So why did Bill say what he said last night?

When I heard what President Clinton had said last night on CNN, I was pretty taken aback. I had seen him play things a little safe before, but this was a BIG surprise as Im sure it was for most of us.

For me I have concluded that as much as most of us want to defend Clinton, the consequences of his words are already being used by those we knew would use them. In truth, non-intentionally or intentionally, he took the easy way out and chosed to minimalize a situation that has caused hundreds of deaths and horrific consequences. It was wrong and it lacked any conviction,courage or commitment to those standing up to the Administration.

With that said, there is a great lesson to be learned here and I think we have to look at things from further back to get a clearer perspective on

why he said it, and why would he make excuses and grant more power to the ones who are abusing their power already?

I have wondered often how the Republicans War on the Clintons has changed and effected them. God love them, Hillary and Bill are still standing, but of course so much has been done to them and to Chelsea, and continues to this day.

Without a doubt it was hugely disappointing to hear those words come from Clinton's mouth last night, but if you look at the big picture, is it really too much of a surprise, when you think of what the Republicans did to him and the lack of support that he received from other Democratic leaders and not to mention, us?

For those of you who think I am going to justify this deal, HANG ON....I am not justifying his rather shocking choice of words last night, nor am I putting the blame on Democrats. We know who is ultimately responsible for this whole mess anyway.

What is more important is looking at this American system of ours that interrogates those try to implement positive change and intimidates them ultimately into submission and ineffectiveness, and even occasionally into doing harm. I think its important to look at this, and at his perspective and response, and Im trying to look at ways in which we can see why this type of betrayal happens and learn to embolden our leaders, other Progressives and our overall cause. I think there are solutions where our leaders and individuals at large won't choose a response that justifies dishonesty. In short this is not just Bill Clintons problem, this is a epidemic effecting America. I think if you look at the overall picture here, the cause of why people give into abusers and the solution become pretty apparent.

If you read any literature on bullies it is true that individuals who have been continuously maligned, cruelly treated and harmed over a signficant amount of time will often begin to comply much more easily with their offenders and resort to at times justifying their unjustifiable behaviors. So, here we have Bill and Hillary who were stalked for 8 + years by in this case a largely funded political group, who continues to assault them to this Day, at any opportunity. Just a few days ago we read where Bill and Hillary will have to pay the legal fees leveled against them in a bogus and basically purposeless lawsuit.

Talk about taking the wind out of your sails. So why then would they choose to justify an offenders behavior?

Unfortunately, this is the aftermath of chronic incrimination and intimidation This is an issue that sorely needs attention in our political world as well as our American society at large. Read any book on bullies and that is often what happens to the victim if the intimidation has been severe enough.

I believe as well this is a sterling example that shows us the TREMENDOUS and vital importance of standing up for our leaders, and standing up for anyone who is being unfairly abused. If we don't support the leaders who have Americas best interest at heart, like the Bill Clinton we HAVE known, and so many other mainly Democratic candidates, how can they possibly stand up to bullying and unjust oppositional forces that are on the attack every single day?

In truth, if we look at it honestly, most of us will admit we never fully backed Bill Clinton from the beginning. Perhaps we were in a state of denial but we were much quicker to judge him and agree with the media than take a more objective and honest look at what was truly happening. It was not until after he had gone through hell and back were we there to question the abuse and say, wait a minute could we have been a little more supportive.

The answer is yes we could have and should have been much more unified in our support, and the same could be said for standing stronger behind Al Gore. It seems to me that Bill and Hillary lived for the most part, in a gold fish bowl of isolation and when they dared to venture outside and attempted to be themselves, they were bombarded with an insurmountable barrage of scorn, hatred and mean-spiritedness. Where were we? Where were other Democratic leaders to come to their defense? Perhaps we didnt know then what we know now. That almost all that was hurled upon them was nothing more than unfair accusations and lies.

I think what happened last night was the result of a leader who has been hit so much by opposition, that they have succeeded in draining the fight out of him.

It also is a tragic lesson to us all to see the consequences of not supporting ALL our good leaders and allowing media to dictate a perception of a leader that we know to be wrong. I love what Howard Dean says about the importance of being unified and proud of who we are. We must now learn what happens when we fail to stand up for our leaders and for each other. If we want to see candidates who have the courage and conviction to be honest, then we have to protect them and defend them, and all other good leaders.

Its not about Republican and Democrat as much as it is right and wrong. We have to build relationships with good leaders, call their offices, and let them know we are backing them 100%. We also have to make an impact and work to minimize the influence of special interests and lobbyists and MAXIMIZE the influence of all of us American citizens.

And when our leaders are unfairly attacked, we let it be known through contacting media and Washington that we are watching and we don’t like what we see. Think about it. Isnt that what most of us learned is what this country is all about? Standing up for what is right? Thats where Clinton fell short last night, and that is where all of us fall short when we feel overwhelmed by opposition.

One more thought, it would also be a good idea for DU'ers to look at ways to be more effective and unified and ORGANIZED here, perhaps creating groups to work on the various issues facing us, and how to build our relationships with each other as well as our leaders.

Sorry for the long windedness tonight. Apparently had a few thoughts to share**

statements about WMD back in 1998. He sees Bush taking a pounding on that for three weeks now, and he wonders if his similar words will be scrutinized as well. It's all legacy building. Clinton doesn't give a rat's ass about the party. Why else would he take the legs out from under the nine hopefuls with those few minutes on Larry King?

What did he say?

that Iraq had WMD. No question.

I havent heard anything about it.

!

!

it comes to Clinton, Vandaval. If he had said it, I think it would be all over the airwaves. Am I missing something?

You said pretty unequivocally (I believe thats what you said)

If you have a quote that would be more helpful.

I don't have any links from back in 1998. I was there, however

If you are going to state that someone said something, that you back it up with a quote?

Lots of things can be claimed or assumed, but the best way to solidify an argument is to atleast have a link to a quote or an article.

since you are the one who desires the specific link. K? Thanks.

The Independent (London)
Copyright 1998 Newspaper Publishing PLC

December 18, 1998, Friday
Iraq Bombings: The Strategy - Toppling Saddam will be long haul
By Andrew Marshall in Washington


"No one could say that Tony Blair and Bill Clinton are not singing from the same hymn sheet when it comes to Saddam Hussein.

When the Prime Minister emerged from Downing Street on Wednesday night, he said: "Our objectives in this military action are clear: to degrade his capability to build and use weapons of mass destruction, and to diminish the threat he poses to his neighbours."

Minutes later, the President said: "Our mission is clear - to degrade his capacity to develop and use weapons of mass destruction or to threaten his neighbours."

The military side of the equation may be clear, but the political strategy is opaque, and deliberately so. The US and Britain are hoping that the air strikes will undermine Saddam Hussein, and clear the way for the military to topple him, but they know this is a gamble.

<snip>

Obviously, this course of action can not be repeated, especially given that the intelligence the West has will become gradually less useful. So what next? "We will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction, and work towards the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people," said Mr Clinton.

<end excerpt>

And here's an excerpt from the above-quoted speech that Clinton gave on December 16, 1998:

"I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, but we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses. So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions such as trying 0to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force, and, when necessary, the actual use of force is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf war.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion, resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil for tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people."

<end excerpt"


I got these from a database service, so it's not available as a link. I should add, however, that when I conducted the search, it took me forever to narrow the search terms enough for it to even _complete_ the search, and it sounds like Clinton made a lot of statements like this. It's amazing, though, how absolutely little support he got then, especially in comparison with the support Bush is getting for nearly the same damn thing today. If the Repugs hadn't jumped on Clinton's throat and demanded an end to the mission, Iraq could have been rid of Saddam a long time ago. Not that I necessarily support the Iraq invasion, but you'd think if that's really what Freepers wanted, they would have wanted it done sooner (1998) rather than later (2003). But of course, all that matters to them is that their guy looks good, not how much the Iraqi people are suffering. :grr:

This whole thing is interesting. And I dont know what to say past that. :)

For now I will play my guitar and let this whole thing play itself out. This thing seems to be getting more and more convoluted.

Imagine that...Bill Clinton has been zapped! Just when things are starting to look up for the Dem party!

Like I said on another thread...we'll look back on this and see who had the error in judgement. We know the bushwa did. But what we don't know is how our side is going to make him go down for it.

And there seems to be all kinds of ideas and strategies and political power plays but we'll see who has the vision to lead us on the right path for our Country? :kick:

I have admired your enthusiasm and commitment on the threads.

You have a lot of passion and commitment and that is always nice to see!

My first impression is that he's protecting Tony Blair, or trying to. They go way back. My second is that he said what somebody else said today, I forget who, that we need to focus on what's going on in Iraq now. Why is that bad? It struck me that he was taking the high road, maybe a little too high but what he said was nowhere near as disturbing as I had thought from reading DU today.

Let me ask you, do you think we should overlook why so many have been killed, Saddam is still alive and well somewhere, Baghdad and much of Iraq has been destroyed, its total anarchy over there and well, and now we should ignore the lies that were told to us as to why we needed to go over there in the first place?

Should we ignore the deaths and now the suicides of some of our troops, not to mention 10,000 Iraqi civilians. We may want to ignore and focus on the "now", but I dont think they will.

talkingpointsmemo) Clinton's remarks suddenly don't seem that significant. If Joshua Michah marshall know that, Clinton knows it too - and if he knows for a fact that the story will snowball (with new s*) than it's a meaningless comment such as "you look lovely tonight"

I just can't take another one of these jags, these river of tears- desperately seeking validation of a fallen idol.

Simple - Bush wins in 2004, Hillary can run in 2008.

Dem wins in 2004, no Hillary in 2008.

While I loved having Clinton as president, this IS how they operate.