Tactics and Substance in U.S. Elections GoogleNews: congressional.election

August 15, 2006

by V

Clinton-42 steps back up

I was pretty annoyed by Bill Clinton stumping for Lieberman, but it wasn't exactly unexpected so it wasn't a huge deal. It didn't turn the tide for Lieberman anyway.

Now that Joe's turned on the Democratic Party, the former President is returning the favor. Via Political Wire:

Clinton Sounds Off on Terror, Republicans [KLTV7]
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.'"

"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.'"

Clinton said that a vote for Lamont was not, as Lieberman had implied, a vote against the country's security.
Gracias, eh.

He had some other good quotes; they haven't made it very far into the media bloodstream yet according to GoogleNews.
"I don't think the thought in that London bomb plot has any bearing on our Iraq policy," Clinton said.

"The Republicans should be very careful in trying to play politics with this London airport thing, because they're going to have a hard time with the facts."

Clinton said that the London terror plot had raised two questions about the Republicans' political strategy.

"They seem to be anxious to tie it to al Qaeda. ... If that's true, how come we got seven times as many troops in Iraq as in Afghanistan?" he said. "Why have we imperiled President [Hamid] Karzai's rule and allowed the Taliban to come back into the southern part of Afghanistan? Why was Iraq deemed to be seven times more important than finding the al Qaeda leaders for the last five years?"

Secondly, Clinton asked why the administration and congressional leadership had opposed tighter security on cargo containers at ports and airports.

Posted by V at August 15, 2006 8:42 AM

Recommended Reading:

The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir
The Politics of Truth... A Diplomat's Memoir


Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush
Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush


Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke
Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror


LIES by Al Franken
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right


The Great Unraveling
The Great Unraveling


The Great Big Book of Tomorrow
The Great Big Book of Tomorrow


Clinton Wars
The Clinton Wars


Blinded by the Right
Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative


Waging Modern War: Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Future of Combat

Subject to Debate: Sense and Dissents on Women, Politics, and Culture

Living History

The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton

John Adams

Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation

Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace

In Association with Amazon.com