Clinton 'instinct' axes Bush

[cal04]

Paris - Former United States president Bill Clinton says he's got a hunch that George W Bush will not win another term at the White House.

In Paris to promote his autobiography, Clinton called Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry a "strong leader and very capable" in an interview published Friday in Le Figaro newspaper.

Although wars have helped sitting presidents win re-election in the past, Clinton said he didn't think Bush's handling of Iraq would work in his favour this November.

"My instinct tells me the situation does not guarantee Bush's re-election," Clinton was quoted as saying.

The situation in Iraq was a byproduct of two factors: "First, a singular obsession of the Bush administration, concerning this conflict. And, the pain, the very particular passion felt in America after September 11."

Saying the United States had not previously seen itself as an "arrogant, military power", Clinton added: "I am in profound disagreement with the method of the government."

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1558963,00.html

[wuushew]

1. Does this erase his previous comments about the take down of Iraq?

the only ExPOTUS worth a damn is Carter.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

9. I guess you've forgotten all about the booming economy between...

...1992-2000. I don't guess you recall the budget surplus Clinton left behind either. You must personally be better off under FratBoy's fine economic leadership.

And what about the excellent state of U. S. international relations when Clinton left office?

And how many major wars did the military have to fight during Clinton's presidency?

The status of a former President is very often determined by how well he did during his terms in office. Clinton did quite well while office, Carter did not.

Carter is an excellent x-Pres...much better than he was at actually BEING the president. Carter's also had 24 years to hone his x-Pres skills since being defeated by Reagan in 1980. Clinton's only been an x-Pres since 2000, and IMHO, he was a MUCH better President than any since FDR. In fact, Clinton was our last LEGALLY elected President.

[yardwork]

2. Clinton is an expert politician.

The fact that he felt comfortable saying this says a lot. It's practically unheard of for a former president to make such critical comments about one running for reelection.

Clinton wouldn't have said this if he didn't know for sure that many well-connected people agree with what he said.

Bush is toast. The ruling elite have abandoned him.

[bigbillhaywood]

3. What did people expect him to say, he had a hunch Bush would win?

"Saying the United States had not previously seen itself as an "arrogant, military power","

-- The US an "arrogant, military power"? Noooo...that only happened when Bush came along. I only wish I had the time to list America's wars of imperial aggression, military adventures, armed foreign interventions, proxy wars, and military posturing since 1776. Get real, people. Quit longing for the "good old days" that never were. Let's get started building something new.

[qazplm]

6. compared to other nations during their rise

we really havent had near the same number of wars of aggression.

Certainly if you want to be exacting:

War of 1812, American aggression against Canada (of course Canada was part of Great Britain, a greater power, so kinda hard to categorize it as imperial aggression)

Mexican American War (same here, Mexico at the time had a better trained army, better weapons (Spanish made) and really on paper should have beaten the US, Santa Anna was a poor general)

American Indian Wars (no doubt here, imperial aggression, Indian Nations were much less powerful than the US and we were very brutal)

Spanish American War (probably the first real war of imperial aggression with another major power of roughly equal stature)

Then you really have to wait until what Vietnam? And even that is debateable as "imperial aggression".

WWI, WWII, and Korea certainly don't count.

Panama? Maybe, but really considering we gave back the Canal on schedule that's hard to call "imperial".

Gulf War? Don't see how.

Bosnia? Not really.

Iraq? I'd say yes.

I'm sorry but while arrogant may have been accurately used to describe us in the past (then again, you haven't made the A list of nations until someone thinks you are arrogant)...I don't think the point that we were aggressors is quite as easily made.

[Djinn]

7. You've only dealth with "official" wars

BigBill mentioned: "wars of imperial aggression, military adventures, armed foreign interventions, proxy wars, and military posturing since 1776" That includes stuff like the overthrow of elected leaders in Chile and Iran, the arming of terrorists in Nicuragua, the training of death squads in El Salvador and Guatemala, the annexation of Guam, Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Hawaii. The war in Vietnam which also included bombing Laos and Cambodia, there's the invasion of Grenada, the bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan (destroying 90% of the countries manufacturing ability). Not to mention the countless "interventions" of US troops during other nations minor revolts and revolutions eg: China, Korea, Honduras, Mexico, Haiti, Russia, Yugoslavia, Turkey, Uruguay, Greece, Egypt, Lebanon, Indonesia, Oman, Angola, Libya, Bolivia - and so on and so on.

[lanparty]

14. The US is built on conquered land ...

... the Constant Indian wars were DEFINITELY wars of aggression.

[buycitgo]

11. got that right, bigbill

and Carter was exposed to me recently as having ties to all kinds of oneworlder groups since he's been expres

can you say Venezuela, for starters?

and let's not forget his suppport for RW govermnents in Central and South America when he was in office

will check to see where I can find support for my statements

[buycitgo]

12. here's what heard on This Is Hell

James Petras, advocated for the landless in South America

http://www.counterpunch.org/petras07082004.html

re: certifying the stolen Dominican Rep election of 1990, and, mainly, on what's going on in Venezuela

this makes me very sad, if true, cause I'd thought Carter wasn't like this

shoulda known better

The two faces of imperial power include the iron fist military intervention and the "soft sell" of electoral frauds, intimidating diplomacy and democratic blackmail. Jimmy Carter is "the quiet American" of Graham Greene fame, who legitimates voter fraud, blesses corrupt elections, certifies murderous rulers, encourages elections, in which the opposition is funded by the US state and semi-public foundations, and the incumbent progressive regime suffers repeated violent disruption of the economy.

Behind the simple and humane façade, Carter has a strategy to reverse progressive regimes and undermine insurgent democrats. Carter and his "team" from his Center probe and locate weaknesses among insecure democrats, particularly those under threat by US-backed opponents and thus vulnerable to Carter's appeals to be "pragmatic" and "realistic"--meaning his barely disguised arguments to accept fraudulent electoral results and gross US electoral intervention. Carter is a quiet master in mixing democratic rhetoric with manipulation of susceptible democrats who think he shares their democratic politics. The international mass media feature his self-promoted overseas trips to conflictual countries and above all his phony "human rights" record. The mass media provide Carter with the appearance of democratic credentials.

In fact, his frequent political interventions have been dedicated to sustaining dictators, legitimizing fraudulent elections and pressuring popular democratic candidates to capitulate before US-backed opponents. Carter has deliberately and systematically worked over the past quarter of a century to undermine progressive regimes and candidates and promote their pro-imperialist opponents.

Today in Venezuela, faced with a referendum of dubious validity, backed by the most rancid reactionaries, Carter once again poses as a "neutral monitor" while working with the anti-Chavez opposition to first legitimate the referendum then to provide opportunities for its favorable outcome. Carter has said absolutely nothing about strenuous US funding of the opposition--a blatant violation of any democratic, electoral process -- activities which would be felonious in his own country, the USA. He calls for "fair reporting" by the hysterically anti-Chavez mass media, knowing full well that, with a wink of his eye, they have free rein to provide exclusively favorable coverage of the opposition and uniformly negative disinformation about Chavez. In exchange Carter secured from Chavez a promise to avoid compulsory national chain broadcasts. Carter refuses to recognize that the electoral playing field is not equal, yet under the guise of "free press" he defends the right of the media oligarchs to voice venomous lies, denying the electorate the right to hear both sides. Carter refuses to recognize the intimidating effects of US military maneuvers in the Caribbean, the belligerent statements of undersecretary of state of Latin American Affairs Noriega against Chavez and the hyperactivity of the US Ambassador Shapiro in support of the anti-Chavez forces. Above all Carter ignores the plots, fraudulent practices and paramilitary activities leading up to and beyond the referendum. Focusing on enforcing the Government's compliance with electoral procedures and ignoring the highly prejudicial context of the election, Carter is fulfilling his role of a "set-up man" for either an electoral victory of the opposition or in the event of a defeat, for a post-election pretext for violent coup. Carter's history provides an extremely useful context for substantiating these observations and affirmation.

[Myrina]

4. He's speaking lawyer again ...

... "My instinct tells me the situation does not guarantee Bush's re-election... "

"does not guarantee" does not equal 'will not win', people. He's half-answering the question.

[Catt03]

5. Right!

Almost sounds condescending

[neuvocat]

8. He's been elected twice as President

but somehow his opinion isn't all that qualified. Riiiiiiiiight.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

10. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that Clinton is stating..

....in effect, that barring any unforseen circumstance such as the declaration of martial law/postponement of the elections, and/or a MAJOR stumble by the Kerry/Edwards team, Fratboy will have a major problem winning a second term.

Why would you expect anyone to give an ironclad guarantee to any question like that?

[TruthIsAll]

13. Re-election? Bush was never elected!

"My instinct tells me the situation does not guarantee Bush's re-election," Clinton was quoted as saying.

Same old BigDog. Always the gentleman.

[lanparty]

15. If presidents weren't limited to 2 terms ....

... the Big Dog would STILL be president despite the Lewinsky affair.

I daresay that Clinton would have beat out FDR for time as president.

[dbt]

16. Kick anyhow.

Maybe the Clinton Flame Wars will subside long enough for this morsel of good news to filter out.

:evilgrin:
dbt