... but damned if I don't like him as an ex-prez. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...16/ts_alt_afp/us_attacks_clinton_030416002722 Clinton blasts US approach to international affairs Tue Apr 15, 8:27 PM ET Add U.S. National - AFP to My Yahoo! NEW YORK (AFP) - Former US President Bill Clinton (news - web sites) blasted US foreign policy adopted in the wake of the September 11 attacks, arguing the United States cannot kill, jail or occupy all of its adversaries. "Our paradigm now seems to be: something terrible happened to us on September 11, and that gives us the right to interpret all future events in a way that everyone else in the world must agree with us," said Clinton, who spoke at a seminar of governance organized by Conference Board (news - web sites). "And if they don't, they can go straight to hell." The Democratic former president, who preceded George W. Bush at the White House, said that sooner or later the United States had to find a way to cooperate with the world at large. "We can't run," Clinton pointed out. "If you got an interdependent world, and you cannot kill, jail or occupy all your adversaries, sooner or later you have to make a deal." He said he believed Washington overreacted to German and French opposition to US plans for military action against Iraq (news - web sites) and suggested that the current administration had trouble juggling foreign and domestic issues. "Since September 11, it looks like we can't hold two guns at the same time," Clinton said. "If you fight terrorism, you can't make America a better place to be." Clinton said that if he were at the White House right now he would scrap a 726-billion dollar tax cut proposal made by the president in January to stimulate the flagging economy. Congress has since cut the proposal to 550 billion dollars in the case of the House of Representatives and 350 billion under a Senate version of the plan.
Here's the rest of the story: http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/871318.asp ... IS WAR INEVITABLE? Couric: “Let me ask you about Iraq. Is war inevitable?” Former President Bill Clinton: “No, but Saddam Hussein’s going to have to disarm. I mean if he wants to avoid war, he’s going to have to disarm. What I hope will happen is that we’ll let the process play out enough to maximize our international support. I’d really like to see the whole UN with us. And I think there’s a chance that they will be. I thought Secretary Powell gave the best part of his presentation, which I thought was quite effective, as he always is, was showing those pictures of the trucks taking stuff out the back door before the inspectors would get in the front door. Because that raised the prospect that Mr. Blix and his group, who are very vigorous, wouldn’t get to do the job we hired them to do. And then of course, those transcripts were pretty, pretty condemning, too.” Couric: “And yet, many of the allies, or some of the allies, are unmoved — France still having issues, Russia now, Germany, Belgium, with France and Germany having problems with NATO giving military supplies to Turkey. How critical is this allied support? Is it a cause for concern? Or do you think ultimately, they will come around?” Former President Bill Clinton: “I think they will come around if they believe that we gave the whole inspection, and the UN process a fair chance. They all know he’s a murderer, a liar, and a thug. They would all like it if he was gone. That’s not what’s going on here. Here’s what’s going on. They don’t want to look like they were railroaded into going by the UN. And they had the feeling that we went to the UN, but we didn’t really mean it. But we’ve always just wanted to go to war. So, we need to look like we’re determined, but not eager to go to war.” Couric: “But if the United States waits too long, will it look as if this country’s trying to win a popularity contest… and abrogating its leadership role?” Former President Bill Clinton: “No. First of all, we’re the strongest military in the world. And he’s weaker than he was during the Gulf War. So, as long as we’re determined to see that he’s disarmed, and even if we have to have a conflict — you can always kill somebody next week as well as this week. But you can’t bring him back to life. And I think that the patience that has been shown so far is good.” Couric: “Do you think the U.S. should wait for a second Security Council Resolution authorizing force?” Former President Bill Clinton: “As a matter of international law, I don’t think we have to.” Couric: “Do you think the U.S. should wait politically?” Former President Bill Clinton: “I don’t think the president needs another Security Council Resolution, as a matter of international law. I think politically, if he could get it, it would be great. For the simple reason that, if we had to go without another UN resolution — if we had to go and European powers or Russia or China are vocally opposed to this, then there will always be the suggestion that this was, in effect, a pre-emptive strike. I know the administration has said pre-emptive strikes may be justified in some places. But we’ve never done that. And democratic powers normally wait to get hit before they hit. On the other hand, if it is the UN, carrying out the UN mandate, and we’re doing this because for 12 years he has defied the UN mandate to disarm, that is not a pre-emptive strike. It’s a police action designed to protect the world from chemical and biological weapons. I want the UN and the international community to be stronger and more united when it’s over than when we started.”
I'm not sure what you do want in govt, Bats. It's clear you don't like Bush, but beyond that...do you have a plan, youself? Clinton's remarks are particularly moronic in this instance, where he resorts to misuse of the universals "all and every" like a spoiled ten year old or a nagging shrew. "You left your socks on the floor! You ALWAYS leave them there!" Punish France, Ignore Germany, Forgive Russia. And drop a target on Syria. Different strategies, different forces.
Breaking News! ClutchCity.net poster Batman Jones expressed his admiration for Bill Clinton today when an interview with the former president found that they shared a mutual dissatisfaction of current president Bush's foreign policy. A staunch proponent of the "you're either against Bush, or against me" philosophy, Mr. Jones expressed his admiration in a one-liner followed by the text of a portion of the interview. The piece was intended to Bash the current president, and to bolster the self confidence of liberals everywhere who have just recieved a shock to their egos as a result of the stunning successes achieved inside Iraq. The claim by Mr. Jones was largely ignored by other posters, at least initially. More at 11. In other news, a 6-nation consortium announced today the completion of the Human Genome Project...
It is good to see that you want to get in touch with liberal side. If you try harder, maybe in a couple of years you will reach that beach.
Once again, Clinton trashes the time tested tradition that ex-Presidents should keep a low profile. To make matters worse, Clinton intentionally bashes the Commander-in-Chief while we are at war. His complete lack of class is only surpassed by his hypocrisy, since he had previously endorsed this exact mission.
So, does Bill have a book coming out soon or does he just want to let the world know he still exists? <i>"Since September 11, it looks like we can't hold two guns at the same time," Clinton said. "If you fight terrorism, you can't make America a better place to be."</i> Then there's some of us wackos who believe that doing everything in our power to provent a couple thousand more lives from being taken in one instant <i>does</i> make America a better place to be. Ain't that crazy? After reading the old interview next to the new one it's pretty obvious Bill is just another two-face Democrat. What do they even stand for anymore? Do, they have a strong, unwavering opinion on anyting? At least that would be something I could respect, even if I disagreed with their stance.
I didn't see him change his stance on Iraq, he was talking about the way things went down with France, Russia, and Germany. Anyways, the guy gives speeches, lots of ex Presidents do, Clinton's stuff just gets covered because people are interested. It wouldn't be news if people didn't care. Why don't you guys blame your fellow americans for still being interested in the guy. Hell, Fox news is always keeping tabs on him, none of you seem to complain about that.
Russia spied for Iraq, while France and Germany have been caught red handed violating UN sanctions on arm sales to Iraq. Anybody who thinks that Russia, Germany, and France were dealing with us in good faith is completely discredited.
Perjury must be expensive. In nearly every single interview I've seen with him recently, he's alluded to the fact that he needs to make money to pay off his legal bills.
I know- that is classic. He is earning money like a professional athlete, and he and Hillary are still asking supporters to pay their legal bills. .....classic white trash move.
The real reason conservatives never liked Clinton. They don't believe in the American dream. They hate the fact that a guy pulled himself up from mediocrity to the White House. All I ever heard from Conservatives before the 2000 election was I'm voting for Bush because he comes from such a great family, like that means something. You guys are a bunch of hypocrites.
Pgabrial, Or maybe they just don't trust a guy who is getting a hummer in the whitehouse from an intern. And then perjures himself about it in court. I hear he is writing him memoires, I don't know what he is going to write about since he said he can't remember anything under oath. As for you comment about Conservatives not liking presidents without pedigree that is sophmoric at best. DD
I guess that's why you guys are always calling him Bubba. No one ever makes fun of Clinton's background.
So, he is, in effect, saying that he seriously disagrees with the unilateral, We Decide! dictate evident in the current administration's foreign policy, as evident in how they dealt with Iraq, and others. In effect, he is saying exactly what that other anti-Bush, Rebulican-hatin' ex-President just looking to get his name in the papers at the expense of Dubya....George Bush Sr. Their positions can be reduced to almost exactly the same points of opposition; are they both to be dismissed for the same reasons, or shall we find other reasons why this ex-President is lying, or doesn't know wherefor he speaks?
Yes sir...you in the camo shirt...I realize that you probably don't read the newspaper, so here are some links for you- Russia spies for Iraq- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/13/wrus13.xml Illegal French arms sales to Iraq- http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030307-545570.htm Also, yesterday on CNN, the marines said they found French missiles that were shipped in 2001. We found German gas masks and Russian anti tank missiles that were also imported illegally. France, Russia, and Germany have been whores for Saddam. Asking them to validate any of our actions is beyond ludicrous.
