So much for "the hug."
Lieberman has characterized his loss - and the need for his subsequent independent run - as liberals in the party purging those with the Lieberman-Clinton position of progressiveness in domestic politics and strong national security credentials.
"Well, if I were Joe and I was running as an independent, that's what I'd say, too," [former President Bill] Clinton said.
"But that's not quite right. That is, there were almost no Democrats who agreed with his position, which was, 'I want to attack Iraq whether or not they have weapons of mass destruction.'"
"His position is the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld position, which was, 'Does it matter if they have weapons? None of this matters. ... This is a big, important priority, and 9/11 gives us the way of attacking and deposing Saddam.'"
Clinton said that a vote for Lamont was not, as Lieberman had implied, a vote against the country's security. (ABC News)
Clinton also said that he had campaigned for Lieberman because of their long friendship. I wonder if he'll return to Connecticut to campaign for Lamont?
Source
"Clinton Sounds Off on Terror, Republicans." ABC News 15 August, 2006.
Update: I just noticed that both tparty at LamontBlog and I, entirely without meaning to, basically made the same post. Same opening zing and everything.
I will add that a ton of Lieberman supporters at his HQ on election night were wearing those buttons. Not sure how they feel about Clinton turning on Joe...
39 comments:
Bluecoat said: "the President at the time is responsible for protecting the country - it's not just about being President when everything goes right!!!!!!"
OK, Bluecoat, I agree.
If you want to point out that GWB was President at the time of the 9/11 attacks, then you MUST ALSO point out that we have NOT had another terrorist attack on US soil since.
This latter fact also flies in the face of the liberal's argument (not saying it is your argument) that we are less safe because of the war in Iraq. Of course, typical of liberal arguments, there is no evidence to support such a claim. Oh, sorry, I forgot, the people of France have a lower opinion of America since the war started, therefore, we are worse off as a nation. Yea, that's it!
Bluecoat: there is a lot more merit to disgruntled's argument than yours.
Your argument - had the President been more engaged in protecting our country against terrorists we could have avoided or thwarted the 9/11 attacks - is at best speculation.
Disgruntled's argument - had the US under Clinton been more forceful in our response to the terrorist attacks and had Clinton gone after Bin Laden when he had the chance, then we may have avoided 9/11 - is actually supported by some evidence (i.e. information collected by our intelligence tells us that bin laden never envisioned the US response in Afghanastan etc).
Nice try though bluecoat.
I'm not sure that we can blam Clinton or Bush for the attacks on WTC??? Neither did ALL they could to prevent them...However, now that they've happened I want to know why we can't get Bin Laden? Had we put the force towards finding Bin Laden that we have at ruining Iraq, we'd of ruined Afganhastan, but, in the meantime we'd have found the SOB that was behind 9/11 and at least some justice would've been had...instead we pissed off the middle east and started a civil war in Iraq. Sweet.
Clinton said other Senate Democrats who had voted to give Bush the authority to go to war - including his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York - who may be weighing a 2008 presidential run, had hoped that the threat of war would force former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to comply with U.N. inspections.
"They [Democrats] felt, frankly, let down that the U.N. inspectors were not permitted to finish, and I hope that everyone reads the entire article. Thank you GC for posting it. I find Pres. Clinton's comments remarkable.
Here is what he said: "they (he is talking about Democrats that voted for the war like his wife) were worried that we were devoting attention away from Afghanistan and the hunt for [Osama] bin Laden and al Qaeda, which was a huge, immediate threat to our security in the aftermath of 9/11, as we saw [with] this foiled British plot continues to be," Clinton said.
There is so much wrong about this statement that I don't even know where to begin.
Let's start with his theory that the threat of war would be enough to stop Saddam. Well, we now know that Saddam never thought that we would attack. Why did he think that? Because we had been attacked several times before (1983 world trade center, USS Cole, etc.) and had not responded. Who is responsible for this attitude? Clinton.
Then he says that we took our eye off the ball and didn't go after bin laden or al Qaeda. If we took our eye off the ball, how come we haven't been attacked. Maybe, just maybe, al Qaeda has been busy with other things (say in Iraq) and their top men being captured to pull off such an attack in the US.
My last point: Democrats voted for war because we were turning our attention away from al Qaeda. Seriously, that is his position. Sorry, Mr. President, if that is the case, then you should have been voting against the war. Hillary didn't, and now you are trying to reconstruct history. Doesn't work that way my friend.
bluecoat - since you like to deal in facts, help me understand this: Clinton had a chance to get bin laden prior to 9/11, right? And, Bush, you claim, could have gotten bin laden at tora bora, right? Was the tora bora incident before or after 9/11?
DR - It's President Clinton. It's also the Oval Office. You don't have to respect the man, but when you disrespect the office you're just being a jackass.
Anon 11;57 said: "I want to know why we can't get Bin Laden? Had we put the force towards finding Bin Laden that we have at ruining Iraq, we'd of ruined Afganhastan, but, in the meantime we'd have found the SOB that was behind 9/11 and at least some justice would've been had...instead we pissed off the middle east and started a civil war in Iraq. Sweet."
Anon. 11:57 we could have bombed Afghanstain into oblivion and not gotten bin laden because he left the country. Are you suggesting that US forces move into or invade another country where he may be hiding? Should we go into Pakistan with all our military power to get bin laden? I'm sure that would meet with world approval, right?
By the way, the middle east has been "pissed off" for hundreds of years and we certainly did not start a civil war.
bluecoat: stop reading the NY Times. Your facts are wrong about the UN weapons inspectors.
Bluecoat said: "Yes, I am laying the "responsibility" square on the shoulders of the President who was in power at the time of the 911 attacks."
Be consistent bluecoat. Deal with the truth. The "responsibility" for there NOT being any further attacks also goes to the President.
Still waiting for an answer as to whether the tora bora opportunity was pre or post 9/11 attacks?
Can you answer that question?
Remember folks...Bubba's big mistake, lying about a BJ, didn't kill anyone.
The Bush Administration's inability to use logic and critical thinking helped get us into this mess in Iraq.
But hey, at least he's faithful to his wife, right? I'm sure that's great solice for the families and friends of all the great Americans we have lost as a result of Iraq.
bluecoat-
How so? There were no terrorists in Vietnam. The Unitred States took Baghdad in no time at all. We are now facing terrorists...that has never been done on this level in the history of the world.
Didn;t Bubba sign the Iraq Liberation Act?
well, when the going gets tough, the tough get going
Frankly, Clinton endorsing Lamont is as newsworthy as Britney Spears doing something crass.
Actually I am not him but I find it interesting that you won't answer his question either. Do you always get snippy when someone gets ya?
I really don't understand what you mean though about Bush 1 and Bush 2 in regards to lesson from Vietnam and that is why I asked.
It is sad that the argument comes down to asking who has done a worse job protecting our country, Bush or Clinton.
No wonder voters are looking for a new direction.
Indepedent Democrat Joe Lieberman can stop this fighting and bring unity and purpose to Washington!!!
Go Joe Go!!!
Wow, a whole bunch of new traffic here today GC - no doubt a lot more out-of-staters (maybe in-the-belters).
It doesn't take a linguist to figure these posts out -
Just one quick question - are people still arguing that invading Iraq was the right thing to do because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and he was about to use them on us?
NC, speaking of ninnies I don;t Lamont's wore any uniform since his college badminton team
Yeah, he's got all the military strategy answers for America...right...
Lieberman's been on the Armed Services Committee of the US Senate
Lamont has been on the Memberhsip committee of the Round Hill Club.
Next question
I'm a walking reference library!
Scroll down on this page to this question: "Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th terrorist attacks, or not?"
39% said yes, compared with 54% who said no. 7% weren't sure. This was done in March.
next Ned will be blamed for 9/11
Joe was in law school playing bad mitton,crocae and tiddly winks while american men were dying...
Joe was a frequent visitor to the South fighting for civil rights during college and law school. Some of you are too young to remember that there was more going on than Vietnam in the 1960s in this country. Watch Mississippi Burning for a refresher on what happened to a few Jewish kids who went down there.
For all of you with amnesia- on October 31, 1998, Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law. By my count, that was just under 3 years prior to 9/11.
The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." Its stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq."
The Act found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
So, what gives, guys? Did Dick Cheney lobby Bill Clinton to do this? Or was Bill too preoccupied with his impeachment to know what he was signing?
My HUNCH is that BC is trying to have it both ways, which would be so unlike him.
Anon 2:39
Lieberman's been on the Armed Services Committee of the US Senate
Lamont has been on the Memberhsip committee of the Round Hill [Country] Club.
Yes, but the Round Hill Country Club is more exclusive than the US Senate, so the position is clearly more difficult.
and Bush 1 didnt finish the Job,...he could have deposed Saddam...and he is to blame for all this..
FAtguy..please, Joe got several student deferrments and while americans were dying in Viet Nam, he was playing tiddly winks and eatting finger cucumber sandwiches at yale Law School....
True Gentleman,
It's like a jury trial. When you're the plaintiff, you benefit from the notion that jurors will blame the nearest party. The guy that's in the room.
Someone was injured and someone must be blamed. The concept that our "allies" should be held to account is too much for people to grasp.
After all, Bubba politely asked to Saudis to put OBL in a "residential program" back in 1996. They declined, Bubba said, oh well, that's OK. Thanks for the oil, though.
Lest, we forget. Tom Daschle became majority leader in May 2001 after Jeffords jumped. (A move applauded as courageous, not disloyal, by Dems. Despite the fact that Jeffords was elected as a Republican...)
9/11 happened on Daschle's watch. We must blame him for his legislative ineptness in not passing adequate security measures and engaging in poor oversite that summer. He had 4 months at the helm. IT'S DASCHLE'S FAULT!
Anon 4:16:
I would say nice dodge, but it wasn't really a good dodge.
To quote the speech of Dodd's nomination of Lieberman (2000 convention):
Even before he first ran for public office, Joe Lieberman rode south to help register African-Americans to vote.
Because for Joe, civil rights was not just a political position.
Joe's a fighter- he didn't have to roll up a sleeping bag and register black voters- but he did. A lot of Yalies from that era (GWB) stayed home. Whatever you say, Joe wasn't just eating cucumber sandwiches, unless that's what they were serving in Mississippi.
hey, bluecoat, how long have you had the military clearance to know about all of these covert military operations?
Oh, Bluecoat.
The North was sold the Civil War on economic interests, not slavery. Preserving the union. Impeach Lincoln. Does it matter now?
The Clinton strategy for regime change did not seem to really be working, did it? The sanctions were REALLY effective (see e.g., Oil for Food and the Annan family...) It took a megaton of bombs and troops to remove the guy.
You suffer from hindsight syndrome. If a CIA director tells a President that a sworn enemy of the United States has WMD- that it's a "slam dunk"- and every intel agency in the West agrees- and a President knows that he used bio-chem before- and a President knows that the guy is playing France and Germany and the UN like a drum...it would have been criminally negligent for any President not to engage in regime change. After 9/11, in particular.
Now that we are here, following the Clinton Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, the question is what do we do now? I hate the term "cut and run"- because there is no cutting. Just running.
After watching 60 Minutes this week, I'd be hard-pressed to allow the nutty guy with the Members Only jacket to take over the place. Look forward, not back.
Who was it that said elections are about the future? The guy who signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
Oh, and in the mean time, folks, while everyone is focused on this fight between two Democrats, Rick Santorum has risen to within 6 points in PA.
Nice focus of national energy, guys.
Ay, Dios Mio.
It's nice to see bc get spanked once in a while...but alas, I'm sure he has a comeback.
Anon. 5:03, bc always has a comeback, but he's not always right.
Bluecoat, when I see the name "Hans Blix" I usually stop reading. You may recall that we had a good, reliable guy, Rolf Ekeus, for that job. He was a guy we could trust. Even Kofi supported him.
Guess who wanted Hans instead of Rolf? That's right. France and Russia. Hmmm... what were their interests?
The UN had no credibility at that point. The institution that FDR and HST created is a sorry racketeering enterprise that can't be trusted. I wish it was not so, but so it is.
I know that history is hard to remember over the noise of talking points and screaming talking heads.
Bluecoat,
This is the sort of hysteria that cost the Dems in 2002 and 2004.
I'm not asking anyone to follow me up a hill, and I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Let's look at this race again- where do these guys want to take us? Ned's approach, and your approach, if unchecked, would effectively award Iraq to Iran.
I don't understand why that's desirable, but go ahead and vote for it- it's on the ballot, unfortunately, just a lever below John DeStefano's.
Just no bellyaching when Iran emerges as a regional behemoth, please.
Suffice it to say I'd never follow you up a hill but I might watch you go and get taken out with your bravado.
Oh, never mind. I get it. I may have glossed over it because it wasn't substantive.
nowhere have I ever suggested that we unilaterally abandon Iraq
Is "unilaterally" your code word for insert the U.N. in there? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Leiberman, doesn't know his ass from the hole in his fat head about military strategy and tactics despite his years on the Armed Services Committee.
If Joe indeed had a hole in his fat head, I would guess that he would know it from his posterior. Joe is counting on rhetoric like yours to make Ned's campaign seem more radical. Keep up the good work.
So lets see,
Lets say I hired A security firm to protect and defend my wife and kids.
h9 months nto a 4 yr contract my eldest son was murdered by the people I hired the security firm to protect and defend my wife and kids from.
Is it the fault of the security firm whose contract ran out 9 months previous to my sons murder that he was killed?
Great logic from The Republicans on this board.
Looks like someone will have to pay attention to FatGuy from now on. He's got all his ducks -- historical and rhetorical -- in a row. Great postings all.
Post a Comment