Posted on 09/18/2005 10:58:32 PM PDT by HAL9000
Edited on 09/19/2005 12:13:35 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) Former President Bill Clinton on Sunday morning said his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, should not pledge to serve another full six-year term in her campaign for re-election.
Clinton made the comments during an interview on Tim Russert's MSNBC show, "Meet the Press.''
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
Why not? A Clinton commitment is worthless anyway -
October 15, 1990 -
Reporter: ""Will you guarantee all of us that if re-elected, there is absolutely, positively no way that you'll run for any other political office and that you'll serve out your term in full?""Bill Clinton: "You bet. I told you when I announced for governor I intended to run, and that's what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna serve four years. I made that decision when I decided to run. I'm being considered for as a candidate for governor. That's the job I want. That's the job I'll do for the next four years."
Sounds like he wants to be back in the White House more than she does.
What a slimey couple.
it's easier to talk out of both sides of your mouth when you can use someone else's.
My dislike of the Klintoons grows everyday.
Beelzeflubba and his bride..
So Bill Clinton wants New Yorkers to let Hillary use them... What do they get out it?
AWWW COME ON! What the heck, No warning? :D
New Yorkers have let themselves be used like this before. Remember Bobby Kennedy? He carpet bagged from Massachusetts.
The AP actually wrote that?
Oops.
Clinton said it, and AP reported it. I suspect Hillary is unhappy with Bill's remark about her large figure.
Looks like The Evil One is in full campaign mode for his third reign.
lol! that poor donkey. :D
This all goes together with Bill Clinton's recent attack on
President Bush. He is positioning Hillary for 08.
>>
So Bill Clinton wants New Yorkers to let Hillary use them... What do they get out it?
<<
More burning skyscrapers? That's what he gave them.
This was posted over at powerlineblog.com:
Uncharted Territory, Once Again
In recent years, the Democrats have violated many of the tacit conventions of civility that have enabled our political system to work for more than two centuries. Yesterday another barrier fell, and once again, we entered uncharted waters: former President Bill Clinton launched a vicious attack on President Bush on ABC's "This Week" program.
This has never happened before. Until now, both parties have recognized a patriotism that, at some level, supersedes partisanship. Consistent with that belief, former Presidents of both parties have stayed out of politics and have avoided criticizing their successors. Until now. The Democrats appear bent on destroying every element of the fabric that has united us as Americans.
Clinton's vicious attack is even worse in the context of his wife's Presidential bid: it is fair to assume that he was motivated not only by partisanship, but by his own desire to re-occupy the White House, and, most likely, wield once more the levers of power.
AFP reports:
Breaking with tradition under which US presidents mute criticisms of their successors, Clinton said the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq "virtually alone and before UN inspections were completed, with no real urgency, no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction."
This attack was false in every respect. The invasion of Iraq had the support of dozens of nations. The UN's inspections could never be "completed," but the UN itself had reported that large quantities of WMDs remained unaccounted for.
On the other hand, Clinton's suggestion that there was "no real urgency" about the situation in Iraq was probably sincere, as it typified Clinton's approach to terrorism: he perceived no urgency after the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, or after al Qaeda's attempt to simultaneously destroy a dozen American airplanes over the Pacific in 1995; or after the attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998; or after Saddam's attempt to assassinate former President Bush; or after Saddam repeatedly tried to shoot down American aircraft; or after the Cole bombing in 2000; or after the Taliban took over Afghanistan and converted it into a training ground for anti-American mass murderers; or after any number of other provocations. So, naturally, Clinton saw no urgency with respect to dealing with Saddam's regime.
Of course, had Saddam facilitated a post-9/11 attack on the U.S. using chemical or biological weapons, you can imagine how harshly Clinton would have criticized Bush for his lack of foresight.
Clinton's assertion that there was "no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction" is a flat-out lie. The Consensus Estimate of the American intelligence agencies has been made public, and we have quoted from it and linked to it on many occasions. America's intelligence agencies said, with a "high degree of confidence," that Saddam possessed both chemical and biological weapons.
These were the same intelligence reports that Clinton received as President, so he is well aware of them. His statement was not a mistake, it was a lie.
Clinton goes on:
Clinton said there had been a "heroic but so far unsuccessful" effort to put together a constitution that would be universally supported in Iraq.
A ridiculous standard, of course. No nation has ever adopted a constitution that was "universally supported," least of all, our own.
And more:
The US strategy of trying to develop the Iraqi military and police so that they can cope without US support "I think is the best strategy. The problem is we may not have, in the short run, enough troops to do that," said Clinton.
Someone tell me: what did Clinton ever do, during his eight years in office, to build up America's armed forces or increase our power?
He continues:
On Hurricane Katrina, Clinton faulted the authorities' failure to evacuate New Orleans ahead of the storm's strike on August 29.
People with cars were able to heed the evacuation order, but many of those who were poor, disabled or elderly were left behind.
"If we really wanted to do it right, we would have had lots of buses lined up to take them out," Clinton.
Note that when Clinton faulted the "authorities," he meant the Bush administration--although, as AFP points out, he "agreed that some responsibility for this lay with the local and state authorities." In fact, the entire responsibility lay with state and local authorities. Here, Clinton is simply playing on the ignorance of his listeners--a time-honored Democratic tactic.
And speaking of "buses lined up to take them out," readers of this site are well aware that buses were "lined up," and that the City of New Orleans' hurricane plan contemplated that those buses would be used to evacuate residents.
But, due entirely to the incompetence and fecklessness of local authorities, hundreds of buses that were "lined up" were never used. Clinton knows this; again, he is baldly attempting to deceive his listening audience.
Clinton finished up with some budget commentary:
On the US budget, Clinton warned that the federal deficit may be coming untenable, driven by foreign wars, the post-hurricane recovery programme and tax cuts that benefitted just the richest one percent of the US population, himself included.
More lies.
As Clinton well knows, the Bush tax cuts benefited all taxpayers. And by historical standards, the current deficit is relatively small as a proportion of GDP, and is dropping.
Again and again, President Bush has tried to work with the Democrats as if they were loyal Americans first, and partisans second. He has treated Bill Clinton with a friendship and respect that, candidly, is disproportionate to Clinton's meager accomplishments.
Again and again, the Democrats have rebuffed Bush's overtures and taken advantage of his patriotism and good faith. Clinton's politically-motivated tissue of lies and distortions is just the latest example out of many. But it is unprecedented, coming from a former President. That is a sad thing: the latest wound inflicted on the body politic by the Democratic Party.
UPDATE: Reader Steve Tefft sends this Clinton quote from July 23, 2003:
"[I]t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
That was then, I guess; this is now. And 2008 is just a few short years away. So it's time, apparently, to revise the historical record.
Posted by John at 08:19 PM | Permalink
2. She also said she wasn't running for President.
3. She's a liar.
He's the closest to amoral refuse we've had in the White House in my lifetime.
Just watch the news. He still thinks he is president.
with luck she wont win. Alot of NYers are tired of the Clintons BS
Clinton doesnt look well. Somethings up.
Why would anyone believe a Clinton, to begin with?
bttt
Bill is angling for UN Secretary General. Hillary is angling for the White House.
Hill-Billy have only one goal in mind. Stay vigilant.
THEY CAN FOOL SOME NEW YORKERS, BUT NOT ALL OF THEM.
Bill heading the UN and Hillary in the White House. Won't life be grand? /sarcasm
klintoon, hitlery, hanoi kerry, sanbdi ber(bur)glar, al bore, jane beno,
ALL got free get out of jail cards from John Ashcroft.
Ashcroft didn't even have to worry about re-election, his was an appointed office!
Remember pardongate, chinagate, the bribes in upstate NY in the 2000 NY Senate race, waco, etc, etc, etc
hanoi kerry still gets protection from the so called conservative in the US Senate.
Just remember when YOU commit a crime make sure you know who to bribe and you'll get out and stay out of jail.
I guess Viet Nam Vets will be called upon to save the country again in 2008 when hanoi kerry runs again.
He'll outspend hitlery
Rove Credits Swiftvets With 'Energizing' Bush Vote (Thank You Karl Rove!)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1345603/posts
John Ashcroft Legacy PING
Thanks for the ping!
bump
Is there anyway Hillary can insert herself into the equation for the gov of NY election?
Hang 'em High ~ Bump!
Yep. He wants Kofi's job.
Ya know how you can tell this is photoshopped? Slick willy never had a neck like that. He's a pencil necked geek......
BTTT!!!!!!
I love that phrase "insert herself." LOL
She should put back the service for twelve.
Do you know if she can though? I couldn't help but notice NY seems to have a history of Govs 'assuming' the position.
Can she become Lt. Gov and then become gov after a resignation of the Gov?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.