« More Bush Bashing From The BEEB | Main | Scheduling conflicts »

Clinton On Lieberman -- What A Difference A Primary Makes

Jim Hoft has a ton of interesting posts this week at Gateway Pundit. You can literally keep scrolling and scrolling and scrolling. In one post Hoft writes about Bill Clinton's incredibly quick turn against Joe Lieberman and includes this incredible quote from an ABC News interview earlier this week:

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," 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.'" (Not true... 29 Democratic Senators voted for the War in Iraq, 21 against)

"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.'"

Read the entire post and check out all the others at Gateway Pundit.


Comments (22)

Wow. So, since Clinton lobb... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Wow. So, since Clinton lobbed missiles at Iraq for the identical reason Bush attacked them AND who made replacing Saddam as national policy, can he develop an intellectually consistent statement to explain this?
-=Mike

"who made replacing Saddam ... (Below threshold)
JB:

"who made replacing Saddam as national policy,"

Ah, but not by going to war! He was going to send a special unit of faeries sprinkling magical dust over Baghdad until Saddam changed his ways! Isn't that the leftist spin on this?

Barf. What a repulsive huckster.

Does anyone really care wha... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Does anyone really care what Slick Willie has to say? If you argue with a liberal, your as dumb as they are, since facts rarely if ever have anything to do with their thought process.

Duplicity from a Clinton ?<... (Below threshold)
Actual:

Duplicity from a Clinton ?

I'm shocked....SHOCKED, I tell ya.

" there were almost no Demo... (Below threshold)
yo:

" 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.'"

Um .. Billy:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998


But, really .. was Saddam even a threat?

Only the republicans saw him as such:

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

(believe, but do you know for sure?)


I mean .. did Saddam even have WMD? Nah .. only the republicans were pushing that concept. I mean, wouldn't a member of the House Intelligence Committee, a peace-loving Democrat at that, have a clear enough mind to see through the veil and know Saddam didn't have WMD?

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998


I mean, after '91, Saddam didn't have WMD. It was the re-thuglican autocracy that brainwashed the people, used fear as a tactic, to trick the Dems, and the American people into supporting an illegal war:

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


Still, it's only WMD ..., I mean, it's not like Saddam supported terrorism, or anything:


KERRY: He is and has acted like a terrorist, and he has engaged in activities that are unacceptable.

O'REILLY: But I -- you know, I still don't see the hammer that's going to convince him to open anything up.

KERRY: The hammer, ultimately, will be the evidence that we uncover as we go further down the trail that shows his support for terrorism and begins to build the coalition even more strongly.


("Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror" John Kerry)


Yep. Democrats. voice of peace, reason and consistency.

No pandering going on here.

Yo...splendid fisking!! </... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Yo...splendid fisking!!

I suppose one could wonder if truly moderate Democrats (there must be SOME) will look on the attacks by Joe's supposed "friends" as acceptable. I doubt it.

I also think that when Joes WINS this election he isn't going to feel like snuggling up to Kerry, Clinton, et al. We'll see.

Don't fret all. When Clinto... (Below threshold)
Chris is Bliss:

Don't fret all. When Clinton comes out to distance himself from Lieberman, the writing is on the wall. Lieberman, a former vice president candidate, is well on his way to being an independent, but with more credibility than Jim Jeffords. When he is able to win the general election, after losing the primary to a rich (regular guy) anti-war activist, Lieberman will have the attitude "I won without the help of the Dem Party, so they can try to win without my help".

The Dems are in full damage control mode. They are trying to make the terror issue a Bush-Cheney issue, meaning a fabricated issue full of rhetoric. Unfortunately, every time an Islamo-facist detonates a bomb within 5,000 miles of Iraq, they have to tie it back Iraq. The other alternative is to actually admit terrorism exists and one must come with aggressive ways to battle it. The attempt to tie Iraq to Hezzbolah and Hamas attacking Israel is a real strech. But was done with ease with the help of the MSM media and the former Dem operatives with the talking head shows.

Maybe the good thing is the anti-war crowd is a anti-Bush crowd just trying to relive the days of youth as a Vietnam war protester, and would fully support the agressive efforts (the same as Bush's)of a Democratic president to combat terrorism. While that transformation would make them appear stupid and infantile, at least then they would be on the opposite side of thse who want to do America harm.

The switch was simple..Clin... (Below threshold)
Drew:

The switch was simple..Clinton supported Joe in the Primary...Joe Lost. Clinton now supports the Party Candidate. The Republican party fallen so low that they are supporting a Democrate,Joe, who voted against them 90% of the time and doing the "cut and run" on their candidate. The average Republican should be ashamed of the RNC's actions.

Drew, last I checked, the R... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Drew, last I checked, the RNC was supporting Alan Schlesinger, not Joe Lieberman.
As for support of Joe... given that he's now splitting the dem vote, how is this not good strategy? And if he wins the election, his presence in the senate may sow discord in the democrat ranks. Esp. if clowns like Kos continue to throw tantrums and dollars at the party.

I'm all for Bill backing th... (Below threshold)
yo:

I'm all for Bill backing the party nominee (regardless of the ink on his endorsement for Joe still being dry); but what nips my nugs is Democrats thinking they can speak down to the American public from this high moral ground which simply doesn't exist.

They say Bush lies, but I find VOLUMES of more bullshit from the likes of Kerry, Gore, Pelosi, Kenn*hic*edy and the rest of the "we're so much better than you, we don't need truth - ends justify the means" crowd.

Whereas Bush may not be eloquent he certainly is consistent.


Drew, if republicans should be ashamed of the RNC, the Dems should look to the leadership of Hoawrd Dean and reach for the nearest pistol.

Actually, if the reps should be ashamed how 'bout the Dems who are shying away from Nedrelaline and are backing Joe's independent bid?

As for Joe voting against the reps 90% of the time and still garnering their support, I see that as bipartisenship .. don't you? (not to exclude the very important 10% of the time when he does support them)

Contrast that to the Dems who vote against reps nearly 100% of the time for the simple fact that they hate Bush (or, the REAL reason .. they hate losing elections and will do anything to shit on the victor, even at the expense of their constituencies).

Who is it that should be ashamed, again?

I see that picture of Clint... (Below threshold)
jainphx:

I see that picture of Clintcrap with his arm around Lieberman(you know the one the Crazies photoshopped Lieberman in black face)little did any one know of the knife that was inserted,except Clintcrap.

In the primary, Hillary sup... (Below threshold)
Actual:

In the primary, Hillary supported Lamont and Bill supported Joe to cover all the outcomes. Hillary needs support from the Dems to get the 2008 nomination.

If Joe wins the general election, he'll need someone (Hillary) to extend a hand of friendship which will enhance her standing among the electorate. She'll have a new six year term for the party to forget her treachery.

If Joe loses the general election, no harm, no foul, she was on the right side all the time.

Ah, perfidy, thy name is Hillary.

That is, there were almo... (Below threshold)
Brian:

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.'" (Not true... 29 Democratic Senators voted for the War in Iraq, 21 against)

Uh, no, Clinton's statement is true. Those 29 Democratic senators did not vote to attack "whether or not they have weapons of mass destruction." Bash them if you want for supporting the "they DO have WMDs" canard, but don't accuse them of voting to attack "whether or not".

Uh, no, Clinton's statement... (Below threshold)
yo:

Uh, no, Clinton's statement is true. Those 29 Democratic senators did not vote to attack "whether or not they have weapons of mass destruction." Bash them if you want for supporting the "they DO have WMDs" canard, but don't accuse them of voting to attack "whether or not".

Posted by Brian at August 19, 2006 2:39 PM


... actually, when it comes right down to it, no one knows whether the Dems who voted for or against did so with any caveats.

(Except for Kerry, of course. I'm trying to dig up the quote, but he SPECIFICALLY stated that whether or not Saddam had WMD, he needed to be taken out).

Not that it matters. The Dems who voted for it did so for political gain. And when the gain didn't pan out, they bailed - for political gain.

Not that THAT matters, since these folks also voted for:

"Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; "

So, 114 had elements which were a continuation of PL 105-235 which included:

"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government."

... and ...

"declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."


And who voted AGAINST PL 105-235, in the Senate?

No one.

Not even Durbin, Fiengold, Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, et al. They all voted FOR.

So, those 29 Senators voted for 114, also voted FOR 105-235. It's not like 114 came out of the blue, and/or had no historic precedence.

Actually, if one were to read the legislature history of 114 and its predecessors, the WMD gig is only part of the situation. A goodly portion was concerned with the violations/breaches of either the UNSC resolutions, or the Gulf War's cease-fire.

Violations of cease-fire agreements, as we all know, are, in themselves, acts of war.


The fact that Democrats want to cough and wheeze their excuses and recants to suckle the teets of the fringe left because they haven't got two decent policies on anything else to rub together just makes them fucking hypocrites.

And they wonder why, and pitch fits over the fact that they can't win anything.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that Lamont only won a Primary. He parades it as a monster victory for the anti-war left, but when he gets creamed by an (I) Lieberman, I'm curious what the Dems will say about the will of the American people?

YEEEAAARGH!

Republicans may suck, but Democrats suck much worse.

BTW - I'm still wondering how people can get away with calling Iraq an illegal war. I mean ... other than the fact that they are completely ignorant of the facts.

"I voted for this war. I wa... (Below threshold)
yo:

"I voted for this war. I was wrong," Edwards, of North Carolina, told a crowd of about 300 people gathered outside the Yale University School of Medicine. "I should not have voted for this war and I take responsibility for that."

... like I said.

Now it's your ability to correct yourself and your viewpoint on the war that gets you into the good graces of the freaks on the left.

Putz.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/15299303.htm

The Dems who voted for i... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The Dems who voted for it did so for political gain. And when the gain didn't pan out, they bailed - for political gain.

Substitute "politicians" for "Dems", and you've accurately described Congress as a whole. Any other claim is naive or disingenuous.

The fact that Democrats want to cough and wheeze their excuses and recants to suckle the teets of the fringe left

The "fringe left"... I guess that would be the 67% of Americans who now say the war was a mistake.

because they haven't got two decent policies on anything else to rub together just makes them fucking hypocrites.

Winston Churchill once said (though I can't find the quote now, so I will paraphrase), it is not the responsibility of the minority party to craft the plans to run the government.

it is not the responsibi... (Below threshold)
Toby928:

it is not the responsibility of the minority party to craft the plans to run the government.

Of course that's only true if they are content to remain the minority party.

Tob

The "fringe left"... I gues... (Below threshold)
yo:

The "fringe left"... I guess that would be the 67% of Americans who now say the war was a mistake

Posted by: Brian at August 19, 2006 10:37 PM

That's a bullshit number. I read a poll recently that stated 30% of Americans don't know what year 911 happened.

So half of the folks who think it's a mistake can't recall what happened 5 years ago, happened 5 years ago.

Are these the same people polled that Jay Leno makes fun of for not knowing who the vice president is?

Show me a better educated public, and maybe I'll care about polls.

By the way, John Kennedy stated that we do things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

(The Dems v. Politicians comment is dead on .. but more apparent in the DNC)

Show me a better educate... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Show me a better educated public, and maybe I'll care about polls.

In other words, you discard substantial majority public opinion because you're smarter and you know better.

Of course, you could always tell Bush to put some effort into improving education.

Yup after about 20 minutes ... (Below threshold)
Joshua:

Yup after about 20 minutes if you're paying close attention all career politicians sound alike, act alike, and lie alike regardless of party.
Against NAFTA for NAFTA all changed depending on being in charge... or not and then again.
A Congress that brought it down to a VP tie breaker vote (by design).

Who cares about Joe? - the problem is the whole system is broken.

In other words, you discard... (Below threshold)
yo:

In other words, you discard substantial majority public opinion because you're smarter and you know better.

Of course, you could always tell Bush to put some effort into improving education.

Posted by: Brian at August 19, 2006 11:44 PM

If by "smarter" you mean that I can recall the year that the September 11 attacks occured, then yes.

If by "smarter" you mean that I actually have the taken the time to research and try to understand what the war is about, and not take someone else's word for it, and piggy back my political opinions atop someone else's, then yes.

Of course, the real hole in your argument is that you believe polls are substantial in reflecting comprehensive public opinion.

You can get any result from any poll that will match any preconceived notion or agenda, if you conduct the poll in such a way. Where's your gaurantee the poll wasn't biased?

I mean, it's not like polls are ever biased.

Ever.


And, instead of telling the president to work on education, maybe parents and school systems should shoulder some the responsibilities beholden upon their positions to raise the children properly instead of pawning that off the blame of raising a retard on the government.

OK, thanks for confirming y... (Below threshold)
Brian:

OK, thanks for confirming your viewpoint that conservatives pay attention only to smart people, where "smart" is defined as those who agree with you. After all, if 100 million people disagree with you, they must be dumb America-haters, right?

Where's your gaurantee the poll wasn't biased?

Pollsters make the questions and methodology available for review. You are free to prove that it was?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy