Political Punch

Simple question. Was the nation better off when Clinton left it? Or will it be better off when Busch lwaves it. We are at war, that we started. Our economy is in trouble, and more of the world hates us.

Stop it! Enough of this pathological lieing by the Clinton's. We had 8 miserable, embarrassing, scandal-packed years with those 2 liars, and enough was enough long ago. How anyone with a braincell would want Hillary "leading" a poodle, let alone our country, is beyond the scope of reality in anyone's world. If Hillary and the liberal media say she's going to make every American a millionaire her first 10 days in office, would you believe that too? SHE IS A LIAR, and her "loving husband" is her lieing lapdog. There is no marriage, and never has been. Wake up, and stop being led around like blind sheep to the slaughter.

If you use your "Find function" with the phrase "Congress for authority" it will automatically scroll down to sentence.

I read the speech on the Clinton web-site that was linked to this article and I did not see the quote that was attributed to him where Clinton said, "I supported the president when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

Perhaps I missed it or the there is a bad link.

DKNY, point well taken! When Bill Clinton said, "I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers." I was taking him at his word...Oh! Stupid me! I forgot, his word isn't worth anything!

What do you know about Bill Clinton's charitable giving? Perhaps he already donates that and more to charities even you would approve. I don't know and neither do you.

DKNY, it is true that President Clinton lied about "sexual relations." But he ALSO "lied" about WMDs. In fact, he bombed Iraq between Dec. 16-19, 1998 as an attempt to degrade Iraq's ability to manufacture and use weapons of mass destruction.

There is one aspect of Bill Clinton's remarks, the other day, that has received little coverage. He is still so upset that the Bush tax cuts prevented him from supporting the troops. Why does he have to wait for his taxes to be raised? All he has to do is write out a check for the amount he feels he is undertaxed and make it out to any charity associated with the military.

Maybe true, old wife, but Clinton's "weasel words" were "sexual relations," while Bush's were "yellowcake," "WMD," and "mission accomplished." Sign me up for the Oval Office hummer (figuartively, of course) any day.

The Internet has changed everything since Bill was in the White House. The only people who aren't botheredt outright lies like Bill's are those who want to believe them or those who don't care, like the Clinton supporters. The "narrative", the con, is what's important.

Bill and Hillary continue as always-"weasel-worders"

This is a disaster for Hillary. No objective person really believes Bill about this or most anythign else, but that he has said it, Obama can make a very effective argument that he and Bill each were against the war, but Hillary did not have the judgment and courage to be against it.

Jake-It must have taken a lot of courage for you to have written this article.I must say you are a good man!

What is remarkable is that contary to conventional warfare, President Bush chose to run a war, build a nation and manage reconstruction all at the same time. I personally considered this a mistake, preferring that we had just gone in and given our full attention to fighting the war first. Then worrying about reconstruction and nation building after a complete military victory had been declared. But I certainly understand why Bush chose this route -- an attempt to lessen the criticism of going to war by Iraq's neighbors. If the current security progress continues, and if the Iraqi government can finally get its act together and pass the key pieces of legislation aimed at promoting national reconciliation, we may actually start seeing a major draw-down of our troops beginning in the Spring. Should that come to fruition, and should the renewed Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative result in the formation of a free, democratic state of Palestine, President Bush will be hailed as a genius. And if this were to occur before next year's election, it will be a devastating blow to the Democrats.

That Bubba told that crowd that he was opposed to the war is not that big a deal: he has an insecure narcistic personality and will say anything to make the crowd love him. They were anti-war and always had been anti-war therefore HE was antiwar and always had been anti-war, no matter what he was quoted as saying in those pesky newspapers at the time.

His problem is that he forgets that he's being recorded for a broader audience. The lie he tells one audience won't always work for another and he trips himself up. Constantly, because he lies constantly.

I see lots and lots and LOTS of people describe the war as "disastrous". In what way? Record low casualties. Quick and decisive military victory at the beginning. Most insurgencies take 10 years to go down and this one looks to be headed south in less than half that.

Expensive? Yeah. That part I don't like...only time will tell whether it was worth it. The rest seems pretty great compared to any other war in history, though.

Jason O: That is the most deluded post I've ever read.

Oh come on DKNY, give Hillary at least partial credit. One of the few important votes Hillary got right the first time was the vote for war with Saddam. That she tried to bail out on her vote years later when the going got tough is typical Democrat behavior. The only Dem with a pair that knew he was right from day one and stood firm is Lieberman. History will be kind to Lieberman. Many other Dems? Not so much. Hillary would look alot better in the terms of the general election had she stood firm on the war when she had the chance and obligation to do so. Instead, she curled up into the fetal position which is the Dems natural configuration in terms of an aggressive national defense. the Repubs will win in 2008. Mark my words.

Not only was Bill "not protesting" the war at the time, he was for it. 100%. It's easy to look up.

If current trends continue, (i.e., Al Qaeda stays crushed and the Iraqi national congress makes progress on key issues) everyone will be for the Iraq war within 4-6 months.

Here's how it will sound in Spring/Summer 2008:

"I (candidate X) and all Americans salute the American military and the Iraqi patriots who overcame the incompetence of Rumsfeld, Paul Bremer and President Bush's failed strategy."

Bill and Hillary are such liars! Bill Clinton was not against the war in Iraq! I hope the Democratic party wake up and realize that america does not need more of the clintons. Go Obama!

DKNY, you wrote: "I don't really care what Bill Clinton says about his views on Iraq back in 2003, since he is not running for office." Actually Bill Clinton is running for office -- just not an elected office. If Hillary Clinton is president, she will likely appoint Bill as either Ambassador to the United Nations or possibly even Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton stated the other day, "I can certainly tell you that I intend to be very very vigorous diplomatically."

Now as for what Bill Clinton actually said back in 2003 and even as early as 1998, many of the anti-war crowd continue to hollar that Bush "lied," but give Bill Clinton and his fellow Democrats a total pass for telling the same "lie." And now Bill Clinton is lying about his original stance on Iraq in order to convince the anti-war Iowans to vote for Hillary in the Iowa caucus. This is continued proof that not only Hillary but Bill Clinton will say ANYTHING to get Hillary Clinton elected.

What is happening is Hilary is using Bill to play both sides of an issue, she figures if Bill takes the opposite side then some people will overlook her indecisiveness because there are a few people that will vote for her to get Bill back in the Oval Office, (I doubt any are interns thou).

If Bill was against going to War why did he in 98 look for congress approval to remove Hussien and scream about the WMD's himself.

That can't help what is already either a perceived or actual slide in support. She is trying to turn it around though:

Hillary Joins Borg Collective

I don't really care what Bill Clinton says about his views on Iraq back in 2003, since he is not running for office.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has an albatross to deal with. Her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq was wrong then and it has proved to be disastrous both for the United States and, perhaps ultimately, for her Presidential aspirations. And no amount of explaining can make that vote go away.