Bill Clinton defends Lieberman's Iraq stance

[Clarkie1]

Now, while I disagree with Clinton, I do understand his point of view. I think it is important we not focus "too heavily" on Lamont at the expense of other races. Beyond that, I think it's healthy to have primary challengers. The other thing I would say is that while I understand the points Clinton is making about Iraq and it "not being a situation we created," more troubling to me is Lieberman's anti-dissent remarks, which Clinton did not address. Anyway, here is the article...

Bill Clinton defends Lieberman's Iraq stance
July 14, 2006

HARTFORD, Conn. --Former President Bill Clinton is sticking up for U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman and his support of the Iraq war.

Clinton, who spoke at an Aspen Institute conference last week, questioned why Democrats in Connecticut are focusing on ousting a fellow Democrat, Lieberman.

Lieberman faces a stronger-than-expected Aug. 8 primary challenge by Greenwich millionaire businessman Ned Lamont, who has criticized Lieberman for his support of the war and his perceived closeness with Republicans and President Bush.

"If we allow our differences over what to do now in Iraq to divide us instead of focusing on replacing Republicans in Congress; that's the nuttiest strategy I ever heard in my life," Clinton told the nonprofit cultural organization.

<snip>

Clinton questioned efforts of some Democrats to impose a fixed timetable for removing U.S. troops from Iraq -- something Lieberman opposes.

"Why send a signal to the people that are trying to keep Iraq divided and tear it up when we're gonna go," he asked.

Clinton defended Lieberman's Democratic credentials, mentioning how the senator has been endorsed by labor unions, environmental organizations and gay groups.

"We've got a world of differences between ourselves and the Republicans," he said. "So I think the Democrats are making a mistake to go after each other ... for a situation none of them created."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/07/14/bill_clinton_defends_liebermans_iraq_stance_1152922213/
:popcorn:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. From the guy who gave us the "not as bad" party.

"We've got a world of differences between ourselves and the Republicans," he said. "So I think the Democrats are making a mistake to go after each other ... for a situation none of them created."

Some Democrats have a world of difference on Iraq than the Republicans. Bill (and, Hillary) aren't among them.

[loveable liberal]

2. I dont like Lieberman either, but....

he has opposing opinions on some issues contrary to the Democrat mantra. If we require our side to walk in lock-step with all our ideals makes us no better than the kool-aid drinking repelicans. If Iraq is the focus of this election then Joe will lose, whether he decides to be a spoiler is a question of integrity in which case he was the wrong man for the job in the first place.

[JDPriestly]

5. The Democratic rank and file are entitled to nominate

and elect candidates with whom they agree on major issues including Iraq. The Clintons are on a bad footing with Democratic rank and file voters on their Iraq stances, and they know it. Clinton's statements are not about Lieberman. They are about Hillary. She is going to be in trouble on her Iraq stance in 2008.

I believe that Iraq is not the only problem issue for Lieberman. Didn't he vote for the new bankruptcy bill? And were did he stand on the Patriot Act? Where does he stand on the wiretapping, etc.? He has a lot of problems. It isn't a one issue primary.

[DFLer4edu]

14. Everyone voted for the Patriot Act

Except Feingold, I don't know how Lieberman has been voting, but I know he has endorsements from planned parenthood and AFL-CIO which means he hasn't gone off the deep end. I think it is important for the party to get a back bone, which Lieberman lacks, but I don't want that to mean a purge of moderate and conservative dems. You're exactly right though in terms of why Bill is saying what he is saying. Whether you agree with him or not, whether you want Hillary to be the nominee for president or not, he is saying it for her. Listen to the interview though, I heard it on NPR. He has soom good things to say about the differences between democrats and republicans. He is very good at framing the debate.

[JDPriestly]

22. This is an interesting time.

Bush has pushed many of us middle-of-the-roaders into activism, and we suddenly find that our comfort level with compromise -- which I at least used to favor -- has diminished. Many of us have the sense that we compromised too much and that our lack of backbone emboldened the extremists on the right. Clinton kind of symbolizes the big compromise. We paid a price -- welfare reform, NAFTA, no health care reform, gone forever seemingly. And in their place we have this irrational bellicose Bush administration. Many of us who supported the Clinton middle way regret it. That's why we dislike Hillary so much. We don't want to go that route again. We reached out our hands to the right and they bit off everything but our big toes. Never again. Real Democrats are standing up and saying "No, we won't compromise anymore." We can't because the other side does not compromise back.

[IndyOp]

3. Clinton's policies killed 100,000's Iraqis. He has NO credibility to

comment on Iraq.

Real Shock & Awe: After 15 Years War, Sanctions 1,000,000 Iraqis Dead


UN (US/UK) SANCTIONS: Primary cause of 600,000 deaths
August 1990 - March 2003

The United Nations Security Council has maintained comprehensive economic sanctions on Iraq since August 6, 1990. The international community increasingly views the sanctions as illegitimate and punitive, because of well-documented humanitarian suffering in Iraq and widespread doubts about the sanctions’ effectiveness and their legal basis under international humanitarian and human rights law. (2)

It is now clear that comprehensive economic sanctions in Iraq have hurt large numbers of innocent civilians not only by limiting the availability of food and medicines, but also by disrupting the whole economy, impoverishing Iraqi citizens and depriving them of essential income, and reducing the national capacity of water treatment, electrical systems and other infrastructure critical for health and life. People in Iraq have died in large numbers. The extent of death, suffering and hardship may have been greater than during the armed hostilities, especially for civilians, as we shall see in more detail below. Comprehensive sanctions in Iraq, then, are not benign, non-violent or ethical. (2)

A UN "Oil-for-Food Programme," started in late 1997, offered some relief to Iraqis, but the humanitarian crisis continued. (1)

Over a period of about five years, serving an Iraqi population of 23 million, the program has delivered roughly $200 worth of goods per capita per year, including oil spare parts and other goods not directly consumed by the population. Allowing for domestic production outside the Oil-for-Food program and for smuggling, the result still appears to leave Iraqi citizens an exceedingly low per capita income which may be at or below the $1 per day World Bank threshold of absolute poverty. (2)

The measurement of deaths rests on the concept of “excess” mortality – those deaths that exceed the mortality rate in the previous, pre-sanctions period or that exceed a projection of the earlier trend towards further gains. (2)

All of these excess deaths should not be ascribed to sanctions. Some may be due to a variety of other causes. But all major studies make it clear that sanctions have been the primary cause, because of the sanctions’ impact on food, medical care, water, and other health-related factors. (2)

Prof. Richard Garfield of Columbia University carried out a separate and well-regarded study of excess mortality in Iraq. Garfield considered the same age group and the same time period as the UNICEF study. He minimized reliance on official Iraqi statistics by using many different statistical sources, including independent surveys in Iraq and inferences from comparative public health data from other countries. Garfield concluded that there had been a minimum of 100,000 excess deaths and that the more likely number was 227,000. He compared this estimate to a maximum estimate of 66,663 civilian and military deaths during the Gulf War. Garfield now thinks the most probable number of deaths of under-five children from August 1991 to June 2002 would be about 400,000. (2)

There are no reliable estimates of the total number of excess deaths in Iraq beyond the under-five population. Even with conservative assumptions, though, the total of all excess deaths must be far above 400,000. (2)

In the face of such powerful evidence, the US and UK governments have sometimes practiced bold denial. Brian Wilson, Minister of State at the UK Foreign Office told a BBC interviewer on February 26, 2001 “There is no evidence that sanctions are hurting the Iraqi people.” When denial has proved impossible, officials have occasionally fallen back on astonishingly callous affirmations. In a famous interview with Madeleine Albright, then US representative at the United Nations, Leslie Stahl of the television show 60 Minutes said: “We have heard that half a million children have died . . . is the price worth it? Albright replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.” (2)

(1) Sanctions Against Iraq
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indexone.htm

(2) Iraq Sanctions: Humanitarian Implications and Options for the Future
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm

----------------

Whatsa matter Bill - do you feel your time coming? Worried a bit about talking with God? I pity you for not being able to see clearly enough to do the right thing.

:(

[misternormal]

4. I will vote for whatever Democrat...

... get nominated, in my own city, county and state.

The point is to get the repukes the hell out of power. I think we can deal with the Dem Riff-Raff after the government is back in more sensible and capable hands.

[tularetom]

6. He's been hangin with poopy bush too much

And he's trying out his '08 excuse for Hillary's pro Iraq war stance. I've finally realized Clinton wasn't much of a President. Good for big bidness, lousy for everything else.

[Master Mahon]

12. You hit it right on the head!

Even 'W' said he and clinton were his daddy's most favorite 60 year olds.

You don't see Carter being all palsy walsy with the Bushes do you?
I'm really starting to question Clintons loyalty, yet you have to be in the 'elites' pocket to get to be president. There is absolutely no way around it.

[BillZBubb]

7. Not the first time Clinton's been totally wrong.

Won't be the last either.

[walldude]

8. So we should support the guy who says

he's going to go against party wishes and run as an independant if he loses the primary. Or should we support this Democrat because he, and I quote Lieberman "I have loyalties that go beyond the party." Who the hell does Clinton think he is? I'm getting sick of politicans forgetting who they work for. Clinton may be out of office but statements like this only prove that he was never really a "man of the people". If the voters in Connecticut prefer someone other than Lieberman how does that hurt the party? If you ask me getting rid of this guy can only help. Anyone who stands with Bush on Iraq and the endless war on terror needs to go. Maybe Clinton should pull his head out of Poppy's ass.

On Edit: Maybe someone should hit Clinton upside the head with a copy of Armed Madhouse...

[saracat]

9. Clinton is right. I loathe Lieberman and am rooting for Lamont but

we cannot be seen to be eating our own for" a situation none of them created". There are more important issues to debate than Liberman. He is awful but this should be left to the voters of Conn, and our enegy should be used to put more Dems in office. People debating this issue endlessly are wasting time. Clinton is a wise politico and we would do well to heed his advice. We should support whomever comes out of the primary as a Democratic candidate. End of story. But I do loathe holy Joe!

[me b zola]

10. Yeah, well

The aspens turn in clumps because they are connected by their roots. The clumps are becoming more defined lately.

[cornermouse]

11. " I think running as an independent would be good for Connecticut"

Clarkie1 quote dated July 12 (my, oh my, was that only 3 days ago?)

"After all, Lieberman has a long history both in state and federal government representing the people of Connecticut. And, I think it would be good for all the people of Connecticut to have a choice on the fate of their incumbent senator, not just primary voters.

Now, I don't agree with Lieberman on everything, but nevertheless is is the incumbent senator for his consitituents...which include all the people of Connecticut, not just Democrats. So, I think the people of Connecticut do deserve that choice."

Can be found at

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1614822#1619168

as well as earlier multiple spam attempts (all dated July 12) to try to foist Lieberman on us.

[bowens43]

17. Wow! Someone HERE posted that nonsense?

[bobbolink]

13. Geeee, what a surprise.....

:puke:

[bowens43]

15. Bill needs to have this conversation with Lieberman.

[stepnw1f]

16. He's Not Defending Him at All

What a bullshit Title. And the second thread on this.

[Clarkie1]

19. Please explain.

I'm curious how you came to that conclusion.

Clinton questioned efforts of some Democrats to impose a fixed timetable for removing U.S. troops from Iraq -- something Lieberman opposes.

"Why send a signal to the people that are trying to keep Iraq divided and tear it up when we're gonna go," he asked.

[SensibleAmerican]

18. H Dean and his brother are giving us a lesson in how to throw the Senate

in what would have been the easiest election cycle ever.

Dean's a smart man, but his guidance for our party is deeply flawed. I hate to say this, but he's no Newt Gingrich.

[stepnw1f]

20. RRRIIIGHT

This thread stinks to high heaven.

"would have been the easiest election cycle ever."

Not with folks like you.

[mitchum]

21. Former president Petain up to business as usual