Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hugely popular among Democratic primary voters, former President Bill Clinton is an invaluable asset for his wife on the campaign trail. But lately he's had a habit of making comments that seem off-key with Hillary Clinton's campaign message.
Yesterday's example: In Muscatine, Iowa, he said he's been against the war in Iraq "from the beginning." But what is the definition of "the beginning?"
First of all, did he really want to remind people of who was on which side in the lead-up to the war? One of Hillary Clinton's biggest problems as she seeks the Democratic presidential nomination is that she voted in 2002 to authorize President Bush's use of force in Iraq.
Second, in early 2003, the former president made numerous comments in favor of giving the United Nations weapons inspectors time do their job. But he also had supportive things to say about President Bush's handling of the issue. "I think he's doing the right thing right now," Clinton told Larry King on CNN in early February.
A few days later, Katie Couric asked him if the US should wait for a second resolution authorizing force from the UN Security Council.
His answer: "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 have to go without another UN resolution -- if we have 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 preemptive strike."
At that time, Clinton's stance was seen as relatively hawkish. By March 12, however, he became more critical of Bush and called for him to give more time for Saddam Hussein to disarm.
Clinton(s) is/are politicians. Bill has lied so much that even he believes it.
I have to laugh at some of Billys comments;
“Advisers to Mr. Clinton said yesterday that he did oppose the war, but that it would have been inappropriate at the time for him, a former president, to oppose — in a direct, full-throated manner — the sitting president’s military decision.”
What? When did Billy ever stop talking about how bad Bush was doing?
“Mrs. Clinton voted in favor of a Senate resolution authorizing military action against Iraq in 2002. She has said she was misled by Mr. Bush.”
Wait a minute. How could she be the smartest woman in America (according to the MSM) and be misled by the dumbest president in history(also according to the MSM)?
How is someone that gets misled by Bush qualified to be president?
Its not a bad memory. Its lying. People like to pretend we lived in Utopia and Clinton was a god in office. Truth is, things were screwed up then and there were plenty of mistakes made. Clinton was a liar then and he's a liar now. He didn't screw up things as bad as Bush has, but the revisionism regarding his presidency is astounding to witness.
Bill Clinton is a proven liar. He was found in contempt of court for deposition testimony that was "intentionally false". He was disbarred in Arkansas for "serious misconduct and defines the term as involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud and misrepresentation".
Clinton found in civil contempt for Jones testimony - April 12, 1999 (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/12/clinton.contempt/ - broken link)
CNN.com - Arkansas Supreme Court files suit to disbar Clinton - June 30, 2000 (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/30/clinton.disbar/index.html - broken link)
Clinton(s) is/are politicians. Bill has lied so much that even he believes it.
I have to laugh at some of Billys comments;
“Advisers to Mr. Clinton said yesterday that he did oppose the war, but that it would have been inappropriate at the time for him, a former president, to oppose — in a direct, full-throated manner — the sitting president’s military decision.”
So should we assume that he was lying when he stated his support instead of not getting involved?
Because of a witch hunt into Clinton's personal life?
Not exactly. There was no witch hunt, Paula Jones filed a lawsuit. In his testimony for that suit, Clinton committed perjury. People are sent to jail every day in this country for perjury.
So should we assume that he was lying when he stated his support instead of not getting involved?
Never assume with a Clinton, they are always lying.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
