in 2008.

[Hippo_Tron]

75. No, because Kerry's position on the war in 2004 was different than they are now

Kerry refused to apologize for his vote for the IWR stating that he believed in giving Bush the authority to go to war on the premise that he should have waited for the UN. Clinton also stated that Bush should have waited for the UN and criticized his Bush on the handling of the war and said that Kerry would do different than it is nowa much better job handling the war.

Kerry was NOT an anti-war candidate and Bill Clinton was promoting Kerry's non anti-war stance. Personally I think that both of them were wrong, but that's beside the point.

[Bridget Burke]

77. Just how many anti-Clinton threads have you posted here?

My answer: NO.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

78. Locking.

Unfortunately, this discussion is now a flamefest. As we are not George W. Bush, we desire no escalation or surge in the fighting.

Thank you,
your friendly neighborhood gdp moderators