Bill Clinton: RFK Jr made a "COMPELLING CASE".

JUNE 28, 2006
Missing (Bill) Clinton

BY MARY ANNA TOWLER

It was a sight to see: hundreds of alternative-newspaper people standing and cheering Bill Clinton as he walked onstage, hanging on his every word through a nearly hour-long talk and 45 minutes of questions, and then rushing to the stage to shake his hand, get his autograph, and take his picture.

When Clinton was president, alt-weeklies published plenty of attacks on him. And a good many of us are way farther to the left than he is. But when Clinton addressed the annual convention of the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies earlier this month in Little Rock, you'd have thought he was talking to a room full of supporters at the height of an election campaign.

<snip>

Asked his opinion about Robert Kennedy Jr.'s recent article in Rolling Stone, charging that John Kerry, not George Bush, won the majority of votes in Ohio and thus won the 2004 presidential election, Clinton said Kennedy made "a compelling case."

And, he said, "I think there's no question that Al Gore would have won Florida" if all the votes had been counted accurately and all the people who wanted to vote had been able to.

http://www.rochester-citynews.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A4545

How long must we suffer the worst pResident ever?

on Latterman that he never even heard of the Downing Street Memos, so he couldn't comment on them. BULLSHIT.

And Clinton was running the DNC through Terry Mac - they let the Dem infrastructure weaken and collapse in crucial states even KNOWING what happened in Florida.

The Dem party should have convened all its election board members and schooled them in every type of voter suppression tactic that was used in 2000 and how to counter them, and should have taught them how to secure the voting machines AFTER the 2002 'glitches' that went against the Dem candidates.

Instead, crucial states like Ohio had been left to collapse since 1997.

Why Terry MacAuliffe ignored all the vote suppression and vote stealing from 2000 and 2002 is a mystery. It was his JOB to stay on top of it for ALL Democratic voters and candidates.

And I don't believe that Clinton heard about the machines for the first time in Kennedy's article. He's a voracious news reader, and evenn the NYT and WaPo had articles about it. And Kerry went to his fellow senators last year to discuss the possibility of machine fraud, and it was treated like a joke.

(Sorry, that's my seven year old's favorite response to anything I say. Had to use it.) :)

Clinton wasn't president after 9-11, and couldn't be seen stepping on Bush's toes, any more than HW stepped on his. That's not just protocol, that's good sense. Even the mighty omniscient Clinton wouldn't have known what al-Queda was up to, and Clinton knew better than most what they were capable of. I'm sure he had his hand as much in the pie as BushCo would allow him after 9-11, but that wasn't much. Publicly, he was right to now make us seem like a split nation.

On the DSM, I agree, he had heard of them. But he was diplomatically refusing to answer the question. Again, he didn't want to show a divided nation.

And I'm sure Clinton was knowledgable about the voting machines. He holds a unique place, though. He's no longer the head Democrat. He's a former leader of the world. In any other country, when a past leader criticizes or accuses a current leader of illegally coming ot power, it's almost a civil war. Again, Clinton, as is normal for past presidents, refused to publicly take issue.

I'm not thrilled with some of what Clinton refused to do in the last six years, and I'd have loved to see him criticize Bush from top to bottom on every atrocity e committed. And Clinton could have lent his weight in a non-accusatory way to the voting issue even if he didn't want to accuse Bush. I just think Clinton knows more about the state of the world than I do, and so I trust his decisions. DOn't like them, though.

Not sure what I'm saying. I agree with you, but I don't dislike Clinton for it. It just makes me frustrated. BushCo is the enemy.

that have caused the ultimate harm on this country - like closing the books on IranContra and BCCI when both of those matters are still effecting everything that is going on today.

He did that for Poppy Bush and that is why we are suffering this crueler, more radical Bush in office today.

And every time Clinton says he doesn't know anything about the DSM's or about other illegal moves made by Bush, it makes it THAT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT for those working to expose the problem who are already labeled "conspiracy theorists" and ignored.

some pretty strange excuse making here for the DLC establishment and the dems that feel entitled to run our party, but the more I thought about it the more upset I got. I don't know where you think Clinton was being 'politically correct' in giving that SOB squatting in the White House a pass for all his criminal and immoral actions, but that's one of the biggest laughs I've had here lately. I don't care if Clinton wasn't president anymore. I don't care what excuse anyone tries to float to cover for his disgraceful behavior of silence and complicity during the past 6+ years. You're all just fooling yourselves because there is NO EXCUSE GOOD ENOUGH to sit back and watch this administration trash our country, kill our boys and girls in the military, spend our money like a drunken sailor on shore, violate every Article of the Constition of the United States, violate our civil rights, out a CIA agent and shut down an operation to find and monitor WMDs in the Middle East, and on and on and on. Especially if you are a powerful political figure and if by speaking out you may have been able to help prevent some of the disaster and damage this administration has wrought on our poor country and it's citizens.

I think his disgraceful behavior is just to try to make way for his wife to get the nomination in 2008, WHICH AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. His paybacks to her so that she can be a run-of-the-mill next best thing to a republican bush** administration supporting hack. She may be a good rep for the people of the State of New York, but she ain't shit for the good of the country or the rest of us. She's just an enabler for the neos and bush**. You can't be against the war and for it at the same time.

I am totally Clintoned out. I have this sneaking suspicion that Bill's silence and aid to the bush** administration has been his way to advance Hillary and is part of a deal that they made to keep her from taking any action after he embarrassed her publically in the worst way a woman can be embarrassed. But that is all irrelevant because it all boils down to the man had an obligation, just like every citizen in this country has an obligation, to speak out when you see someone or someone(s) committing crimes in the name of the American government. He had a duty and he ignored it.

"...there is NO EXCUSE GOOD ENOUGH to sit back and watch this administration trash our country, kill our boys and girls in the military, spend our money like a drunken sailor on shore, violate every Article of the Constition of the United States, violate our civil rights, out a CIA agent and shut down an operation to find and monitor WMDs in the Middle East, and on and on and on. Especially if you are a powerful political figure and if by speaking out you may have been able to help prevent some of the disaster and damage this administration has wrought on our poor country and it's citizens."

"...the man had an obligation, just like every citizen in this country has an obligation, to speak out when you see someone or someone(s) committing crimes in the name of the American government."

Right on.

I don't know if Clinton did all this to further his wife's career or simply to further a pro-corporate agenda that they are all making big bucks on. He is in on it. We should all re-read chapter ten of Stupid White Men. ;)

In fact, I find nothing in your post that I don't vehemently disagree with. I wish I had the time for a full refutation, but I don't. Short answer--Clinton could have done nothing to stop Bush. All he could have done was divide the nation at a time of genuine danger. He had no power or authority. If there had been the national or political will to stop Bush, or the evidence to do so, Bush would have been stopped without Clinton's involvement. Without it, Clinton would have just made a lot of noise and got nothing done, any more than Gore speaking out against him, or Nader, or anyone else. WIth Clinton's experience as a world leader, which I'm assuming outranks yours, he knew better. There was no magic wand to wave to make Bush go away.

don't. I know that Bill and Hils haven't been subjected to the same shit the rest of the nation have been. Loss of jobs, loss of freedoms and civil rights, loss of privacy, loss of a whole way of life. So what the guy had to power, he did have authority. The authority of being an ex-president of this country. One who people listened to.

The guy did take a side. He took the criminal cabal's side at every damn turn. No matter what bush** did he covered for the guy while running around the country with Poopy making personal appearances and commercials.

Well, now he's stumping for the wifey who's not got the backing of Rupert Murdoch. He may not officially be campaigning for her, but a horse is a horse of course of course.

Yes, Clinton's experience as a world leader does outrank mine. But then again, I do know an enabler when I see one. And this man is not above taking advantage of a situation or forcing a policy that is against the best interests of this country down our throats, i.e. NAFTA. He's been sucking up to the bush** family for quite some time. He's just 'like a son' to Poopy.

The way some of the members of DU try to make excuses for the Clintons just cracks me up.

Clintons is pretty funny, too.

and in joint efforts over a six year period, if you don't agree with their policies. It is funny, while Gore distanced himself from Clinton during the 2000' Campaign, The Bush's embraced Clinton. Very very odd indeed.

the heads of the Dem party from 1997 thru 2004 were working under Clinton's guidance and control.

There is no good answer why Dem party infrastructures in crucial states like Florida and Ohio were allowed to collapse since 1997 and no action taken to reinforce them after 2000.

The GOPs work for 4 years to suppress and steal votes - they never sleep. If Clinton knew that then he should have instructed MacAuliffe to take all the necessary steps to counter them.

Nothing was done.

Having a strong infrstructure in the Dem party will make it much more difficult for the GOP to steal elections and deny people the right to vote and have their votes counted.

Speaking for Ohio, its Dem infrastructure is much stronger and more organized than I've ever seen it. Howard Dean gets all the credit for that.

after 2000 there should have been TOTAL FOCUS on strengthening every weal link they saw in 2000.

bad guys.

ps Gov Dean...We'll stand with you!

You think Carter is a disgraceful sellout too for not speaking out about Reagan's crimes in central America?

or more aptly put, not done?

Stick to the subject and don't try reading my mind.

Reagan's crimes in central America were monstrous but ex-President protocol prevented Carter from speaking out publicly about those crimes.

Much like Clinton's refusal to condemn Bush the lesser.

In fact the things Clinton has said have pushed the envelope. While we would all like him to go further we need to look at what he has said in the context of history and the role of ex-Presidents.

addressing issues that are immoral and criminal and put our country and our way of life at risk? Actions that go against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Wasn't part of his oath to uphold the Constitution? I guess that just went away when 'ex-president's protocol' kicked in.

That's one of the lamest justifications I've seen yet for Billy Boy's support of the bush** administration. We're not talking about a guy who sat silently by while bush** & the neos raped this country from one end to the other. Energy, foreign policy, national defense, a failed attempt at social security, the rights of the people, you name it they screwed it up. And he actually defended this administration. He did take a side. He opened up his mouth more than once and defended them. Where's your protocol there? It's okay to defend them when they're wrong but keep your mouth shut when they're in the middle of dismantling our democracy?

at Clinton is pretty lame too.

When did Clinton "support" Bush?

Clinton has spoken out and gone further than any other modern ex-president ...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/22/61627/6183

Go read that then come black an call me lame. Or spit more bullets at your allies.

up to it (poor george couldn't know any better). Just like Hillary.

That link you posted was the very first ever that I had seen where Clinton wasn't nuzzling his nose against a bush ass. I saw it back when it was posted and I wondered who was impersonating Billy Boy.

Yuck if you have seen Clinton side by side with Bush Sr.

As you say, how could someone who knows better sit there and do nothing while
the world is burning down?

Bush is on his way out, nothing is going to change his being in office _now_. Best to plan for winning the _next_ election.

respects them enough to tell them the truth and give them the information they need as citizens to make sound decisions.

entrenched. You're wasting your words on this forum. Many of us have been working on this since Nov 3rd and will never give up until the truth is known, justice is served and remedies are taken to ensure the will of the people is represented.

It is that important.

he heard. And we'll see if he just plans to step in front of a growing parade. I know others have been prodding this issue behind the scenes, but never heard his name connected to any of the maneuvering.

And it also tells me that Clinton knows DAMN well that Kerry actually won by 5 million votes - the most votes in American history - just like Al Gore did - had a STRONG Dem infrastructure been in place in 2000 or 2004, the men could have taken office rightfully.

Why wasn't it in place? Especially after 2000 = why wasn't the infrastructure strengthened and GOP vote stealing tactics countered by the PARTY?

Just doing my part to spread the word on the oddities of this election.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

said the case was compelling. He did say ""I think there's no question that Al Gore would have won Florida" if all the votes had been counted accurately and all the people who wanted to vote had been able to.

I think it's important not to over represent the case. It might make others less reluctant to comment on it. It is an important comment to get out to the public, though. :)

And he was being pleasant but he wasn't joking.

because all along, I said, "he needs to count ALL of Florida!"

And then he should have protested in the Senate.

Sometimes it sucks watching what they do. BUT ultimately, Gore and Kerry both did what they did out of integrity and respect for the people of America.

It's the neocons that spit on us.

our last duly elected did.

I can't imagine the kind of pressure that must have been on both of them. And at that moment, it must be nearly impossible to think, "Thousands of people are being ripped off by this." But, isn't that the job? Not to buckle under ridiculous amounts of pressure?

I get mad at them the way you do with family. I get mad at the Thugs the way you do with thugs. :)

spit on us, and every average Republican voter. Now its time for the honest Dem and Rep Leaders to do something about it. :thumbsup:

where Strictland has a big chance of winning.

And other areas too.

People will not believe these results as easily as they did in 04. AND they've made it so that our society is hurting so much, that it won't go over as easily if it's stolen. I'm half afraid there will be riots and such. But I'm scared at the same time that the riots are the only way to make a change if they steal it again!

aye aye aye aye aye!

.

over the past 5 years. When I read this article about Bill Clinton, I remember what it was like to not despise our President and actually feel there was leadership I could respect, if not agree with all the time. I bet Bill Clinton could talk about Native American Soverignity in his sleep...unlike our Boy-king. When I watched Al Gore in his movie, I just wept. The world would have been so much better off with his guidance and foresight, and I really believe 9-11 would never have happened due to simple competence. If I believed in god, I'd pray for a Democrat victory in 2008, just so we have a chance to make things better.

Kerry were in the WH when the Hart Rudman Report on Global Terror was handed to them on Jan 30, 2001.

I forget how horrible Bush is, until I hear Bill Clinton. Then I just want to cry at the injustice.

With Clinton, the words, the expression on his face, and the sound of his voice...you know you're in the presence of intelligence, wit, compassion and goodness. Things Bush knows nothing about.

I never liked Bill Clinton in the first place. 1992 was the first time ever that I declined to vote in the Democratic Primary (or caucus) because by the time the race got to my state it was down to Tsongas and Slick - and I couldn't stand the idea of voting for either of them.

I'm no fringe lefty, either. I'm a proud Democrat. I was thrilled when Slick defenestrated Poppy, when he faced off Newt time and time again, when be beat back the bullshit impeachment charade -- and most of all, I loved the State of the Union Speech of 1999.

If you don't recall that performance, the assclowns who now control America only had control of the House of Representatives as that point in time -- and they got a lot of ink in advance of Slick's speech by threatening to walk out or some such rude, grandstand play. At the very minimum the sourpusses said they weren't gonna stand up or applaud for the Perjurer in Chief. . . .

So Slick made a fabulous speech -- calling for individual recognition, one by one, of a long list of heroes, saints and tragic victims sitting in the House gallery: war veterans, fire fighters, Sammy Sosa, Hillary and I can't recall who all else. Every time Slick called on another bona fide hero to take a bow, the creepy Mister Managers had to grin and bear it -- and join in the cheers or look like assholes. It was both a hoot and perfect politcal theater. What little chance those assholes had of kicking Slick out of office went up in smoke that night.

That's our Slick. Political judo artist par excelance of our time.

He kicked the GOP's ass and that is his most important legacy. Given what losing to the GOP now means in the Gingrich/Bush/Delay Era of Republican politics, Clinton's egregious sins look like the Greatness of Caesar in comparison.

I still don't like Slick. But I have immense respect for him. He is a force of nature.

He should rot in hell for welfare "reform," NAFTA/GATT/Free Trade, the catastrophic Telecommunications Act of 1996, Dick Morris and a host of other triangular betrayals of progressive principles. I will never forgive him for any of that despicable shit.

But I still treasure his talent for politics. If nothing else, this man is the Perfect Weather Vane. If he thinks the time is Right to start raising hell about the bad vote counts, it tells the rest of the weasels in office that it is OK to pick up the call.



It never makes any sense to rebuff support for a good position. This is the Left's worst personality fault -- focusing on what we don't like about a politician who has just said exactly what we want him to say.

On another much smaller lefty board, I recently posted a link to an article by John Kerry where he admitted he was wrong on Iraq and advocated getting out. The lefties offered their ususal fratracidal and suicidal bullshit about how it was TOO LATE for Kerry to claim that he deserved any support -- as if supporting his pullout legislation was equal to supporting him running for President.

Insanity.



I'm glad to see Slick adding the second royal name to the current buzz about vote fraud. I don't plan on voting for or against Slick ever again -- so it really doesn't mean shit whether I approve of his character or anything else about him.

Welcome aboard the Tin Foil Train, Mr. President. It's great to have you with us.

:kick:

that I attend each year every New Year's. Although it was clear his heart
bypass had taken a LOT out of him, he was very focused--on tsunami relief,
on worldwide AIDS prevention, that kind of thing. The whole Washington scene
had pretty much shit on him for the last few years of his presidency, and
I can understand if he was just fed up to the point where he wasn't at all
into being the leader of the party any more. I think he was fed up with
being the target for every monied right-wing sleazeball that could get
into print.

He is still the mesmerizing in-person personality he always was, and enjoys
getting standing ovations where Bush gets booed. But he has moved on, and
is not interested in hogging the limelight where the next Democratic candidate
could be accused of running in his shadow. His heart thing happened near the
2004 election--unfortunate for us, but not likely to recur in 2008. He is
taking his cardiologist's admonishment about his diet extremely seriously, and
should be fit to participate in the 2008 campaign, and I suspect he will, no
matter who the candidate is. If it isn't Hillary, and I suspect at his point
that it will not be, I don't think that will diminish his participation in the
slightest--or augment it.

Like any rock-star type, he thrives on the cheering, and while in 2004, Bush
still had residue of the "terrrrrist" issue, that will be not only old hat by
2008, it will be shown to have been misused to usurp power by an executive that
was neither entitled to it nor deserving of it.

Could he have been more active in Democratic politics after leaving office?
Maybe, but maybe not. I don't know of ONE post-WWII president who has done
more, with the exception of Jimmy Carter. Truman and LBJ basically retired
completely, JFK never made it, and all the Republican ex-presidents have been
pretty much useless.

Anything Bill Clinton has to say these days will still carry a lot of weight,
especially since it gets compared to the nonsense spewing out of the mouth
of Bush Lite, and if he's finally willing to get involved in a few issues that
previous protocol for ex-presidents says is overstepping the mark, I'm all for
it. Whatever one's view, when he was President, the country was FAR better off
than it has been since (unless you own a huge chuck of Halliburton), and I
long for the days......

.

Thanks to MCM for posting this:

Here's the longer version of Clinton's remarks:

http://aan.org/alternative/Aan/ViewArticle?oid=oid%3A166649

Q. Talking about elections, Robert Kennedy Jr. just wrote an article in Rolling Stone claiming the Bush Administration stole the last election. Do you think it was, and how can we guard against something like that going on in the future?

WJC: I must say I read Robert Kennedy's article in Rolling Stone, and I think all of you should if you haven't. And before I read it, I was convinced that President Bush had won OhioŠ IŠ I thought it would have been ironic if he had lost the election in the electoral college and won the popular vote--that is, if he went out the same way he came in. ButŠ but I think thatŠ I think that -- two things. I think there is no question that Al Gore would have won Florida if all the votes had been counted and the people who intended to vote for him had their votes counted.

Between the people whose votes were thrown out for erroneous double voting instructions in Jacksonville, and the 3400 Jewish Democrats who voted for Pat Buchanan in the butterfly ballot, and several others, there's no question that several thousand more people in Florida intended to vote for Gore and showed up on Election Day. And I still believe that the two Bush v. Gore decisions will go down as one of the four or five worst decisions in the history of the United States Supreme Court. I think it was a disgrace. And I think ifŠ if Gore had been ahead and Bush had been behind, the Supreme Court would have voted nine to nothing to count all the votes by uniform standard. That's what I think would have happened. You may not agree but that's what IŠ I used to teach that course, Constitutional Law. That's what I think.

In this case, I thinkŠ You know, I don't have an opinion, but I thought Robert Kennedy made a very persuasive case, and what was clear is that the Secretary of State, now their candidate for governor, was a world-class expert in voter suppression, and that he was doing everything he could to keep voters that he thought were Democrats from voting--in every way that he could. And I think that is wrong. And I hope that the voters of Ohio will repudiate it. I mean, you know, we ought to be in the business of getting more people to vote, not fewer.

We don't have as many people--heck, they had 70 percent of the voters voted in Iraq in the last election, they had a better voter turnout than we did, and a bunch of them were risking their lives. So I don't think we ought to be ratifying the public service of anybody who thinks it's his job to keep people from voting and that's Š but I don't have an opinion because I didn't know anything about it 'til I read Robert Kennedy's article. But he sure as heck raised a--he made a compelling case, those numbers that he said in some of those precincts, the probability of the vote total being that much at variance with the exit polls was one in 600,000.

And it happened over and over and over again. So if you haven't read the article, I urge you to read it and when you go back home I urge you to look atŠ you know, again this is without regard to party, I just don't think we ought to be suppressing voters. We ought to be getting them to the polls and letting them vote and letting them have their say.

:hi: