Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

David Letterman brings up DSM to Clinton!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
kittenpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:20 PM
Original message
David Letterman brings up DSM to Clinton!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. What does Clinton say??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. "What was that?" - Clinton
He went on to say he's heard of it but hasn't read it so can't comment.
Then mentioned Cheney's visits to the CIA...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wookie294 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Dems need to stop idolizing Clinton
Clinton supports the war, as does his wife.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #10
33. I will never understand the apologizing that goes on for this man
He is basically a Republican as is his wife. I cannot believe the way people worship at his feet. He doesn't want to say anything about DSM because he likes things just the way they are. There was a good reason I didn't vote for him in 1996. This bit on Dave's show is just another shining example of why he is NOT a progressive.

Disappointed, but not surprised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. I agree with you. Clinton was the best Republican President
we ever had.

He has not raised his voice and we really could use him now as our country is in true peril.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
funflower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #10
40. He's just "triangulating."
The Clintons claimed to support the war back in 2002/2003 to avoid the "lefty draft dodger" tag; now, like everybody else who supported it, they can't back out gracefully.

If Clinton had wanted regime change in Iraq, we would have been there 10 years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ROH Donating Member (521 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. Why, why, why
hasn't he read it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. oh bull
he's read the excerpts from it. I'd bet money on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #15
29. Guaran-fucking-teed that he's read the whole thing.
Honk if you're a policy wonk!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friesianrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #29
39. The man devours news and politics....
It's total BS that he hasn't read it in it's ENTIRETY. I'm disappointed, Bill, very disappointed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kittenpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. It's "frustrating" that the war was sold as a search for WMD's
but we're there now... blah blah blah... Dave is trying to push it and Clinton is very hesitant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NEOBuckeye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. He claims to not know about it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. That he hadn't seen it and couldn't comment nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buddysmellgood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. Wow. I'm in the midwest. Just heard it now. Big jaw dropper. Clinton
played a little dumb, but then said bluntly that there were plenty of people in the administration who wanted Saddam out well before the election. He also said that Cheney sat down with advisors in the CIA and ...we all know he didn't go there to drink tea... or something like that.

Man...wouldn't it be great to have a thinking, articulate president who cared?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. Clinton is glossing over it
pretending first that he doesn't know what it is, claiming he hasn't read it, changing the subject. Saddam was a bad guy, at least they got to vote. yada yada.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. He did say it's clear the bushadmin wanted saddam before
they took office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueStateGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
21. And he also mentioned Cheney's weekly trips to the CIA and said he
wasn't there to drink coffee and catch up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Bill, Bill, Bill -- get a grip, dude!
I think he's been hanging out with Poppy too much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NEOBuckeye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. He's way too buddy-buddy with Poppy Bush nowadays.
He won't cut into his son, though he did mention Cheney and his unusual presence at the CIA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pryderi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
7. Neo-Clinton
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jab105 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:23 PM
Response to Original message
11. He said "What's that"...
then said he hadnt read it...blah blah...
obviously they fixed intelligence, but who cares...

damn it clinton, you of all people...accountability!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhollyHeretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
27. I put a lot of hours trying to get Clinton elected in '92
I was very excited about the things he was talking about. My opinion of him has gone down hill from there every year. Clinton is a great speaker and politician but he is to far to the right for me. I'm not saying he's right-wing but just too close for my tastes. He isn't in office anymore and still won't take a strong stand on anything. How could he say he doesn't know anything about DSM? That is just ridiculous. This is the problem with a lot of Democratic leadership, they are petrified of taking a stand on anything. Look at Fahrenheit 9/11 when not a single senator would sign that petition, that was painful to watch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kittenpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
16. Is he lying low for Hillary's sake?
you know, her move to the middle...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. if that was his strategy
let me just say it ain't working for me. I see shit like that and it doesn't exactly me endear me to hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kittenpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. yeah, not a good strategy at all...
I just don't get why he's playing dumb. I mean Bush can get away with it, but we know Clinton has a brain in there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. He wasn't prepared. He got blindsided.
Letterman did it on purpose, I think, to catch him candid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dooner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #16
35. yeah, Hillary will kick his butt if he jeopardizes her political career
after all he put her through...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigone382 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
18. Leave it to Letterman!
I'm disappointed, though not surprised at Clinton's response, but good on Letterman for bringing it up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
19. It wasn't all that bad, folks.
Just the fact that Letterman ACTUALLY said "DOWNING STREET MEMO"...I couldn't believe my ears.

And Clinton was surprised by it, as well. I don't think he was prepared for that. Ole Dave threw him a curveball, outta nowhere. But his response wasn't that bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. I agree
It was awesome that Lettterman even mentioned DSM. And Clinton's response about Cheney going to the CIA - and not to drink tea - was a good one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueStateGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. No kidding! He was not prepared, he took a few extra seconds with
his water on that one.

I was hoping Dave would do it , but was surprised he did.

I thought his response was alright. In a cheeky way he sort of confirmed it. He definetly did not rule it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buddysmellgood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. I agree...the mention was the big thing. But I think it was all worked out
ahead of time. Clinton doesn't appear unless there is a big pow wow about exactly how much time will be spent on x-topics. Did you see the edit in the show before Clinton came on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dooner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #19
36. Yep, hat's off to Dave for bringing it up n/t
Edited on Fri Jun-17-05 12:31 AM by dooner
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ithinkmyliverhurts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
25. Like Rove, Clinton needs time to think about how to frame this.
And if you think he's not concerned about checking the pulse of the nation, then you need to read his history in the White House.

How many mentally disabled does one have to execute during a campaign before one is called an opportunist?

The left rallied around Clinton because the right were being fascist cocks. We supported him because he was hated. We loved him because he fucked them at every turn. And it was SWEET. Clinton was a decent Rhode Island republican as far as I can tell. The best thing about Clinton: he showed how loyal democrats could be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
28. I love the Clintons...
but i think I've had enough of them for awhile. I don't like dishonesty in public policy, and my perception is that Bill Clinton is being dishonest about these comments. If he's doing it to somehow protect Hillary's chance to run, then screw them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
30. I think Bill is still a bit oxygen depleted since his heart surgery
He will be chasing young, er, ah, I mean playing 18 holes again in a jiffy.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Algorem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
31. He's Monica now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
32. Good for Letterman for bringing up the DSM!
Edited on Fri Jun-17-05 12:02 AM by cat_girl25
I really think Clinton was surprised by it. He didn't see it coming and I was disappointed in him pretending he didn't know that much about it. That is BS! Clinton knows about everything. He knows the bushies are corrupt to the core! Shame on you Big Dog!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 01:01 AM
Response to Original message
37. I thought it was interesting that Clinton went after Cheney
Edited on Fri Jun-17-05 01:07 AM by Quixote1818
I got the feeling he didn't want to say anything too bad about Bush because I truly believe he and Daddy Bush do like one another. Lets face it Daddy is much smarter than Chimp. I think Clinton decided to mention Cheney and lay off Chimp so he and Bush Sr. would remain friends. Just a gut feeling.

I thought Clinton answered in a very tactful way and was not prepared for the question. I thought he was sincere and does care about his friendship with Bush Sr. I respect him for that. He chose to go after Cheney because it's possible that Iraq was always Cheney's idea.

I thought he did very well under the circumstances and did a wonderful job on most of the questions. He looked very sincere and down to earth but a little tired. I think he is a very good person and not very partisan at all. I know that does not go over to well here on DU but it's admirable in my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 01:17 AM
Response to Original message
38. Clinton's answer on N. Korea was awesome!
A little off topic here but Clinton did a wonderful job talking about what N. Korea wants and how to deal with them. Clinton's answer was informed, well thought out and made complete sense. He was too soft on Bush's handling of N. Korea though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Melodybe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #38
41. Please email Dave and thank him
don't let the only words he gets come from asshole freepers.

Dave deserves better than that!

Here is a link to the show, click on show info and you'll find the feedback link:

http://www.cbs.com/latenight/lateshow/#
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 02:14 AM
Response to Original message
42. I really hope people start taking their blinders off
Edited on Fri Jun-17-05 02:25 AM by TheGoldenRule
in regards to both Clintons. They are RETHUGS!

Too many people are giving them the benefit of the doubt, cutting them slack and are just flat out in total DENIAL about them.

Let's start calling it like it is.

You know.. like the old saying:

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck....hell yeah it IS a duck!

edited to add:

Letterman is on right now and I'm listened to Clinton LIE all over the place about the DSM! He almost choked on his coffee/water when Dave asked him the question! :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tactical Progressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 02:49 AM
Response to Original message
43. Clinton did a fantastic job on DSM
After multiple questions on tsunami relief and his friendship with Bush Sr from Letterman, Dave brought up Downing. Clinton started out by feigning ignorance. It's not his place to impugn his successor; it's not productive towards his raproachment with Bush Sr which I'm sure he feels is one of the better things he can do as ex-President, especially considering the rifts we have with the far-right today; and of course it does no one any good for him to trash Bush Jr. At best he'd become a lightning rod for frothing-at-the-mouth wingers.

What he did instead was mention how Cheney went to the CIA - a clear allusion to Cheney setting up the intelligence lies that fomented the Iraq invasion. He then mentioned in passing how BushCo was looking for a way to go after Hussein from before they even took office. That's before they even took office. DSM is just from 2002. Clinton trumped that by stating what everyone with half a lick of sense already knows - that BushCo was plotting Iraq from before even 9/11.

It was masterful: I can't comment, but 1) Cheney architected the lies of the Iraq war and 2) the treachery originated well before the DSM timeframe. All without pissing on Bush Jr directly.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdelaguna2000 Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 05:43 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. has potential
His veiled hit on Cheney has potential to highlight those evil meetings w/the CIA... I didn't see it though, so can't comment further.

You're either with us or against us. Somehow I imagine Bill and Hillary won't be the ones to lead this charge, too busy looking out for her political survival as others have said here.

Way to go Letterman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC