Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
RECENT POSTS
- The Health Care Reform Price Tag
- President Obama: It's Getting Hot In Here
- President Obama Continues Questionable “You Can Keep Your Health Care” Promise
- Should They Have Called It The 'Stabilization' Act?
- Welcome to the Garden State, Mr. President
- Snowe Dampens President Obama’s Timeline on Health Care Reform
- Study: House Democrats’ Health Care Bill Pushes Top Tax Rates to Over 50% in Most States
- What's the Rush? Asks Moderate GOPer Snowe
- President Obama's Full Court Press on Health Care Reform
- Obama’s Global Reach via Movie Theaters, Bikes Messengers, Text and Mobile Networks
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
KIDNAPPED!
August 15, 2006 9:11 AM
Sorry I didn't blog yesterday. Rushed to Toronto Sunday night and, as should be no surprise to readers of this blog, US Airways -- for the third time in two years -- lost my luggage. The luggage they made me check because of the national security regulations protecting the public from the lethal combination of Barbasol shaving cream and Crest toothpaste lurking in my Samsonite. And of course, in my bag were both my cell phone charger and laptop computer.
"US Airways, we earn our wings every day." (If by "wings" you mean special awards for being a particularly bad and unreliable airline.) Half the people on my flight lost their baggage. The only phone number I have to find out where my bag is (short answer: no one knows) connects me to a call center in Guatemala. At the US Airways terminal in Philadelphia, where I last saw my poor bag, they are not answering phones. If you see THIS MAN, US Airways CEO Doug Parker, please tell him to release the hostages.
MORE IMPORTANLY, we were in Toronto at the International AIDS Conference, where we snagged an exclusive interview with former President Bill Clinton.

Clinton had lots of interesting things to say, as you can read in OUR DOT-COM STORY, but for political junkies what may be most intriguing were his slams against the GOP on national security, and against Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.
"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 of those in the GOP who argue that last week's terror arrests show the need to continue to have Republicans in power.
"If anything," Clinton said, "I think it raised two questions. 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? Why have we imperiled President 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."
Question two, Clinton said, regards the importance of airline and homeland security. "Why has the administration and congressional leadership consistently opposed adequate checks on cargo containers at ports and airports and why have we been told we can't afford it?"

Then there's Lieberman. Lieberman has characterized his loss last week to antiwar millionaire businessman -- and the raison d'etre for his independent run -- as the result of liberals in the party purging those with the Lieberman-Clinton position of progressiveness in domestic politics and strong national security credentials.
"If I were Joe and I was running as an independent, that's what i'd say, too," Clinton smiled. "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."
Clinton characterized other Senate Democrats who voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war -- includng his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, who may be weighing 2008 presidential hopes, as having another objective. "The other Democrats who voted for that war resolution voted for it to give the President a stick to hold over Saddam's head while the UN inspectors did their job, he said. "And they felt, frankly, let down that the UN inspectors were not permitted to finish and they were worried that we were devoting attention away from Afghanistan and the hunt for bin Laden and al‑Qaeda, which was a huge, immediate threat to our security in the aftermath of 9/11, as we saw when this foiled British plot continues to be."

"So, I don't agree with that," Clinton said of Lieberman's description of his loss. "I don't agree with the characterization that everybody who voted for Lamont voted (against) America's security and the party rejected the whole legacy of my years, I just don't agree with that. That's just‑‑it's a cartoon. It doesn't reflect reality."
"I went up to Connecticut to campaign for Joe Lieberman, because we've been friends for 35 years and because I thought that Iraq should not sever our party," Clinton added, saying he thinks it important "for the Democrats not to let Iraq be the dividing line for our party, because whether you were for it or against it, no Democrats are responsible for the mistakes in judgment which have been made almost constantly since Saddam was overthrown."
More later~
Seacrest out
Jake
August 15, 2006 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (9)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
It's curious that, when all else fails, Clinton's detractors always fall back on his personal life, which was clearly flawed. However, Clinton's personal indiscretions didn't lead to FEMA being totally ineptly led by a crony who couldn't respond to the Katrina crisis. The indiscretions didn't lead to a war in Iraq in which our leaders chose not to properly support the troops on the ground with appropriate numbers and supplies. Secretary Rumsfeld's lean and mean style of war is lean on results and mean to the troops who are risking their lives every day. The indiscretions didn't lead to a loss of focus on the Taliban and al-Qaeda that cost our troops the ability to finish off the primary enemy while turning the world's attention to non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That lie, by an entire administration, was far more damaging than anything Clinton ever said about Lewinsky, and it cost this nation the service of a true patriot in Colin Powell.
Monica, flag burning, gay marriage, religion in schools are all emotional issues that are used by extremists on both sides of the political spectrum to distract from the issues that concern the majority in the middle. So long as the extremists on both sides yell the loudest and get the most media coverage, their issues tend to dominate the process. Maybe this year the focus will change as more politicians think the people in the middle are actually paying attention.
Posted by: Eamon | Aug 16, 2006 7:54:01 AM
Clinton's remarks reflect his hubris. He was totally unaware of the rising threat this nation faced from the Islamo-Facist movement during his terms in office. When he did have the chance to sanction Bin-laden he failed because of his fear of the political it might cause him personally. Mr. Clinton is focused on one thing now: trying to promote his own "legacy" with his own spin. If it weren't so entertaining it might be sad.
Posted by: Keenan | Aug 15, 2006 5:34:07 PM
Excuse me but I recall when Clinton was in office and attempted to bomb Bin Laden, the Republicans were running all over the news media screaming he was trying to deflect attention from the Lewinsky investigation! Maybe if you guys had not spent millions of dollars investigating him from the Day he announced he was running for office until the day he left and even after more attention could have been spent on more pressing issues.
Clinton is right, this administration uses 9-11 and terror like it's an agenda item on their "to-do list", "Oh today we must have a terror plot foiled, even though it happened months ago? Yea, because then we can run all over the country and tell everyone how we are better at protecting them then those gay loving, abortion loving, arab loving democrats".
If they are better at protecting us then why are our borders still wide open, why no inspection of ports, why wasn't Bin Laden the priority,or better yet why did Bush/Cheney etal try and sell off our ports in a sweet deal with the Middle East?? MONEY that's why. Money, Power and Greed, that's the motto of this administration and the Republican party, the other mantra is HATE, spew hate, invoke hate, legislate hate, you name it.
If you don't carry your bible around and wear cowboy boots and hate gays, democrates, arabs, and the media, (except when it's benefiting you) then you must be for the terriorist, for flag burning, for supporting the civil war in Iraq. You must be evil and un patriotic. Sad commentary on a party that claims to be THE MORAL MAJORITY! What exactly is it they are Morally superior on??
As far as Liberman goes, he reminds me of the guy you fire and he keeps coming in every day because he wants to keep being paid and likes the job. He just doesn't have a clue. Him and Rove and Cheney need to get a room together! I can only hope that Bill Clinton will be advising the Democratic party on pulling their heads out of their BUTTS and start acting like they have a clue what's going on in this country. Alot of them have unfortunately forgotten who they work for, just like the Repubs, we need to remind every one of them in November! Thanks Sue F
Posted by: Sue Filutze | Aug 15, 2006 5:22:08 PM
Bill Clinton is right. No Democrat is to blame for the policies and procedures going on in Iraq or Afghanistan. No democrat would allow Bin Laden to run free. No democrat would allow the Taliban to return to Afghanistan. No democrat would make our soldiers fight in a CIVIL WAR.
Joe Lieberman is acting like a spoiled brat. He lost - get over it. I'm sad that I ever voted for the man.
Posted by: connie | Aug 15, 2006 3:26:52 PM
I agree with Lieberman's conclusions regarding his loss in one limited respect: the democratic party has swung discernably to the left. Likewise, the republican party has swung to the right. Moderates have little if any representation. All the more reason for Lieberman to forge ahead with his campaign. Gives the moderates a choice.
As an aside, I'm not sure what the possible basis could be for calling Lieberman a "progressive." Clinton, yes, Gore, yes, but Lieberman?
Posted by: cordelia525 | Aug 15, 2006 1:08:14 PM
bill has NO room to talk as he had 8 years to set up 9/11 thru his policies of looking the other way (or up womens skirts as the case may be)
Posted by: Don | Aug 15, 2006 12:07:50 PM
Incisive interview with former President Clinton, who, as usual, always has an interesting perspective on current events. He makes a worthwhile argument in his points about the Repubs' record on national security, but I'm not convinced other Dems will pick up on it and use it to their advantage. It seems the Dems have problems trying to convey strong, coherent ideas and themes to define themselves in their campaigns. Whether it's due to attention-deficit disorder or something else, the Dems have often simply reacted to Repubs' charges of who they are and what they stand for instead of saying so themselves. Maybe more candidates will define themselves by their own words and actions!
Posted by: chuck | Aug 15, 2006 11:35:46 AM
saw your interview with Clinton this morning on GMA. Nice. I agree with your commentary, very surprisingly direct remarks about Lieberman, but I have to agree. He's doing nothing but what Nader did to the Democrats, which is partly why this mess in office right now. What we need is unity and not dissent in the Democratic party.
And as for your luggage, maybe someday you'll see stock photography of luggage piled up at an airport and you'll spot little Samsonite at the top of the pile and you'll realize this lost luggage episode was not all in vain. Your little gray guy is a star!
Posted by: crazyvirgo | Aug 15, 2006 11:32:27 AM
Former President Clinton has no room to talk. If he had taken care of Bin Laden when he had the chance, while he was President, we probably wouldn't be in this situation today.
Posted by: Joe | Aug 15, 2006 9:30:09 AM
Post a comment

