In your view, were Clintons showing clear opposition to BushInc from 2001-2006?

[blm]

Especially on the two biggest issues facing voters and American people throughout this time - Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq war.

Did you notice the Clintons throughout that time defending other Democrats who were under attack after sticking their necks out to oppose Bush?

[blm]

1. Every one is entitled to their own view, of course.

Maybe we all witnessed different talk shows where one thing would be said for Larry King Live's audience or Today Show and another emphasis would be added for a Jon Stewart interview.

So, whatever you witnessed for the MOST part while Bush has been in office, please feel free to share.

[blm]

2. I knew IranContra and BCCI details, so I sided more with Kerry's views on terrorism

and how to counter it at the root causes, and that iot should be dealt with as a law enforcement issue with special operations from military used to back UP law enforcement when they located and pinned the terrorists down.

The whole bomb them all attitude was not one I could support as a citizen.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. You have to seperate them on this to an extent

There is a strong political cultural expectation in the U.S. for ex-Presidents to not act as opposition leaders to sitting Presidents. Why would be a long and interesting discussion. That is just begining to break down a little more now, with Jimmy Carter as a prime agent of that change now vis a vis Bush, but even Carter was not overly visible as an opponent of the President who replaced him - Reagan, and he bacame friends with the President he replaced - Ford. George Bush Senior did not show clear opposition to Bill Clinton either during Clinton's two terms.

Bill Clinton certainly for the most part held his fire against George W. Bush and was cordial on a social level with him. There were minor exceptions, but the biggest one came when the Republicans tried to pin the blame for 9/11 on the Clinton Administration prior to the 2006 mid terms. Bill came back swinging on that one and instead pinned the failure on George W. Bush's failure to take the threat of terrorism seriously.

Hillary was not bound by that Presidential tradition however, especially after she actively entered politics by becoming a U.S. Senator. I know you asked for a focus on terrorism and the Iraq war, but it should be acknowledged that Hillary Clinton's overall voting record in the U.S. Senate is rated as very liberal, so obviously there are a host of issues where she stood in clear oppostion to Bush. I have long complained, as one of Hillary's constituents, that she did not raise her voice as a leader in opposition to Bush nearly often enough, even when she ended up voting the way that I wanted. As a Senator from New York with a safe seat and relatively liberal population she represented, she had the liberty to be speak out more than she did. I strongly suspect that she has used her term and a half in office to re-position her image in an attempt to appeal to centrist voters in an upcoming Presidential Election. I supported Jonathan Tasini against her in the 2006 primary for that reason.

I don't have time to do research right now, but I believe most would say that Hillary has been a clearer consistent oppositional voice toward Bush policies regarding terrorism than she has been regarding the Iraq war. But I would not call her a supporter of that war either, in the sense that she certainly did not cheer on the invasion itself. I know that the war in Iraq is often seen in stark black and white terms at DU, with many feeling anything other than a fixed plan for a rapid full withdrawal from Iraq is identical with full support for that war and virtually identical with the neo con position regarding it. However there are many for the most part conservative Democrats in Congress who have been much more supportive to Bush's decisions regarding Iraq than Hilary Clinton has. And there are many progressive Democrats in Congress who have been more sharply in disagreement than has Senator Clinton.

Hillary Clinton in my opinion has been running for President since she entered the Senate, though she did honor her vow to voters here that she would finish out her first full term in the Senate if elected and was careful not to make a similar vow about a second term. It is obvious to me that she consciously chose not to take on the role of opposition leadership when she became a Senator, feeling a need instead to stress that she could be a team player in the Senate, both among other Democrats and with some bi-partisan initiatives also. That was her strategy and it is not one I am happy with, but time will tell if in fact it was an effective strategy. If she ends up getting elected President and doing a good job there, much will be forgiven.

[blm]

4. Clintons can CREATE a wall of noise when they want to show opposition

and if you saw it, then you were watching different broadcast media than I was from 2001-2006.

You believe Clinton had different positions than Joe Lieberman during that time? I saw Lieberman being on the same page but drawing most of the lightning for those shared positions.

[karynnj]

5. I see nothing to suggest that HRC was a clearer consistent oppositional voice toward Bush policies r

I wish she were. In 2004, Kerry got it right and in 2006 even George Will admitted as much. Bill Clinton in early 2005 claimed that Kerry had not been strong enough on national security. If instead, the Clintons had taken Kerry's well reasoned comments on how to deal with terrorism as the 911 updated version of what Clinton did in office, they could have positioned the Democrats much better on national security. (Kerry had actually called for most of what he prescribed in 2004 in the 1990s, but there was not political will to enact the international money laundering laws needed to follow the money) I suspect they didn't mostly out of political self interest. HRC has, in fact, tried to move to where Kerry was for the last 3 years.

On Alito, the behind the scenes comments were that she was furious with the attempt to filibuster. Now, she speaks of fighting against Alito - and she did vote against him as well as against cloture. On Iraq, the behind the scenes stories are that she vilified Kerry for bringing anything to the floor of the Senate. She thought it was not in the political interest of the Democrats, Kerry said that when the policy is wrong, you need to fight to change it. If the Democrats had done nothing but write position papers on Iraq in 2006, it may not have been the closing argument of 2006. It turned out that it was not just the right thing to do but the political one.

[bvar22]

71. "Voting Records" are an easy scam for a one-term Senator running for President,

especially if they are protected by an internal group of confederates, like the DLC.
Most of a Senator's votes are throwaways, especially if their vote is cast AFTER the issue is decided, like Hillary's (and Obama's) vote AGAINST the last Iraq supplemental.....absolutelu meaningless except a campaign fodder for the rubes back home.

Vote Swapping to protect incumbents running for re-election is rampant in "The Good Old Boy's Club" of the Senate. The Corporations don't mind, as long as enough of their paid puppets vote to further the CorpoAgenda.

I used to believe in the sanctity of the "Voting Record" until I started watching CSPAN in 2001.
Pure "Voting Records" are worthless.

To determine where a person REALLY stands, look at speeches from the Floor BEFORE a vote.
Does this person passionately and consistently advocate for a CAUSE or an ISSUE?
Or do they sneak in after the FIGHT and cast a worthless vote after the BATTLE is over?

Do they passionately and consistently FIGHT for an issue on the Talking Head Shows, or do they simply pass on their Campaign Talking Points.

I've been watching CSPAN for 6 years.
I KNOW what the Clintons are passionate about, and it isn't Economic Justice for Working Americans.
Nor have I seen any Passionate Opposition to the Bush administration from Hillary (or ANY other member of the Blue Dog Caucus/DLC.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Tom Rinaldo]

75. Personally, I consider the Clintons to be to the Right of Progressives and

to the Left of true Blue Dogs. Within those parameters it can be argued where he or she really fall, and of course it varies to an extent from issue to issue. They are both noticeably left of Cheney type Republicans and I think it foolish when some who oppose Hillary overstate their case and try to essentially equate the Clintons with Bush/Cheney. It isn't necessary to distort, there are plenty of real grounds to debate the merits of the Clintons on. I defend them to an extent because when push comes to shove I would have no trouble working to elect Hillary Clinton over whoever the Republicans nominate. No matter how you slice it, inevitable or not, there is still at least a good chance that Hillary will be our nominee. It hurts our chances to come together behind her (if she does win the nomination) to defeat the Republicans if we unreservedly traffic in the most unflattering and willfully distorted perceptions of her now.

[wyldwolf]

6. yep

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3194892

[blm]

8. Oh yeah - REALLY big issues. Or occasional disagreements in front of partisan groups

where they were EXPECTED to attack.

But then there is the wall of noise that Clintons CAN create when they want to oppose something or someone - or don't when it benefits some other Democrat.

Anyone can pinpoint incidents in front of a small Dem audience - a wall of noise making it clear that Clintons supported Bush on his terrorism and Iraq war decisions was CREATED during Bill's June 2004 book tour and before that when Bill encouraged Democrats in DC to support Bush on terrorism and Iraq.

Where was a wall of noise backing up any Democrat opposing Bush on the big issues of terrorism and Iraq war?

Tora Bora was an opportunity.

Terrorism tactics was an opportunity.

Bush's invasion of Iraq was a right time to side AGAINST that decision.

Clinton's BOOK TOUR in June2004 was an opportunity.
(Funny how most headlines benefitted Bush then.)

Downing Street Memos was an opportunity to side with Dems opposing Bush.

Alito filibuster was an opprtunity to take a public stand.

Iraq withdrawal timetable was an opportunity to oppose Bush on Iraq.

[wyldwolf]

9. oh, wait a minute. You mean big issues as defined by you. I get it

issue like education and healthcare don't count.

[blm]

10. Oh yeah - the two biggest issues from 2001-2006 were terrorism and Iraq war

ONLY to bad Democrats like me?

Yep - in fact, bad Democrats like me were tracking terrorism issues since the late 80s and throughout the 90s.

And, um.... you are welcome to show where a wall of noise was created around healthcare and education in the Clintons' efforts to oppose Bush from 2001-2006.

I only see occasional statements with no wall of noise created to oppose Bush on healthcare and education and take him head on straight to a media showdown - like Kerry did on Tora Bora, for example - do you?

[wyldwolf]

12. sorry - your asked for opposition. I gave multiple examples. Sorry if they don't rise to the level

you want them to.

[blm]

13. Opposing Bush for other Democrats meant sticking your neck out and taking

the hits on the BIG ISSUES on which you oppose him because he NEEDED OPPOSING.

[wyldwolf]

14. ok, you obviously are the one who defines these terms.

[blm]

19. I did in my original post. I said ESPECIALLY on the two biggest issues of terrorism

and Iraq war decisions.

If you want to make an argument that those were NOT the two biggest issues Bush needed opposing then go ahead.

And, BTW, if those were the two biggest issues to you then why were you satisfied with Clinton's occasional comments in disagreement with Bush on those issues and satisfied that there was no wall of noise created to push through that opposition to Bush during that timeframe?

Surely they could have accessed more media to create that staunch opposition - way more than Kerry could command on Tora Bora, for instance.

[wyldwolf]

20. I didn't deny that. You set the terms. It's your thread.

[mtnsnake]

26. Isn't it amazing how even when you provide proof, some don't want to admit it

Funny about that

[wyldwolf]

34. blm like to change the conditions of the question after the fact

[blm]

38. Because we all know better - Clintons can create a wall of noise on any issue

they choose. If they WANTED a wall of noise to show OPPOSITION to Bush they would have created it.

Did they not think Bush needed opposing?

[mtnsnake]

43. Let's face it. The Goddess of Peace raises the bar to a new level when it comes to blasting Bush

You know it, I know, we all know it, but for various reasons, some people just can't admit it :smoke:

[asdjrocky]

63. Snake...

"Goddess of Peace"? thought we talked about you hitting the pipe this early.

:donut: Eat this first.

[mtnsnake]

25. Too bad all our Dems don't have Hillary's guts to call Bush's admin the most corrupt in history

like she did. If only John Kerry attacked Bush like Hillary has over the years, we wouldn't be seeing a second term of the worst president in history, but no, he just turned the other cheek like so many of them do and we were rewarded with another term of Bush for his lack of effort.

[ChiciB1]

29. What??? What??? What??? Many Have Called Him Most Corrupt!! n/t

[mtnsnake]

35. BS. Up until that time, nobody had the guts to do it on an open microphone like she did

[ChiciB1]

39. Up Until WHAT Time Are We Talking About?? n/t

[mtnsnake]

42. Up until the time she said it. When else could I possibly have been talking about?

[ChiciB1]

45. When Did She Say It??? n/t

[mtnsnake]

49. January of 2006. Here ya go:

"We have a culture of corruption, we have cronyism, we have incompetence," she said. "I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-16-clinton-bush_x.htm

[ChiciB1]

55. Al Gore Said It In 2003, & John Dean Said It In 2004! If You Want Links

GOOGLE it. I'm sorry about the links but I have an appointment, REALLY! But for arguments sake, I'm sure there are many more.

[karynnj]

60. By 2006, Bush was down in 30s in approval rating

Kerry did accuse Bush of all these things in 2004. He spoke of Halliburton. He spoke of not guarding the ammo dumps. He spoke of not preparing for the peace.

By 2005, Kerry was the first to use the analogy to the Wizard of Oz by saying that Katrina had stripped back the curtain and we saw there was no wizard there. By 2006, there was not a non-Joe Leiberman Democrat NOT saying that.

[blm]

36. Really? When did Bush BECOME corrupt to Hillary?

Because alot of BushInc's corruption I saw was covered up throughout the 90s.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html


And then there is the matter of the backstabbing of Kerry throughout 2003-4.

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354


http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

[mtnsnake]

41. Other than to you, Bush has been corrupt to Hillary since as long as anyone paid attention

but keep dreaming up these little fantasies of your, many of which are spurred on by some posters writing up goofy articles for blogs.

[blm]

46. When? And Hillary sure doesn't mind Bill attaching HIS legacy to Poppy Bush

for someone YOU claim has fingered BushInc as corrupt. And Hillary certainly DIDN'T encourage accountability for BushInc when she was influencing Bill as First Lady. Not according to either one of their books that came out in 2003 and 2004.

[mtnsnake]

51. Hillary: "this (Bush) administration will go down in history as one of the worst"

"We have a culture of corruption, we have cronyism, we have incompetence," she said. "I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country."

Wow, too bad our last candidate couldn't come up with something like that instead of turning the other cheek all the time like he did!

[blm]

53. He did fight back as he did for years. Hillary waited till Bush's poll numbers were WAY down

before she would say anything like that.

And she sure wouldn't create a wall of noise on that the way Kerry did on Tora Bora even though the Clintons had the visibility to do it.

[mtnsnake]

54. Yeah, same way Kerry waited until poll numbers were WAY down for the war before he apologized

for his "mistake"...*cough cough*.

Any way you look at it, she was the first one to blast him like she did. The others are always a step or two behind her, eh.

[karynnj]

58. Not true,

Kerry was never for the invasion - he said in April 2003 when the war was at its most popular that more diplomacy should have been done and the inspectors allowed to do their job. The only change he made was that in October 2005, he said that he should not have given Bush his vote - which was never a vote for war. (In fact, HRC is using a reason similar to Kerry's 2004 reason and has yet to reach the conclusion that Kerry belatedly did 2 years ago. One big difference though - when it was clear that Bush was not keeping to his promises in 2003, Kerry spoke against going to war and HRC was silent.)

So, speaking against going to war when it was imminent, Kerry did, HRC didn't. (Several times - January 23, 2003 was the most formal.)

Saying that the invasion was not a good idea in April 2003, when the war was above 75% - Kerry did, HRC did not.

Kerry also had people like HRC vilifying him when he introduced Kerry/Feingold, she now says that the Iraqis need a deadline to force them to make the tough decisions. Again, advantage Kerry.

Demanding Rumsfeld resign - Kerry was there in 2003, HRC in 2006!

Speaking against Abu Ghraib - Kerry was the first, Dean the second ..... HRC far behind.

[mtnsnake]

64. You and I are obviously talking about 2 different things. You lost me with your first sentence

of your post when you said Kerry was never for the invasion. Yeah, okayyyy, that's why he apologized for his "mistake" because he was never for the war. Right.

[karynnj]

66. His mistake was voting for the IWR which Bush abused

He spoke agaisnt invading in 2002 and early 2003. He was labeled anti-war through about June 2003. The word mistake is in quotes - but Kerry never said mistake. He has very clearly said that he should not have voted as he did and has repeatedly taken responsibility for it. The vote was in 2002 and Bush said it was not a vote for war.

You know this.

[dionysus]

69. one toke over the line sweet mtnsnake one toke over the line...

standing outside of the dlc station one toke over the line.....
waitin for the train to dc, hopin that the train is on time...
standing outside of the dlc station one toke over the line.....

[IndianaGreen]

73. If what you say is true, how come Hillary has not called for impeaching Bush and Cheney?

Instead, Bill Clinton went on the defence of Bush by saying that he thought there were WMD in Iraq. Hillary joined the GOP in smearing Kerry by saying that he had attacked the troops when he told a joke that felt flat, and she also joined the GOP in attacking John Murtha when he said the war was lost and the troops needed to come home.

[blm]

28. Dates matter, wolfie. Did they back up those Dems being attacked for saying those

things earlier and in more public ways?

Why did Bill not say any of those things when he was on Larry King Live or on Today Show or at any time when he commanded a microphone to the American people? Did he ever say our 2004 nominee was right in his opposition to Bush's terrorism and Iraq war decisions? If Bill could manage to say that he supported Bush on HIS positions, can you show examples where he ever said he supported the Dem nominee's positions re Terrorism and Iraq war?

Was Bush corrupt to Hillary only AFTER the 2004 election and after his poll numbers stayed under 40% for a year?

[wyldwolf]

which is why I included dates and links.

[SaveElmer]

32. Absolutely true...

In fact there is virtually no issue on which the Clinton's haven't challenged Bush...

[blm]

56. Yeah - sure. In what alternate world? In what alternate media world?

.

[mtnsnake]

44. BINGO

'nuff said.

[asdjrocky]

7. Best friends forever.

Meet the new boss...

...same as the old boss.

[Kucinich4America]

11. Why do you never see pictures of Bill hanging with Jimmy Carter?

[blm]

15. Because rehabilitating Poppy Bush's image and legacy meant more to Bill

as far as the media was concerned. A Dem can do no wrong in the press' eyes when you're standing WITH a Bush, especially Poppy.

Why risk ridicule and scorn from the press by standing with Jimmy Carter on HIS positions when you can be glorified by standing with BushInc and all they stand for?

[mtnsnake]

27. Do you actually believe some of the stuff you even post?

Or is this yet another lame attempt and lead-up to selling Robert Parry's latest book again?

[blm]

40. Do you think you are closer to the truth about the last 30yrs than Robert Parry?

.

[mtnsnake]

52. I wouldn't say 30 years

Maybe 6 or 10 though. Before that, there might have been some times when he might have been as close to me in telling the truth, I'll grant him that much :smoke:

[ElizabethDC]

16. Because you don't look for them?

Here are quite a few: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=bill+clinton+jimmy+carter&gbv=2

[wyldwolf]

17. that's it. People like the OP only looks for things to prove their preconceived notion

The OP, for example, carried this thread from another thread to try and make the case the Clintons have not opposed Bush based on HER criteria of what "opposition" is.

[saracat]

57. Well, Jimmy Carter is well known to have made statements indicating his dislike of Bill Clinton.

I would have to google it but I remember that he didn't really like him and i would have thought he would have "liked" a fellow southern governor so i was surprised. I will look it up. BTW, those are official photos.The Bush ones are in many cases also "social".

[Andromeda]

68. Carter doesn't like Clinton because...

he's always been jealous of Bill Clinton and his success as a president.

Carter was a one-term wonder and Bill was re-elected. That probably didn't create warm and fuzzy feelings from Carter.

Mr. Carter also doesn't give Bill Clinton any credit for his participation in the Olso Accords. Jimmah claims that he's the only one to have made any inroads to peace in the ME, particularly the I/P area.

[saracat]

72. Ugh, I doubt that Jimmy was jealous and the dislike was mentioned in conjunction with Clintons first

run for the WH. As a human being Clinton isn't worthy to shine Carter's shoes but thet is JMHO.

[KoKo]

74. Funeral Pictures....

[ChiciB1]

30. WHO... Said THAT??? n/t

[Rock_Garden]

18. Hillary did speak up about renewal of the Patriot Act.

She did not support a wholesale renewal of it, which is discussed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

[wyldwolf]

21. shhhhh!

[blm]

22. So when BushInc creates a wall of noise, a Clinton can only muster 'speaking up'

here and there when they want to show their opposition to him?

Where is the wall of noise we KNOW the Clintons can create when they 'want' to?

[Imagevision]

37. Bill did agree with Bush on Saddam's WMD'S, stated "Bush should stop him now!"...

[PurityOfEssence]

23. Bill called in on Larry King to defend Junior's invasion

Instead of letting the little fuck fry for his pre-emptive aggression, Mr. Clinton called in on a show to say that he and his mob were convinced of the existence of WMDs, too.

This was unnecessary and another pathetic example of Bill's need to be loved by everyone: he was still sucking up to the reactionaries while they were impeaching him.

[blm]

24. He went ON Larry King in June2004 and reconfirmed his support for Bush's decisions

on terrorism and Iraq war. And bragged about his consistent efforts against the left by defending Bush on those decisions.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

I don't understand why people don't see that Clintons CAN create a wall of noise when they WANT to - and at that particular point in time, the wall of noise they created was intended to show public SUPPORT of Bush on the two biggest issues of the 2002 and 2004 elections. And they only ADJUSTED their rhetoric in late 2006 after Joe Lieberman lost his primary race.

[ChiciB1]

31. Don't Forget His Love Fest With Poppy Too! n/t

[Imagevision]

33. Bill actually stated that he should stop doing photo-ops with poppy because

it may hurt Hillary's campaign.

[ChiciB1]

48. Now What Is That Type Of Thing Called??? Remind Me Again Please???

I think this is bit of sarcasm on your part, at least I'm interpreting it that way. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[killbotfactory]

47. Not just no, but fuck no.

Even now all they offer is a continuation Bush policies only done with competence.

[vireo]

50. But Hillary rolled her eyes during Bush's 911 speech

Remember that "scandal"?
:eyes:

[waiting for hope]

59. The support for Lieberbutt

was the last straw for me. Lamont would have been spectacular in the Senate and we could have accomplished a bit more in the last year if he had been elected.

[glitch]

61. How dare you? HOW DARE YOU? ;) nt

[GreenArrow]

62. No, they're all in the same bed.

But I wouldn't limit it to the Clintons.

[here_is_to_hope]

65. No, she nor he has not....but

there are quite a few others that didnt either but they arent running for pres...

[IndianaGreen]

67. Hillary Clinton joined the GOP in saying that John Kerry had smeared the troops

when Kerry told a joke which felt flat and was purposely misconstrued by the MSM.

Hillary Clinton joined the GOP in attacking John Murtha when he said the war was lost and we needed to bring the troops home.

Hillary Clinton joined the GOP in opposing Kerry's filibuster of Alito.

[Armstead]

70. No -- They helped to throw us under the bus

They did their part to legitimatize Bush's power grabs, and to marginalize anyone who was opposed to war in Iraq.