Be-jeezus! Bill Clinton left this country at peace, prosperous and with a budget surplus. He also left the rabid-right apoplectic for doing such a good job and disproving everything they believe in.

If Bill Clinton advised his wife on alternate Blue Moons, that would be enough to elect her given the monstrous stewardship of the Republican Bush years.

Brave effort, Chris, and generous crediting of others. But I still don't grasp just how this 2fer joint WH tenancy would work.

"Fournier demonstrates that knowledge in a column he penned earlier this week entitled "'Good Bill' vs. 'Bad Bill'"."

I read the Fournier piece. This has been a particularly enlightening episode, about Mr Cillizza. I'm grateful I no longer need to waste time reading Mr Cillizza's columns.

'Who cares about Fred Thompson's wife? Lots of people care about Hillary Clinton's husband.'

I didn't say Fred Thompson. I said Rudy Guiliani. If we are going to talk about the dynamics of a marriage and character and so forth, that one's a real interesting discussion. And I think people deserve to know more about it, because Rudy's relationships, and marriages, and choice of spouses and the way he treats them tell you everything you need to know about his character. And his current wife, a cheesy lowlife goldigger who lived with a number of men, including a criminal. Why do we never hear about that?

And the fact that Rudy called a press conference to announce he was divorcing her, so the tabloids immediately rushed over and asked her, in front of the children, cameras rolling, what was her reaction. Well, she didn't know. She started crying. It was uglier than anything Bill Clinton has ever done.

And Nick, you are right about Clinton and nuance. He wasn't the best president in the wrld, but he was a damn sight better than anyone the republicans are running now, except possibly McCain

Btw--Gore never said he invented the Internet. That was something misquoted by one paper, and then picked up and ran with by every other outlet--because that was the narrative they had chosen for him. They were asked to make corrections, but they all refused. I heard the original quote. It was, "I am happy to have co-sponsored the bill that created the Internet.' Because he actually did.

Now here, we have a candidate in Rudy who is a serial liar besides being a serial womanizer, and the press can't be bothered to fact check anything he says. I ask you once again to read this piece about his business dealing s with the Emir of Qatar, who harbored and protected several of the masterminds behind 9/11--both before and after 9/11, including bin Ladin himself. He's still a client of Rudy's btw.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0748,barrett,78478,6.html

'The contradictory and stunning reality is that Giuliani Partners, the consulting company that has made Giuliani rich, feasts at the Qatar trough, doing business with the ministry run by the very member of the royal family identified in news and government reports as having concealed KSM--the terrorist mastermind who wired funds from Qatar to his nephew Ramzi Yousef prior to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and who also sold the idea of a plane attack on the towers to Osama bin Laden--on his Qatar farm in the mid-1990s.'

I read the "Atlantic" article late last night thanks to femalenick and as she said it was far more nuanced than I recall - much softer than his "Guardian" op-ed. BC thought Saddam should be removed, thought it could be achieved without an invasion, and thought GWB was actually headed in that direction when BC spoke to Fallows.

But the "Guardian" op-ed stands on its own as total support for Blair.

I'll stop, now, and apologize to all for using more than my fair share of digital space.

Bill Clinton in an interview with JIM LEHRER played the middle on July 7th 2004. Please read: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec04/clinton_7-07.html

I think it is outrageous to think that the Bill Clinton opposed the war but didn't forcefully come out against it like Former President Carter did. I think it's an attempt to further confuse voters on the Clinton record... http://www.enewsreference.com

And if you do not remember January, 1998:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- White House sources tell CNN that next week's meeting between President Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair could be a turning point in dealing with Saddam Hussein -- unless the Iraqi president embraces a diplomatic solution to the weapons inspection standoff beforehand.

These sources say no military action would be considered until Secretary of State Madeleine Albright returns from her travels drumming up support for a tough line against Iraq.

Said one official: "The string doesn't run out at least until Madeleine gets back, but it is getting pretty short."

Given Blair's support for the U.S. position in dealing with Iraq, the sources said the two leaders were planning a strong condemnation of Hussein's behavior for their joint news conference on Friday, and that strategy for a military response would be a major subject of their talks.

Also, the official said several senior administration officials have been in touch with key members of Congress in recent days to bring them up to speed on administration strategy.

Stern warnings to Iraq

Meanwhile, American officials warned Iraq of U.S. military might.

Rear Adm. Michael Mullen, speaking from the deck of the USS George Washington, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier stationed about 100 miles off the southern coast of Iraq, said Saturday that if ordered to do so, Navy warplanes could launch continued attacks against Iraq for weeks in a "very precise and devastating manner."

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

Sen. Jesse Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on CNN's "Evans & Novak" that he hopes President Clinton consults Congress before any action is take against Iraq. He said he hopes a military strike wouldn't be used as a "political gambit" to take the public's minds off of other events.

'The window is narrowing'

Speaking earlier Saturday in London, Albright said the time was fast approaching for fundamental decisions on Iraq as diplomacy proving unable to resolve the crisis.

"The window is narrowing ... It looks as if diplomacy is not working," she told a joint news conference with British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook.

In Amman, King Hussein of Jordan on Saturday said in a letter to his brother Crown Prince Hassan, broadcast by state TV, that Iraq should give in to U.N. demands for unrestricted access to search for weapons of mass destruction and take the threat of a military strike gravely.

"The stubbornness in not responding to the demands of the Security Council is a very dangerous misjudgment and will, God forbid, push towards an explosions," King Hussein said.

Harsh words from Iraq

Meanwhile, Iraq renewed criticism of Richard Butler, the chief U.N. weapons inspector. He has been criticized since he gave an interview to The New York Times in which he said that Iraq has enough biological weapons to "blow away Tel Aviv, or where ever."
---------------------------
Iraqi Oil Minister Gen. Amer Mohammed Rashid said Butler's interview was "meant to justify the participation of the Zionist enemy (Israel) in the American plot to carry out an aggression against the Iraqi people."

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

Iraq, which denies possessing weapons of mass destruction, ended a three-day guided tour of its palaces aimed at showing foreign diplomats that its "presidential sites" held no secrets.
Presidential palace
The sticking point remains Iraq's insistence that U.N. teams are not allowed to inspect presidential palaces

In addition to the 23 experts in Baghdad for so-called technical evaluation talks on the weapons confrontation, another team of arms inspectors also arrived in Iraq on Saturday. The Iraqi News Agency said U.N. arms inspectors visited 14 sites on Saturday, but it gave no details.

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

U.N. weapons inspectors must certify whether Iraq has eliminated all of its weapons of mass destruction. Such a move is needed before U.N. sanctions, imposed on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of neighboring Kuwait, can be lifted.

Albright tries to drum up support

Albright flew to the Middle East on Saturday to line up Arab support for what could be a British-U.S. attack on Iraq.

Also, she was to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

A factor in the crisis is the fear that Baghdad could fire missiles at Israel if Western nations make a military move against the Iraqi leader.

That possibility, and the chance that Israel would retaliate, compound an already difficult situation for Albright, who wants Arab backing in the event of an attack on Iraq.

Iraq landed 39 Scud missiles in Israel in the 1991 Gulf War, killing 11 civilians. At the behest of the Bush administration, which wanted to Arab support for the anti-Iraq coalition, Israel did not retaliate against Iraq.

U.S. officials would not say whether Albright would ask Netanyahu not to retaliate if Israel is attacked.

The United States is pushing for a phased withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank to further Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts. U.S. officials are insisting that pushing for such a withdrawal was not designed to placate Arab leaders who would disapprove of an attack on Iraq.

Hopes for peace continue

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Saturday called for more time to resolve the crisis through diplomacy, as Russian President Boris Yeltsin ordered his special envoy to head for Baghdad for the second time in a week in search of a diplomatic solution.

Annan spoke at news conference in the Swiss resort of Davos, where world political and business leaders were gathering for a meeting.

"Lots of consultations are going on in various capitals and everyone concerned, including the Americans, have made it clear they would prefer a diplomatic solution. Let us give it time. Let us see what happens."

Yeltsin's envoy, deputy foreign minister Viktor Posuvalyuk, will travel to Baghdad on Sunday.

"My mission tomorrow will be extremely difficult," he said in remarks broadcast on Russian TV.

"They (the Iraqis) have made certain proposals. We have to try to get more concessions from them so we can make a package of proposals, which would help solve the problem...," he said.

King Hussein and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak are cautioning the United States against using force in its confrontation with Iraq.

Jordan's King Hussein said strikes against Iraq would harm civilians and set back the Arab-Israeli peace process. Mubarak said in remarks to be published Sunday in the Al-Akhbar newspaper that "the use of force will lead to an increase in the tension."

Correspondents John King, Carl Rochelle and Peter Arnett, Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

nick, thanks for the cite but I cannot open it since I no longer subscribe... .

I am sure this is the correct article - I almost wrote that it was from a Feb. 2003 interview by Fallows.

I did not remember his position as "nuanced", but I also do not see the "Guardian" op-ed as "nuanced". Because I supported the invasion in large part based on Blair's great speech to Commons that I watched on CSpan, I remember BC's support of Blair at the time.

This has probably come up already but just in case not, I would like to invite everyone to join me in calling for the immediate resignation of WaPo's Perry Bacon Jr. for this stupendously irresponsible, ethics-devoid piece of "journalism."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/28/AR2007112802757.html

Mr. Bacon parades the right-wing e-mail lies about Obama being a muslim as if they were a serious allegation that had not yet been disproven without once clearly (or unclearly for that matter) stating that the mudslinging is completely fabricated.

Chris, a special request for you: ask Bacon what the f- he was thinking and let us know how he attempts to explain this in his resignation letter.

I have ceased to pay for a paper copy of the Post due to this in case your money men would like to know.

For those interested in the transcript of James Fallow's interview with Bill Clinton in 2003, the web companion of the 3/03 article that Mark mentions earlier.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/03/clinton.htm

Mark, I have an Atlantic Monthly subscription, so I'll see if I can get the article that appeared in print.

In the meantime, if the link can take you there without logging in - seems to me like Bill Clinton, like the majority of the Democrats who gave GW the authorization back then, had a rather nuanced position.

So while his simplification today seems like hyperbole (or a blatant lie as some contend), the fact is that I don't know any politician who hasn't been guilty of oversimplification or hyperbole -- which result in truth stretching. Have people forgotten that Gore "invented the Internet?"

Mark -- I laughed out loud at your post on the other thread.

And for a moment, I wondered why any of us bothered commenting here?

How many minds will get changed? And how many sharpened?

I agree with bsimon. It's not "good" vs "bad" Bill, it's "Bill" or "no Bill".

I don't care what any HRC supporters say, there is no way she would be where she is if she were just HR.

Claudia, that's why CC has license to write this article. He's not "panty sniffing" -- most presidential candidates aren't married to a former president.

Who cares about Fred Thompson's wife? Lots of people care about Hillary Clinton's husband.

I feel dumber after having to make that point. I wonder about those who don't get it...

Mark, There is a huge difference between compromise and lying. All our lives we compromise, and without it there would be no progress, nor could men live together.

Politicians sometimes compromise; the good ones never compromise their principles. Most of them lie; it's the nature of their job. Don't be alarmed that Bill Clinton is a liar, be alarmed at the manner in which he does it so convincingly. As former Clinton supporter David Geffen said "Everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it's troubling,"

I just ran my "Bill Clinton is a liar" rant by a good friend, an engineer, who said he assumed all pols were liars and did not understand how I, a lawyer who cared about politics, did not perceive this.

I said that I know personally many pols who are not liars. I named them. He said they all compromise. I said I love compromise and think that is how a republic is supposed to be governed. He said compromise makes for lies. I am depressed that he [and I assume, many] think that.

Would Hillary Clinton be better off without Bill's help?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1138

.

Boldest, brashest, liar, liar, liar.

A good Prez in comparison with his successor.

But not one to be emulated.

The charm goes beyond the merely sexual, doesn't it?

I am without words.

From the "best liar" Bob Kerrey ever met, I have found the following from "The Guardian" - and it is consistent with what I remember from "The Atlantic", to which I no longer have web access.

From BC's March 18, 2003 Guardian op-ed "Trust Tony's Judgment"

"Saddam has destroyed some missiles but beyond that he has done only what he thinks is necessary to keep the UN divided on the use of force. The really important issues relating to chemical and biological weapons remain unresolved."

"There is, too, as both Britain and America agree, some risk of Saddam using or transferring his weapons to terrorists."

"I wish that Russia and France had supported Blair's resolution. Then, Hans Blix and his inspectors would have been given more time and supprt for their work. But that's not where we are. Blair is in a position not of his own making, because Iraq and other nations were unwilling to follow the logic of 1441."

"In the post-cold war world, America and Britain have been in tough positions before: in 1998, when others wanted to lift sanctions on Iraq and we said no; in 1999 when we went into Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing. In each case, there were voices of dissent. But the British-American partnership and the progress of the world were preserved. Now in another difficult spot, Prime Minister Blair will have to do what he believes to be right. I trust him to do that and hope that Labor MPs and the British people will too."

Do presidential candidates have to go through criminal background checks and mandatory drug screening? If so when in the election process?

"WHAT "GOOD BILL"?"

I agree, mikeB, although you have to admit he is a damn good politician. And there's a requisite amount of sociopathology that goes along with that.

This is just more of the spin, trying to have it both ways, co-president, etc. etc. They are afraid that she'll lose the first 3 states, and then what?

mark, I think what you might be referring to is this editorial by Ron Fournier: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071128/ap_po/on_deadline_bill_clinton_1

WHAT "GOOD BILL"? At best, he was a lazy President who happened to luck out with a decent economy that Robert Rubin wouldn't allow him to scrrew up too badly. AT worst he was a sexual preditor and he and Hillary used the office of the presidency to hide behind, punishing their victims that had the courage to come forward. History will not be kind to Bill nor Hillary Clinton.

I THINK
that B. Clinton told the Atlantic Monthly in 2-03 that he fully understood the rationale for attacking Saddam and
I THINK
he said, in that interview, that Blair had convinced him of the need to remove Saddam in '98 but he had been worried about the wag-the-dog perception during the Impeachment.

I will dig it up, but this "revelation" by BC that he opposed the Iraq adventure strikes a false note with me.

why do I scare you so much, cc?

'No one in political journalism is better equipped to get inside the nature of the Clintons' personal and professional relationship'

Oh jeezus, more panty-sniffing. Can't you do better than this, CC?

WILL YOU BE DOING A PIECE ON JUDY AND RUDY'S MARRIAGE NEXT?

IN THE INTEREST OF BALANCE, I REALLY THINK YOU SHOULD.

"Fournier details the "double-edged sword of a husband" that Clinton is when it comes to his wife's presidential aspirations."


That sword may have two edges, but without it, she wouldn't be a candidate at all.

.