Wow, Bill Clinton gets it?

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Amazingly, Bill Clinton of all people manages to have a level head and give a really good speech. It was on May 22nd at the Bob Dole Institute of Politics. I haven't found a full transcript, but here are some choice excerpts:

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

"America is in one of those periods where we're trying to come to grips with fundamental questions," Clinton said.

   

Until that happens, he said, the nation's quest for "the more perfect union" envisioned by the Founding Fathers will be stalled in political bickering.

"When the Cold War was over and we saw the Industrial Age replaced by the Information Age, we changed the way we live and relate to each other and the rest of the world in ways that are both marvelous and frightening," Clinton said.

He compared the current partisanship with the partisanship in the late 18th century, just after the nation's founding.

"Go back and read what Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and their supporters said about each other," Clinton said. "After George Washington left the scene, who knew what America meant?"

At another point, he told the crowd that many might disagree with Bush's decision to wage war in Iraq rather than rooting out al-Qaida in Afghanistan. When the crowd began to cheer, Clinton admonished them, saying disagreements with America's leaders were part of the American experience.

"This is thinking time, not cheering time," he said.

"If immediately you decide that somebody who sees a whole new situation differently than you must be a bad person and is somehow twisted inside, then we're not going to get very far in forming a more perfect union."

This was an interesting tidbit on the short-lived Dole-Clinton segment on "60 Minutes".

Dole and Clinton teamed up for segments on "60 Minutes," but the clock was stopped when the duo wouldn't argue passionately.

"We wouldn't be mean enough," Clinton said. "That's true. They wanted us to say things we didn't believe. They wanted us to call each other names."

During his 44-minute lecture, Clinton did not mention President Bush's name or criticize his handling of the war in Iraq.

Instead, he criticized those who attack Bush's motives, noting that despite Clinton's own opposition to the Vietnam War, he was "very uncomfortable" with those who accused Johnson of war mongering.

"I don't think President Johnson ever wanted one person to die (in Vietnam)," Clinton said. "I don't think he ever wanted anything but what he thought was right and best for America."

Clinton said nothing undercut civil debate more than questioning a person's motives.

Clinton, addressing a crowd of about 12,000 as the inaugural speaker in the Dole Institute of Politics' Dole Lecture series, said Americans haven't fully decided their role in the world in the aftermath of the Cold War.

"As long as we don't have that consensus, extremists will have more influence than they ought to, and politics will be more bitter than it should be," Clinton said.

"What unites American patriots is much, much greater than what divides us as election year partisans," Dole said.

Clinton said the political system was in distress and voters had to take it back from operatives who believe misleading direct mailings, confrontational pundits and nasty sound bites are what government is all about.

The 2000 presidential election showed that avoiding the ballot box solves nothing, he said.

"If you sat it out, you voted for whoever you didn't want to win," Clinton said.

Who'd a thunk it?

[Tigermike 3,426]

I think he does "get it", very insightful. I think he has a much deeper understanding of the big picture than any of us. He certainly sees things clearer than the democrats who are running the Kerry campaign.

I never voted for him, but if this presidential race were Clinton against Kerry, Clinton would get my vote.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I'll tell you what, some of these guys are going to have their Democrat membership cards revoked if they don't stop making sense and start towing the party line. In fact, some folks posting in the DNC website forums apparently want to start that process now.

I present, another Democrat that gets it: Sen. Joe Lieberman. It's just a shame he had to get linked up with such a dope like Gore:

Democrat Backs Bush on 'Getting the Job Done' in Iraq

By Susan Jones

CNSNews.com Morning Editor

May 25, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Democrat and a member of the Armed Services Committee, has angered someof his fellow Democrats by urging people in both political parties to "pull together" to finish the job in Iraq.

"We have to stay united here as best we can to support our troops," Lieberman said in a CNN interview Monday night after listening to President Bush's speech. He called the U.S. war in Iraq "the test of our generation," and he said if the U.S doesn't win the war over there -- "we're going to face it much closer to home in the years ahead."

Lieberman urged Americans to avoid joining a "chorus of doubters" that is undermining American support for the war.

He also -- to the dismay of some Democrats -- defended President Bush, saying the president "did what he has to do in this speech...which is to shore up American support to remind the American people why we must win this battle against the terrorists and the Saddam loyalists."

Lieberman also noted that President Bush has done some of the things his critics, including Lieberman, asked him to do -- such as going to the United Nations, increasing the number of troops in Iraq, and expressing a willingness to send more troops to protect Iraq's fledgling democracy.

Lieberman told CNN's Paula Zahn that "democracy is not easy. It is sometimes messy, you know? But the folks in Iraq, thanks to the courage and skill of the American military, have options before them that they never would have dreamed they would have today, and that's because Saddam, that brutal dictator, is gone."

Lieberman said if the American people "don't lose their will, we're going to look back with real pride at what our troops have done and what we can do together for the Iraqis."

Many Democrat "talking heads" criticized President Bush for not breaking any new ground in his Monday night speech at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pa.

Sen. John F. Kerry, the Democratic presidential hopeful, issued a statement to that effect, saying, "The President laid out general principles tonight, most of which we've heard before."

As for grassroots reaction, postings on a Democratic National Committee website called "Kicking Ass" were highly critical of both Bush and Lieberman.

In the "Comments" section, one posting referred to Lieberman as a "new member of the Zell Miller Turncoat Club" because the senator praised Bush's speech and urged Americans to unite behind Bush.

Another posting suggested that "Someone out there start a petition to 'boot Lieberman'" from the Democrat Party.

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?P...L20040525b.html

[quietfan 233]

Hey, I don't think anybody, friend or foe, ever doubted that Clinton was extremely bright except when his "little head" did the thinking. The man was a Rhodes scholar, for goodness!

More importantly, he managed to hold together a powerful political coalition that survived the most embarrasing personal scandal ever to hit an administration and still lead the country through one of its greatest economic booms since the fifties. Only two presidents have served a full eight years since Dwight Eisenhower: Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. All three of these shared the common trait that they were bright enough to pull themselves into the Oval Office by their own bootstraps rather than starting with silver spoons in their mouths like George W Bush and the Kennedys.

Clinton and Reagan were also smart enough to surround themselves with people at least as smart, if not smarter, than themselves.

If only Bill had spent his spare time sleeping like Ronnie instead of engaging in other horizontal behavior!

[Tigermike 3,426]

If only Bill had spent his spare time sleeping like Ronnie instead of engaging in other horizontal behavior!

That would have helped his legacy wouldn't it.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

the thing about clinton is that he could inspire and challenge people so well. he was the best presidential orator since jfk. i've heard (or read) speeches from all the presidents in between (and certainly since), and there is just no comparison. that's why people got over the scandal. if he could've run again in 2000, he would have won again despite the beginnings of economic downturn and reminants of scandal. and yeah, he still represents democratic ideas more than almost all dem. candidates (and there was a laundry list wasn't there..) b/c he understands the people.

the best thing i thought he pointed out in that whole thing is that we shouldn't challenge bush's (or almost any other politician for that matter) motives. while i disagree with his solutions, i don't think he went into iraq as an imperialist or anything like that (which has been inferred in the past). saying stuff like that just undermines the american image even further in areas like the middle east. would i have gone to war? no, but that doesn't make bush evil in my eyes.

i too wish clinton could run again (specifically bill... dunno quite where i stand on the other one), but since he can't it'll be a vote for another ho-hum choice for me. as a Christian i identify with bush on that level. as a thinker, i just disagree with him too often, and i don't think a vote should be cast solely on the level of religious involvement. so i'll probably side with kerry (i'd have preferred edwards).

[Tiger Al 0]

Here's the LINK to the page where the video is. It's the next to last video entitled 'Former Pres. Bill Clinton Lecture at Robert Dole Inst. of Politics.'

He's great. At one point you can hear the crowd chant 'four more years!' Ahhh, if only.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Who'd a thunk it?

Anyone who more or less objectively followed Bill Clinton's career without the haze of hate that so many people felt toward him. Clinton and Reagan both tended to refrain from personal attacks and were largely positive in how they framed their message. That is why Clinton brought back some "Reagan Democrats" and why they both served 8 years.

Clinton said nothing undercut civil debate more than questioning a person's motives.

This was actually classic Clinton. He got you to agree with him without realizing the ramifications of what you were agreeing with. The unarticulated flip side of this message is that people shouldn't automatically impugn the motives of those who opposed invading Iraq. You're right-- Clinton gets it. Do you?

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I get it fine. But I do think that, all things considered, a lot more time has been spent accusing Bush, Cheney, et al of every horrible motive under the sun than vice versa. All we've heard from a significant portion of liberals were screams about "war for oil", Bush's so-called ties to the Sauds, Bush taking care of "unfinished business" for Daddy, and a lot of other hooey. There were the crackpot theories about how "Bush knew" about 9/11. I mean, some very serious questioning of motives.

In return, the worst things I can recall hearing were some conservatives questioning the patriotism of those who opposed the war...accusing them of a "blame America" mentality. Certainly nothing on the level or intensity of the crazy things being said about Bush.

So if you avoid the more obvious implication by turning it back on me and other conservatives, fine. But I don't automatically impugn anyone's motives. I generally try to assess concrete actions and ideas as much as possible. I'm not always successful, but I think I am more often than not.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

I get it fine.  But I do think that, all things considered, a lot more time has been spent accusing Bush, Cheney, et al of every horrible motive under the sun than vice versa.  All we've heard from a significant portion of liberals were screams about "war for oil", Bush's so-called ties to the Sauds, Bush taking care of "unfinished business" for Daddy, and a lot of other hooey.  There were the crackpot theories about how "Bush knew" about 9/11.  I mean, some very serious questioning of motives.

In return, the worst things I can recall hearing were some conservatives questioning the patriotism of those who opposed the war...accusing them of a "blame America" mentality.  Certainly nothing on the level or intensity of the crazy things being said about Bush.

So if you avoid the more obvious implication by turning it back on me and other conservatives, fine.  But I don't automatically impugn anyone's motives.  I generally try to assess concrete actions and ideas as much as possible.  I'm not always successful, but I think I am more often than not.

I've never heard Kerry or other key Dems say this was a "war for oil." As far as "ties to the Saudis" goes, that has more to do with not holding Riyahd accountable, and much less to do with his motives to invade Iraq.

As far as this goes, however, its not hard to make the case that there's an element of that:

Bush taking care of "unfinished business" for Daddy,

And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/

And this in the conservative Washington Times:

Like father, not like son: President Bush, with his father in 2000, has learned from the mistakes of the one-term president - abandoning Iraq and not fighting off Democratic attacks.

Bush aims to avoid father's mistakes

By Bill Sammon

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

    This is the first of three reports based on the new book "Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, John Kerry and the Bush Haters" (Regan Books) by Bill Sammon, senior White House correspondent for The Washington Times.

    

    President Bush is resolved not to repeat what he thinks were the two fundamental blunders of his father's one-term presidency: abandoning Iraq and failing to vanquish the Democrats.

     In one of several exclusive interviews with The Washington Times, Mr. Bush said his father had "cut and run early" from Iraq in 1991.

 ...

    "Freedom will prevail, so long as the United States and allies don't give the people of Iraq mixed signals, so long as we don't cower in the face of suiciders, or do what many Iraqis still suspect might happen, and that is cut and run early, like what happened in '91," Mr. Bush said.

    It was a blunt reference to the first President Bush's decision to stop short of toppling Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein at the end of the Persian Gulf war, even when Saddam crushed postwar rebellions encouraged by the president.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...22703-4851r.htm

Still, my biggest criticism, and I think this is true for most who oppose Bush's handling of Iraq, is that it has been a simplistic theory, badly implemented, and the decision to invade was not primarily driven by the reasons on which it was sold.

This quote from Wolfowitz was telling when he tried to diminish the lack of success in finding WMDs:

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in a Pentagon transcript of an interview with Vanity Fair.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...witz-iraq_x.htm

But Titan Tiger, my man, say it ain't so:

In return, the worst things I can recall hearing were some conservatives questioning the patriotism of those who opposed the war.

Oh, it was nothing. Just questioned their patriotism, that's all.

What is worse? You can hurl a ton of insults at me that I find far less damning. Call me stupid, lazy and fat, but less American because I disagree with a particular governmental policy? Less patriotic? Less devoted to my country because I dare to disagree with you or the President? This is what has made me angriest, because to do so threatens the very fabric of our Democracy. That was Clinton's larger point.

When the crowd began to cheer, Clinton admonished them, saying disagreements with America's leaders were part of the American experience.

"This is thinking time, not cheering time," he said.

"If immediately you decide that somebody who sees a whole new situation differently than you must be a bad person and is somehow twisted inside, then we're not going to get very far in forming a more perfect union."

I supported George Bush after 9/11 and when we invaded Afghanistan. I put a "United we Stand" sign in my yard, even though it violated the rules of my neighborhood association. And then he overtly began to use our struggle against terrorism for partisan gain. He took the greatest opportunity an American President has had to unite us as a people and used it to advance purely partisan political purposes.

Rove: Republicans Benefit from War Credentials

The President's Senior Strategist Gives Advice to Party Operatives

By Mark Halperin

A U S T I N, Texas, Jan.18 — Using unusually pointed language, President Bush's chief political adviser Karl Rove suggested Republicans should run on the message that they are the party who can be trusted to successfully fight the war against terrorism.

"We can also go to the country on this issue because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America," Rove said.

"And we should be proud of the record of our party in doing just that."

Over a carb-heavy lunch at the Republican National Committee's winter meeting in Austin, Rove spelled out the GOP election message for November: "Win the war, protect the homeland, and revive the economy.

By keeping the public prepared for a long war, the president keeps up the necessary emotional and practical support the effort requires, but it has a political benefit too, as Bush's popularity and war-time mantle can be extended into this election year and maybe into 2004, when Bush's respected national security team could serve as actual or virtual surrogates in a possible Bush re-election effort.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Da...ove_020118.html

Few slights are worse than questioning another's patriotism. I have a sneaking suspicion that if someone questioned yours, you'd feel exactly the same way.

BTW, do you really think the intended implication of Clinton's statement was just to defend Bush, rather than to put the whole issue of impugning motives into perspective?

So if you avoid the more obvious implication by turning it back on me and other conservatives, fine.

In a bi-partisan spirit, I will conclude with a quote by a kick-ass Republican:

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Theodore Roosevelt

I can't improve on that.