Does anybody find it puzzling that Bill and Hillary Clinton

[Veggie Meathead]

still support the War on Iraq and what is worse, have said very little about the Abu Ghraib torture revelations? I am reminded of what
Bill Clinton was reported to have said about not crticizing our Vietnam policies.He is quoted as saying he wanted to preserve his viability.Is that what is going on now? Preserving Hillary's viability?

[redqueen]

1. No

They're 'centrists'.

Bill was one of my favorite Republican presidents, I always say. :)

[physioex]

2. Waaa wasn't he also the first black president?

:evilgrin:

[redqueen]

6. Was that supposed to make sense?

:wtf:

[physioex]

11. Guess youre not a big fan of the...

Tonight Show with Jay Leno...... :)

[RobertSeattle]

3. Agreed

If fiscal responsibility, paying down the debt, not mucking with the Constitution for political gain, respecting person privacy, reducing the size of government are "Conservative" ideals, then Clinton/Gore was the greatest Conservative administration ever!

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. Well, also add these little items to the conservative scorecard

Source: Michael Moore's STUPID WHITE MEN:

Bill C.:

Allowed federal funds to be given to faith-based charities.

Upped the number of crimes that can be punishable by the death penalty and would not declare support for a moratorium on the death penalty, depsite having knowledge that there are many innocent people in line for the needle. Also he supported the 3 strikes law, even if people just committed three minor crimes like shopilifting gum.

Was against same-sex marriages.

Knocked ten million people off of welfare who had nowhere else to turn. (And offered states extra money if they too reduced the welfare rolls, but did not require that these folks have some sort of job or alternative income source.)

Was not supportive of pregnant teens who needed help.

Pursued most of Newt Gingrich's Contract for America. (Lowering the capital gains tax, for one.)

He dropped the ball on making sure everyone has health insurance, including illegal immigrants.

Made certain no American funds would help women in other countries secure an abortion if they need one.

Wouldn’t sign the land mine ban treaty.

Screwed up the Kyoto treaty so that it wouldn’t do much to reduce carbon dioxide in our air, then refused to sign it til the last day of his term (Knowing full well $hrub would nullify that anyway.)

Drilled for more oil on federal lands than even Ronnie Reagan, privatized a major California oil field, and failed to get auto manufacturers to improve the mpg of their cars.

Allowed for deregulation that has dismantled our checks and balances in our business sector. Enron, anyone??

-------------------------------------------------------
An open letter to John Kerry and the DNC.
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/OpenLetter.htm

[redqueen]

9. See now I have to question that last one

What specifically is being referred to there? If it's the Securities Litigation Reform Act, then Clinton is NOT responsible. He VETOED that bill, but a-holes like Mosely-Braun Lieberman and Feinstein helped repubs pass it over his veto.

[lovedems]

10. Ummm...

You have one wrong

Was not supportive of pregnant teens who needed help.

During the Clinton administration I was a case manager for a place called The High Risk Infant Registry. We helped pregnant teens and teen age mothers as a part of the welfare reform. We worked directly with public aid and guess what...we encouraged condom use and didn't get any of our funding taken away. We offered the girls *all* of the assistance they needed to finish their High School education or get job training. We provided transportation costs, childcare costs, food and clothing allowances, you name it. We were the place pregnant teenagers or teen mothers came to for help. It was an excellent program that to my knowledge is no longer in exsistence.

[Kanary]

15. Thank you, Green!

I'm so tired of the repeated chant of how Clinton was so great that it's obvious that anyone who isn't thrilled with Clinton is obviously so out of it, or .......... a NEOCON (it had to be the sex, doncha know)........I don't even try to remind people anymore what ACTUALLY happened. It doesn't seem to sink in. So, it was a breath of fresh air to me to see this post of yours.

It has become absolutely clear to me that there is very little room in the Dem party anymore (if *any*) for ideals of striving to better the situation for poor folk. It simply doesn't register anymore. If the Clinton years were good for the middle class, then that's all that matters. To heck with the millions of women and their children who got shafted...... and no interest at all in knowing if they are dead or alive.

It leaves me with much despair about the DEM party.

So, your words were a balm......

Kanary

[Blue Wally]

26. Has anybody noticed?

The only presidential elections that we have won since 1964 have been DNC types (Carter and Clinton).

[havocmom]

4. does anybody find it puzzling that baiting questions are so often asked

by people who decline to share their profile with the rest of us?

[Veggie Meathead]

12. I did not even think of it as a baiting question. If you read any

of my posts, you will know clearly that I am a Democrat and Liberal through and through.I just thought it was odd that our torch bearers are so silent about events of immense importance to all of us.May be it is the pragmatism of Bill Clinton that is at work here.I have no quarrel with that so long as it helps him and our candidate Kerry deal with the vicious attack dogs on the right.

[Kanary]

16. You find it puzzling that many people have "declined" to put up revealing

personal details? Are you very experienced with the 'net?

Do you know about safety issues?

Do you know how many people wiped out their profiles after the DUer lost his job because of a freeper who got persoanl info from the profiles?

Suggestion: before casting aspersions, think what other possible explanations there could be.

That is, unless you just enjoy bashing for fun and profit.

Kanary

[Djinn]

30. I'm with GreenPartyVoter & Kanary

While CLEARLY the Clinton admin was preferable to the current one the deification of the Clinton's (which is getting worse) is ridiculous in my POV.

This is a guy that bombed a pharmaceutical factory in a piss poor African nation on ZERO evidence under the pretext of "fighting terrorism" - leading to the suffering and deaths of tens of thousands of people - many of them children - from malaria, tuberculosis, and other treatable diseases... Al Shifa provided affordable medicine for humans (90% of Sudan's output) and all the locally available veterinary medicine in Sudan.

As someone else points out in this thread his compassionate Secretary of State beleived that half a million Iraqi children killed was a price worth paying to keep Iraqi oil of the world market.

My profile is available for all to see and I doubt there's anything you could find that I've posted here or elsewhere that would suggest I'm of the freepy persuasion - in fact I'm normally accused of being too far in the other direction.

Prefering Bill Clinton over George Bush does not automatically equate with beleiving he's the messiah or was any kind of liberal hero.

[AP]

7. Separating constant criticism of the execution of the war from a

discussion of whether there was, according to presumably reputable evidence, something to be concerned about is the sensible way democrats should be talking about the war, and it's how Clinton and Kerry have been talking about it since the beginning.

RW'ers don't like that dichotomy, but that's the sensible way to look at it.

The last thing Democrats need is voters thinking they wouldn't err on the side of taking action to protect Americans from overseas threats in a close call.

[lancdem]

8. Maybe you missed it

Bill was critical of the decision to go to war unilaterally, before the U.N. could finish the inspection process. As for Abu Ghraib, has any Dem said much about that lately? I think they're probably waiting until the rest of pics come out.

Kerry's the one who's running anyway, so his stance is the one that matters.

[FighttheFuture]

13. At least with Bill, you realy felt he cared, and had...

the brains and savvy to back up that caring attitude. With Bush, all I feel is he can't wait to pull the lever and flush us all down the toilet!

Compared to Bush, Clinton looks like another FDR (which he isn't).

[Kanary]

17. Bill "cared" so much about poor women, that he sacrificed them for

his political standing.

Yup, great "caring".

Kanary

[wyldwolf]

20. .

• Lowest unemployment rate for women since 1953
  
  
• Signed the Violence Against Women Act as part of the Crime Bill
  
  
• Passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, February 5, 1993.
  
  
• Signed a comprehensive Child Immunization Plan.
  
  
• Revoked the Reagan/Bush restrictions on abortion counseling ("the gag rule"), abortions in military hospitals, "Mexico City" policy and RU-486 imports.
  
  

[Kanary]

23. whoooooooopeeeeeeee

And what about those millions with nowhere to go?

Doesn't register with middle class minds, does it?

Pah....

Kanary

[wyldwolf]

25. what millions?

You don't think those measures helped poor women?

[Kanary]

27. Did you read post #5?

[wyldwolf]

28. yeah... and I'll comment on just a few of them...

..even though we were discussing women...

Allowed federal funds to be given to faith-based charities.

I don't recall this and I'd like to see a link for it ... I do know that during the 2000 campaign, for example, Gore challenged Democrats to reject the "hollow secularism" of the left, saying, "We must dare to embrace faith-based approaches that advance our shared goals as Americans."

And a major survey the Pew Research Center conducted in the spring of 2001 found that 75 percent of Americans favor government funding of faith-based organizations.

But I don't recall Clinton actually doing it. Perhaps he did. But what does it have to do with poor women?

Was against same-sex marriages.

So is most of America... but this has what to do with poor women?

Knocked ten million people off of welfare who had nowhere else to turn.

So are those ten million now on the streets? Unemployed and starving? Where are they? Truth is, the 1996 reforms have been followed by a major decline in the welfare caseload, big increases in employment and earnings of single mothers, substantial increases in total income of families headed by mothers, and the biggest declines in child poverty since the 1960s.

Was not supportive of pregnant teens who needed help.

Do you really believe this? Did you read post #10? Also, during Clinton's terms he provided contraceptive coverage to more than a million women covered by federal health plans; provided family planning services to low income women through the Medicaid program; stood up against attempts to prohibit the FDA from approving RU-486; and fought restrictions on international family planning.

There was a 20% drop in teen birthrate in the U.S. during the Clinton years.

Clinton was a staunch defender of a woman's right to choose. So tell me, Kanary, how he wasn't supportive of pregnant teens who needed help?

He dropped the ball on making sure everyone has health insurance, including illegal immigrants.

That would have been congress. And I wouldn't support health care for illegal immigrants.

Made certain no American funds would help women in other countries secure an abortion if they need one.

Not true. As a CNN article said: On the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President Bush signed an executive order Monday banning federal funds to international family planning groups that offer abortion or abortion counseling.

"It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion either here or abroad," Bush states in the order.

The order prohibits the allocation of U.S. funds to groups who support abortion, either by performing the procedure, or offering abortion counseling or lobbying governments abroad.

The move reinstates a ban lifted in 1993 by Bush's predecessor, former President Clinton. The policy was first established in 1984 by President Reagan.


..and these were just from memory.

But tell me a politician you admire and I can paint a pretty sad picture of him/her, too.

[Kanary]

29. Have you personally followed up on those 10 million??????

[wyldwolf]

31. Have you?

..and what source was the 10 million drawn from?

And why do you keep jumping back and forth and ignoring the other points made?

[Kanary]

34. Because I'm replying to ONE POINT

:eyes:

Thanks for admitting that you *DON'T* know what happened to those women. Because, you don't. NOBODY does. It wasn't even important enough for the DEMs (read: Clinton), to do followup studies, which is standard proceedure in such cases. They are so unimportant to him that whatever happened to them is of no concern to him.

As a matter of fact, just the other night in an interview, he said that his big mistake was pushing the medical reform first. He said that if he had pushed the welfare DEFORM first, he would have had the RW on his side, and maybe could have done better with the medical bill. You see, cutting women off the only support they had was of NO consequence to him other than political expediency. He used them to forge ties with the RW. And you seem to think thats a Good Thing.

What we know is that there were no other programs for those women. Jobs went south, and have continued south. "Opportunities" are in the dumper. There is no reason to be optomistic about how they fared. Unless you have hard facts about the women and children concerned, your claims that they are doing just fine are HOLLOW.

Your claim that welfare rolls went down and that's a Good Thing is unbelievable......... Of COURSE the welfare rolls went down......... Clinton saw to that. What he neglected to see to was that there was a Good OUtcome for those women and their children.

It's in the same league as the RW saying that the economy is improving because the number on the unemployment rolls have gone down. Well, duh.......... They've used up their unemployment, so they're out of the system. So, we're supposed to believe that now that they don't even have unemployment everything is hunky and also dory?

It is extremely upsetting to me that DEMs now no longer give a rip for the same ones they championed a couple of decades ago.

Let 'em eat cake. I never thought I'd see the Dems sink to this level.

Kanary

[wyldwolf]

38. No you're not

:eyes:

Post 17 you said Clinton sacrificed poor women. That was the first point.

Post #20 - I responded to that point by demonstrating just how "poor" women benefited under Clinton.

Post #23 - you gave some phantom figure of millions of women with "no place to go."

In post 25, I asked "what millions?"

Your response in post 27 was for me to read post #5 which, incidental, didn't answer the question of "what millions of women" and then introduced several more points that I responded to in post #28 - which you ignored.

Post 29 - you asked If I'd personally followed up on those "10 million."

I asked, "have you and from what source is that figure from?"

From there you went off on a tirade of made-up allegations. The funniest one was you *DON'T* know what happened to those women. Because, you don't. NOBODY does. It wasn't even important enough for the DEMs (read: Clinton), to do followup studies, which is standard proceedure in such cases.

If you were half as knowledgeable on this issue as you want to be, you would have access to the same studies I have and from where I took the stats in my previous answer from.

Sorry.


But tell me now If you want to backtrack and rescend your accusation that Clinton sacrificed poor women (which is clearly untrue based on economic figures from the 90s) and just concentrate on Clinton's welfare reform in this discussion.

[oasis]

33. Many of those poor women never showed up to vote in '94 and congress

was taken over by Republicans.

[Kanary]

36. Off with their heads, then!

Geeeez, your magnanimous attitude is underwhelming. Shows graphically just how DEMs have changed.

Y'know, maybe you're not old enough to know anything about the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, but poor people didn't vote in great numbers then. (By the way...... how do you know poor women didn't vote in '94... you have incontrovertible figures?)

But, back to the point........ DEMs didn't forge ahead with programs for poor folk because there was something in it for them........ They did it because it was the right thing to do. How amazing is that???

And, the poor responded. They got out and voted, in huge numbers. Having leaders who championed their lives brought them hope, and that hope translated into becoming more active in a system that hadn't seemed relevant to them.

Then, all that started going downhill. At this point, NOBODY is speaking up about poverty issues. It simply doesn't matter in this rotten society.

The other thing is......... maybe you could have enough empathy for just a moment to think about the lives of single women with children, and no resources. Just having 2 seconds to go to the bathroom by yourself is often a luxury.... getting the opportunity to vote may sound simple to you, but it isn't for many people. Not being middleclass is a huge disability in this country.

Kanary

[treepig]

14. no not all, the war is just a logical extension,

of clinton's policy to kill as many iraqi kids as possible.

[latebloomer]

18. His Secretary of State, Madeline Albright

said that the killing of thousands of Iraqi children was an "acceptable sacrifice".

[treepig]

32. but just thank god we're the good guys!

"We Think the Price Is Worth It"
Media uncurious about Iraq policy's effects- there or here
By Rahul Mahajan

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

http://www.fair.org/extra/0111/iraq.html

[ShaneGR]

19. Historically, former President's do not go apeshit on current ones

What do you want the guy to do, jump up and down screaming? This is Kerry's campaign not the Clintons.

[Pepperbelly]

21. is lock-step fidelity on everything required?

Some here seem to think so.

[Malva Zebrina]

22. Not at all

I lost all respect for Hillary and essentially divested myself of the myth of Hillary.

She is as much a politician as any. She will go where the votes are.

She supported the war , because, imo, supporting Israel is crucial to her continued elections wherever they may be--the Senate or a Presidential run.

I am really turned off to politicians like these. They leave a bad taste in my mouth and really, I find it difficult to accept or support them.

[hansolsen]

35. I agree with you, and would only add that Hil may yet regret that vote

The fact is the hawkish Likud wing of the israeli lobby, both here and in Israel, supported the invasion of Iraq, and plenty of "liberal" Dems suddenly discovered that they too saw the wisdom in that war and gave Shrub a blank check to launch the nation's first aggressive war. This is problematic for Bill and Hil on many fronts:

1. First of all, the Likud lobby doesn't speak for all Israelis or all Jews. Many Jewish Americans and non - Likud Israelis opposed the war for the same reasons the rest of us did.

2. Now that the full flower of the disaster in Iraq is starting to emerge, those Israelis and American supporters of Israel (that's most of us here) are starting to get resentful of the damn fools who dragged us into this mess.

4. And the liklihood is that things will get much worse. Bush War II has the potential to become a virtual assembly line of worldwide anti-semitetism.

5. A foreign policy conceived by "neo-conservatives bent on making the middle east safe for a "Greater Israel" may be remembered as the greatest disaster to ever befall Israel.

There is an old rule that happens to apply to the Clintons just as it does to the rest of us: "As ye sow, so shall ye reap".

[hansolsen]

37. I agree with you, and would only add that Hil may yet regret that vote

The fact is the hawkish Likud wing of the Israeli lobby, both here and in Israel, supported the invasion of Iraq, and plenty of "liberal" Dems suddenly discovered that they too saw the wisdom in that plan, and gave Shrub a blank check to launch the nation's first aggressive war. This is problematic for Bill and Hil on many fronts:

1. First of all, the Likud lobby doesn't speak for all Israelis or all Jews. Many Jewish Americans and non - Likud Israelis opposed the war for the same reasons the rest of us did.

2. Now that the full flower of the disaster in Iraq is starting to emerge, those Israelis and American supporters of Israel (that's most of us here) are starting to get resentful of the damn fools who dragged us into this mess.

4. And the liklihood is that things will get much worse. Bush War II has the potential to become a virtual assembly line of worldwide anti-semitetism.

5. A foreign policy conceived by "neo-conservatives bent on making the middle east safe for a "Greater Israel" may be remembered as the greatest disaster to ever befall Israel.

There is an old rule that happens to apply to the Clintons just as it does to the rest of us: "As ye sow, so shall ye reap".

[bigbillhaywood]

24. Not one bit. nt

[JSJ]

39. they report to the same fascist paymasters as...

...Bush and co.