The Jack Bauer Moment: What the hell is Bill Clinton talking about?

[FlaxieB]

On "Meet The Press", Tim Russert interviewed former Prez Bill Clinton. On the topic of torture, regarding Hillary's response to the question of torture during last week's debate, Bill Clinton is using the show "24" as an analogy for his justification for handling terrorist when it comes to torture. His previous stance on the issue of torture suggested that he would use whatever means necessary to get information, as opposed to his wife's position. Since he is being interviewed about this, he stated that maybe his position is wrong. He's only changing his position or admitting that he's wrong to appease his wife and try to be a team player since he wants her to win. His first response is his position, which is totally opposite of Hillary's, not his revised version. Please, lets be honest, Bill.

I guess that Bill Clinton is a fan of the show "24" and he is a obvious fan of Jack Bauer, but don't rely on a fictional weekly TV program to justify your position of torture when soldiers are fighting and dying daily in Iraq. That insensitive and doesn't bode well for all the men and women of the armed forces.. If Bill Clinton does not have a clear and thought out position on the subject of terrorism and torture, just say you don't have one and quit trying to play with a very serious matter. Besides, this environment of terrorism and the war in Iraq came after Bill's tenure, would he have been an effective leader If 9-11 happened on his watch? I know that he's not in the White House but Bill Clinton presided in a totally different environment,no 9-11, no war (of any kind), no Osama Bin Ladin, no terrorists. He had terrorists issues but none of this magnitude. What would he have done? After this morning "laugh" session with Tim Russert, I wonder.:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

1. Back in 2006, everyone on DU knew exactly what he was talking about

Only now, since Russert purposely misquoted him, are "progressives" playing dumb about it.

[acmavm]

2. Billy will say whatever the hell he thinks is a right answer AT ANY

PARTICULAR GIVEN MOMENT, i.e. "I did not have sex with that woman". Then when called on it and backed against the wall, he comes up with some totally disingenuous and stupid answer.

Why are people listening to him anyway? Of course he's gonna take one for his wife. He doesn't care what he has to do if it will get her into the White House.

[Imagevision]

18. I agree, Bill is playing to Hill's audience and say whatever it takes, like Giuliani but

not quite that pathetic...

[notadmblnd]

3. I believe the terrorist issue back when he was CIC was exactly the same

WTC bombing in 93 was an unsuccessful attempt to take the entire building down. What Clinton didn't do was rush off to war. Whether or not congress prevented him from doing what bush has done may have something to do with it, I don't know. I do know the terrorist for the 93 bombing were captured, prosecuted and imprisoned which is more than we can say about the people behind 911.

[Ethelk2044]

4. so now he is flip flopping to help his wife in the election

[OKNancy]

7. I would hope so. Some people say

flip-flopping, other said changing your mind after reflection... much like John Kerry.
"flip-flop" sounds so much like a Republican buzzword.



‘They must often change who would be constant in happiness or wisdom.’- Confucius




‘Faced with changing one's mind, or proving that there is no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.’

— John Kenneth Galbraith

[OKNancy]

5. That is not what he said

First, I've never watched "24" but I'm knowledgeable enough about popular culture to know what he means. People in politics and who follow politics know what the reference is too.

You wrote: His previous stance on the issue of torture suggested that he would use whatever means necessary to get information, as opposed to his wife's position.

That is not accurate. He never said any means necessary. He said if you had a one in a million occurrence where someone was going to blow up a bunch of people that there might possibly be reason to have some sort of exception to the no torture rule. He said upon further reflection that there should be no WRITTEN exception and that the person involved would have to make an individual decision and live with the consequences.

He was never using the teevee show to justify, only to explain in terms that listeners could understand.

Bill Clinton was very good on Meet the Press and attempts to misquote to push an agenda are pretty weak IMO.

[aquart]

6. But they'll keep trying.

[rodeodance]

11. I watched it also and disagree with the IP. Thanks for your post.

[Paladin]

14. Thanks For Answering The OP's Question.....

....instead of just trashing Bill Clinton, like others are doing here.

To the Bill Clinton bashers: I certainly don't think Clinton's a perfect man by any means. But in watching his recent TV appearances, I recalled how good, how reassuring it was, back when this country had a highly intelligent, thoughtful, articulate president, a person with the capabilities to deal with both foreign and domestic issues in a constructive manner. Look what we've got now, and consider how far and in how many ways this nation has fallen. Absolutely tragic...

[FlaxieB]

15. He has no clear position on the matter.

If he did he would have stuck to his answer with the previous interview with Tim Russert. He's flip flopping his position to justify his wife's current position. Besides, we have soldiers dying in the field at war. We all know that Prez Clinton has no pressure on him. This is not something to take lightly. This is pure politics, is anyone surprised?

[Bitwit1234]

8. Gee now they "other candidates" are bashing Bill Clinton

is it because he is campaigning for his wife. Wonder if they would rant and rave if one of the other opponents wife was bashed for her overwhelming support and campaigning for him. NO..HIllary Clinton's supporters have more class they don't bash.. only the other headliner's supporters does.

[terisan]

9. He could have started a war by ignoring terrorism, just as Bush did.

We had a number of incidents when Clinton was prez---
Somalia (started by first Bush at very end of his term--it went badly and Clinton pulled out. He could have escalated.

Bosnia-little loss of life and treasure.

Maintain the Status quo bombings of Iraq and places like the so-called pharmaceutical factory (he was heartily denounced by Republicans for these).

Prosecution of World Trade Center Bombers. I guess he could have attacked, in retaliation, some country in the Middle East that had nothing to do with it. But as we see from GWs invasion of Iraq--maybe that kind of response is not so smart.

I don't want to minimize the 3000+ deaths on 9/11, but I think the it was an obvious target, given the previous attack and the fact that the bombers had been convicted in June 2001. The screaming intelligence throughout the summer regarding a big attack planned made the protection of the WTC and its occupants a no-brainer. Bush protected himself in Europe that summer, but his administration left the WTC as exposed as the Navy fleet in Pearl Harbor in December 1941.

....and he never did bring the named perpetrator to justice. ......and now our country is verging on economic ruin (the modern method of destroying your enemy.

Bush has pledged our lives, our honor, and our fortune to his war.....he is scheduled to walk away in several months with his life, and his personal fortune ---instead of honor his will have a small army of secret service protectors (over 100) paid for by us.


Starting wars is easy; ending them takes courage; building peace takes brains.

Getting Americans to destroy the future of their children and their country-the oldest continuous Republic in the world.? That takes just one con man from Texas.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

10. I disagree with your premise that Clinton presided in a "totally different" environment, seeing as

the WTC was bombed only a few weeks into his Presidential tenure. By AQ.

He just happened to be smart in his approach, treated it as a criminal matter and locked up the in country participants.

He was FULLY aware of Bin Laden's exploits, and Richard Clark's terrorist task force was effective in tracking AQ's movements.

However, as we all sadly know, when Bush took over, the task force never met and Bush IGNORED all the intelligence warnings, and now...

Here we are, reading a fallacious OP of yours. MKJ

[FlaxieB]

17. This ia a totally different environment. Make no mistake about it.

We are at war, that's the big difference. Soldiers and Marines are dying daily, that's the difference.I understand what the Clinton administration did but I asked the question: What would Prez Clinton do now? That's the issue. There is no guarantee that the WTC would not be hit with jet airliners even if Prez Clinton was still in office. You think Osama Bin Ladin waited until after Bush took office? Remember, the planning of that event was happening well before Bush took office. Osama Bin Ladin did not conjure up this idea in the first 10 months after Bush took office. A lot of activity was going on prior to that, airline training, WTC surveillance, airport surveillance etc.You may not like it, but Prez Clinton has blood on his hands also when it comes to our present situation.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

27. Oh please. WE are not at war. Our military is at "war."

The occupation of country which was no threat to us merely to enrich Bush's buddies is something Clinton wouldn't do, for sure.

And, if you want to do the blame Clinton jig here, so be it.

Read Clarke's book, and then we'll talk.

MKJ

on edit, corrected dropped e in Clarke's name.

[rodeodance]

12. I love intellectual talk from a President

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. If I Understand Him

If I understood him he said he was unalterably opposed to torture in any circumstance but if a terrorist had a stick of dynamite fused to somebody's ass and he was tortured to volunteering the information and they actually found the stick most folks would be happy...

That seems , well, obvious...

[BootinUp]

20. of course its obvious

This is another case of total distortion to make a Democratic with a fine record on human and civil rights into some kind of demon.

[Honeycombe8]

16. It doesn't matter what his position is, does it? Or if he flips flops? He and Hill are entitled

to disagree.

Barbara Bush was pro-choice, but Papa Bush was not (or could not be). So what? She wasn't President. He was.

I only caught the last part of the interview. It was a great interview. He's a pro, all right. Comfortable in front of the cameras, articulate, likeable.

The non-candidates don't have to explain their positions or changes of positions, like the candidates do. It simply does not matter what their positions are.

[FlaxieB]

22. Prez Clinton did not disagree, he flip flopped for his wife's sake. He lied.

and downplayed his position on the issue on national TV.(I guess Hillary is right). You are an ex-Prez of the U.S.! We deserve solid answers to this question because troops are dying in Iraq. We are not talking about household matters here and Barbara Bush did not run for Prez, that's the difference. You think that because he's Bill Clinton he should get the benenfit of the doubt? Everyone thinks that Prez Clinton had a flawless tenure as Prez and he can't be questioned. This old dog is playing the same old dirty political game no one paid attention to that made him Prez. He'll say anything, do anything, call in favors, make threats and make those empty promises to get her elected because without him, she's a 3d tier candidate. Bill knows that.

[Honeycombe8]

24. I see no evidence that he lied. I can't see into his mind to know why he changed..

his position (was his former statement before 9/11?).

But it doesn't matter at all to me. What matters is if HILLARY changes her positions, and why. (Or any of the other candidates, for that matter.)

I also don't care what Obama's wife, Rudi's wife, Romney's wife, or Edwards' wife think about the issues...or if they are changing their positions to fit the candidacy. It simply doesn't matter.

[Moderate Dem]

19. I've never seen this addressed, but...

The main difference to me is that a Democratic President would do whatever is necessary. The big difference is that a Democratic President wouldn't BRAG about it like Bush did.

When Hillary was asked about it in the debate, she didn't actually say that she wouldn't do it, she said that "It cannot be American policy, period,".

To anyone with any sense of nuance at all, it is obvious that she didn't DIRECTLY say that she wouldn't do it, she said that America shouldn't adopt it, or recognize it as OFFICIAL POLICY.

There is a huge difference there, IMO, and yet another reason why I believe that Hllary will be a tough, great President.

[flpoljunkie]

21. The Democrats led by Bill Clinton overwhelming supported Iraqi Liberation Act, he signed on 10/31/98

Gotta look tough on national security, you know, instead of speaking up and calling "bullshit" when the neocons clamor to go to war.

[Kelly Rupert]

23. That is a complete misrepresentation of what he said.

Clinton said that in a "24"-like situation, officers would likely engage in whatever behavior they felt was appropriate regardless of what the rules said--and therefore there should indeed be a blanket ban on torture.

[FlaxieB]

25. He flip flopped, plain and simple. Also I ask: Why do rules exists?

How many people have been or are being detained at this moment that had nothing to do with 9-11 except that they are Muslims or Middle eastern desent "regardless of the rules" Do you agree with that?

[Kelly Rupert]

26. Not really. He took a position that's more nuanced than

"torture everyone!" or "if you ban torture then nobody will be tortured and we'll have another 9/11!" He said, "There need to be rules against torture. This will not cause another 9/11, because should a 24-moment actually occur, people will do what they think needs to be done regardless of the rules against it."

He's not condoning breaking the rules. He's saying that because the rules will probably be broken anyway in a life-or-death situation, we need to have rules banning torture under all circumstances.

Of course I don't support that. Nobody here does. And that kind of abuse of the loopholes Bush includes in the rules is why Clinton is saying that torture needs to be banned in all situations.

[ShortnFiery]

28. Is Bill running for President Again? I swear, I see more of him than HRC in the M$M.

IMO, Bill Clinton may be highly intelligent, but he's also a first class media attention whore who doesn't like sharing the spotlight ... not even with Hill. :(