• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Is Karl Rove attempting to rewrite history?

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
27,091
12,640
136
One of these guys is a bald face liar, Bush or Rove. Rove in an interview says it's the fault of congress for passing the Iraq war resolution to soon. Rove says the White House/Bush was against its passsage in 2002. Here are the two versions of the story, Rove and the White House. You decide, who is the liar?

Rove interview

White House version from their own website

 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
This was just hilarious. Why would he be blaming congress for this? Doesn't he think it's going to end well?
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,563
3
0
Ha Ha!
Karl Rove used to be the most dangerous man to America.
More dangerous than Osama.

Now he is just too funny!
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
This was just hilarious. Why would he be blaming congress for this? Doesn't he think it's going to end well?
Be prepared for a great deal more of the 'Republican Congress's fault' talking point. Even Republicans are running against the Republican Party of the last 7 years:

McHenry vs. Congress
Republican critical of his own party's actions in recent years

 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Turdblossom truly lives up to his moniker. Olberman pointed out lastnight that whitehouse.gov has all kinds of info about the course of events leading up to the war, including statements from Bush urging Congress to pass this legislation immediately.

Pretty silly at this point, guess he's trying to hype his forthcoming "book" which I'm sure will be filled with gems like this.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Why would he be blaming congress for this?
It's against his religion to speak the truth about anything, anytime or anywhere.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,674
482
126
If they repeat it enough times, the American people will believe it.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Maybe Karl Rove is just providing us some Baghdad Bob style amusement. He sounds about as ridiculous.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
That's a terrible lie by Rove after the administration pressured Congress strongly to pass it, timing it just before the election, and lying about how they'd use it.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe Rove and Bill Clinton should team up together to write a historical novel since Billy claims he "opposed the Iraq war from the start," which is also completely revisionist and untrue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22004475/
Unlike TLC's typically dishonest post, here's a fair summary of the issue of how accurate Bill Clinton's claim was.

I rank it as generally accurate, but with some oversimplification. Note, he's not exactly helping Hillary by saying that, since it reminds people Hillary voted for the resolution.

Campaigning for his wife in Iowa Tuesday, Bill Clinton said he "opposed" the war in Iraq "from the beginning."

It probably isn't the most helpful thing he could have said; with the race growing ever tighter in Iowa, the last thing Hillary Clinton needs is somebody reminding Democrats that she voted in favor of the resolution that authorized George W. Bush to use force in Iraq. But is it even true?

The answer, as you might expect, is a little complicated.

Lots of people "opposed" the war in Iraq "from" -- or at least "at" -- "the beginning." Among them was Barack Obama, who appeared at an antiwar rally in October 2002 and said he opposed "a dumb war, a rash war, a war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."

In speeches in 2002 and early 2003, Bill Clinton made many of the same points Obama did -- there should be more time for inspections, more efforts at diplomacy, more focus on al-Qaida -- but he stated his "opposition" in a much more nuanced way.

At a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations in June 2002, Clinton said unequivocally that Saddam Hussein "has laboratories working to produce chemical and biological weapons." He then asked himself -- and answered for himself -- a series of questions about what it all meant. "So would it be a good idea if [Saddam] weren't there? And were replaced by someone committed to a responsible course with regard to weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Would it be a good idea if the people of Iraq weren't siding with him, since he's a murderer and a thug? Yes. Should we unilaterally attack him? Well, that depends."

Elaborating later in response to a question, Clinton said: "First of all, there are all kinds of logistical problems with a full-scale military invasion if that's what we want to do ... But it clearly could be done, and it wouldn't be that much [of a] problem if you could take the resources away from other things and you want to spend a fortune, you could do that. I just believe, looking down the road, the most important thing is to get our priorities in order. I don't have any use for Saddam Hussein. And I've already told you: I think he's got the labs up and going. And he kicked the inspectors out. So he's in violation of U.N. rules. And they are actually doing bad things there; I'm convinced of it. But I think what you have to ask yourself is, in what order do we have to deal with this? He has no missiles to put warheads on that would reach us. The only missile he's ever used [was] on his neighbors ... and he used mustard gas on his own people ... but he fired some Scuds into Israel after he was attacked in the Gulf War. So what I think is, A, let's ... make the most intense possible efforts to build a legitimate peace process and have diminishing of the violence in the Middle East between the Arabs, the Palestinians and the Israelis. B, is look at what our options are, and try to find a way to do whatever we do with as much of a coalition as possible, and not unilaterally. Without giving up the right to take unilateral action if the intelligence indicates it's the right thing to do. That's basically what I think we ought to do. But the most important thing I have to say is hear the right message coming out of the Arab summit, show them that we heard them, emphasize getting a peace process in the Middle East first."

At a speech before the Democratic Leadership Council in December 2002, Clinton said that "Iraq is important" but that "al-Qaida should be our top priority."

As Bush marched toward war, Clinton gave a speech on the legacy of Winston Churchill in England on March 8, 2003. On Iraq, he said that he thought Churchill would advise the United States not to "give up the force option ... because there is a lot of chemical and biological material there. You can always kill someone tomorrow or next week or next month; we can't bring them back to life; we can try one more time to get a schedule for disarmament."

Eleven days later, on March 19, 2003, President Bush announced that war had begun.

In a speech the next week," Clinton said that he expected that "this conflict in Iraq will not last long," and that while people may have "different feelings about the facts of how it came about," it was time to pray for the troops and the president "who has to make the calls."

"This was a hard case," Clinton said. "You could argue this, flat or round, up or down. I personally think it's very important to get rid of the chemical and biological stocks in Iraq. But I think it's also important that America be a leading force for bringing the world together. There are plenty of people out there trying to tear it apart. And so, I wouldn't be too upset about that. We just need to get this business over with, get rid of those chemical and biological weapons, and get back to the business of creating the 21st century world we want."

In the ensuing days and weeks, Clinton said that he "disagreed" with France's decision to stay out of the war and sympathized with Tony Blair's ultimate decision to get in. "What he tried to do was to threaten force but keep the world together so that without war, we could strengthen the U.N., preserve America's alliance with Europe and disarm Saddam Hussein. That's what he wanted to do and that's what I felt was the right thing to do," Clinton explained during a speech in late March 2003. "Blair was then put in the position of deciding, 'Am I going to stick with America, and at least know I disarmed the guy? Or am I going to say, I don't like the way this has played out and not do it and wind up being with the crowd that if they get their way, we'll never disarm him?' He had a Hobson's choice. So did a lot of members of our party. Most of them decided, 'Well, we are where we are. We've got to support the troops. We ought to disarm the guy and then try to get the world community back involved in building an Iraq so it doesn't become a 51st state. We should just disarm him and then get the global community involved in building a peaceful democratic future. The people would be better off with nearly any other kind of government.'"

A year later -- as polls showed that a majority of Americans disapproved of the way Bush was handling Iraq -- Time asked Clinton if he thought the president had been right to invade. His answer:

"You know, I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over. I don't believe he went in there for oil. We didn't go in there for imperialist or financial reasons. We went in there because he bought the Wolfowitz-Cheney analysis that the Iraqis would be better off, we could shake up the authoritarian Arab regimes in the Middle East, and our leverage to make peace between the Palestinians and Israelis would be increased.

"At the moment the U.N. inspectors were kicked out in '98, this is the proper language: there were substantial quantities of botulinum and aflatoxin, as I recall, some bioagents, I believe there were those, and VX and ricin, chemical agents, unaccounted for. Keep in mind, that's all we ever had to work on. We also thought there were a few missiles, some warheads, and maybe a very limited amount of nuclear laboratory capacity.

"After 9/11, let's be fair here, if you had been president, you'd think, 'Well, this fellow bin Laden just turned these three airplanes full of fuel into weapons of mass destruction,' right? Arguably they were super-powerful chemical weapons. Think about it that way. So, you're sitting there as president, you're reeling in the aftermath of this, so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, 'Well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that.'

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for. So I thought the President had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein let us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks. I never really thought he'd [use them]. What I was far more worried about was that he'd sell this stuff or give it away ... So that's why I thought Bush did the right thing to go back. When you're the president, and your country has just been through what we had, you want everything to be accounted for."

So was the war worth the cost?

"It's a judgment that no one can make definitively yet," Clinton told Time in that 2004 interview. "I would not have done it until after Hans Blix finished his job. Having said that, over 600 of our people have died since the conflict was over. We've got a big stake now in making it work. I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn't agree with the timing of the attack. I think if you have a pluralistic, secure, stable Iraq, the people of Iraq will be better off, and it might help the process of internal reform in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. I think right now, getting rid of Saddam's tyranny, ironically, has made Iraq more vulnerable to terrorism coming in from the outside. But any open society is going to be more vulnerable than any tyranny to that."
Isn't it interesting how a liberal web site will typically be this fair and accurate, even taking a little dig about how you'd 'expect' the Clinton statement to be 'nuanced' and need some explanation, while you don't see this sort of post on right-wing web sites that are so typically shrill, simplistic and misleading, with huge omissions about 'the other side'?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,624
23,724
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe Rove and Bill Clinton should team up together to write a historical novel since Billy claims he "opposed the Iraq war from the start," which is also completely revisionist and untrue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22004475/
I was wondering how long it was going to take to bring Clinton into this. CDS is a serious disease, you might want to get it checked out.

(Look, I made a tasteslikechicken post! har har)
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Craig234
Unlike TLC's typically dishonest post, here's a fair summary of the issue of how accurate Bill Clinton's claim was.
Dishonest? Hmmm. Let's a take a look at some previous quotes on Iraq by Billie:

"So, you're sitting there as President, you're reeling in the aftermath of [September 11], so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that. That's why I supported the Iraq thing." ("His Side Of The Story," Time, 6/28/04)
"'Saddam is gone and good riddance,' former President Bill Clinton said yesterday. Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found. 'I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. ... That is what I was always told.'" (Joel Siegel, "W Fought A Good Fight, Clinton Says," [New York] Daily News, 4/16/03)
"I supported the president when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." (Former President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Tougaloo College Commencement, Jackson, MS, 5/18/03)
You lack of knowledge of what Clinton said previously about the Iraq war does not equate to dishonesty on my part. It's just means you were ignorant about what he said.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,624
23,724
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Craig234
Unlike TLC's typically dishonest post, here's a fair summary of the issue of how accurate Bill Clinton's claim was.
Dishonest? Hmmm. Let's a take a look at some previous quotes on Iraq by Billie:

"So, you're sitting there as President, you're reeling in the aftermath of [September 11], so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that. That's why I supported the Iraq thing." ("His Side Of The Story," Time, 6/28/04)
"'Saddam is gone and good riddance,' former President Bill Clinton said yesterday. Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found. 'I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. ... That is what I was always told.'" (Joel Siegel, "W Fought A Good Fight, Clinton Says," [New York] Daily News, 4/16/03)
"I supported the president when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." (Former President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Tougaloo College Commencement, Jackson, MS, 5/18/03)
You lack of knowledge of what Clinton said previously about the Iraq war does not equate to dishonesty on my part. It's just means you were ignorant about what he said.
How did any of those quotes contradict what was said in the long excerpt that Craig provided?
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,623
1,109
126
I find it interesting that the 'but Clinton' excuse is the only thing the hard-right can toss in the face of this.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe Rove and Bill Clinton should team up together to write a historical novel since Billy claims he "opposed the Iraq war from the start," which is also completely revisionist and untrue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22004475/
I was wondering how long it was going to take to bring Clinton into this. CDS is a serious disease, you might want to get it checked out.

(Look, I made a tasteslikechicken post! har har)
Not at all. You see, I'm not trying to make profuse apologisms for the other side like you partisan hacks in here do. Rove was wrong too.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Craig234
Unlike TLC's typically dishonest post, here's a fair summary of the issue of how accurate Bill Clinton's claim was.
Dishonest? Hmmm. Let's a take a look at some previous quotes on Iraq by Billie:

"So, you're sitting there as President, you're reeling in the aftermath of [September 11], so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that. That's why I supported the Iraq thing." ("His Side Of The Story," Time, 6/28/04)
"'Saddam is gone and good riddance,' former President Bill Clinton said yesterday. Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found. 'I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. ... That is what I was always told.'" (Joel Siegel, "W Fought A Good Fight, Clinton Says," [New York] Daily News, 4/16/03)
"I supported the president when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." (Former President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Tougaloo College Commencement, Jackson, MS, 5/18/03)
You lack of knowledge of what Clinton said previously about the Iraq war does not equate to dishonesty on my part. It's just means you were ignorant about what he said.
How did any of those quotes contradict what was said in the long excerpt that Craig provided?
I had meant to post a prediction that the response from TLC would be to cherry pick the quotes that fit his phony claim, and ignore the context/other quotes.

Unfortunately, publishing such a prediction can affect the response, but it was shown true.

His use of selectivity to mislead is not honest. The fact is, you see again and again where Clinton included the phrases such as 'I would have waited for Hans Blix to complete his inspections' to preface his statements. He's walking a line between expressing his views and the tradition of former presidents not gratuitously second-guessing their successors, and the politics of 'support the troops' nonsense and such. Saying things like 'I would have waited for the inspections, but it's his call' or listing benefits to each side, support his claim.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Craig234
Unlike TLC's typically dishonest post, here's a fair summary of the issue of how accurate Bill Clinton's claim was.
Dishonest? Hmmm. Let's a take a look at some previous quotes on Iraq by Billie:

"So, you're sitting there as President, you're reeling in the aftermath of [September 11], so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that. That's why I supported the Iraq thing." ("His Side Of The Story," Time, 6/28/04)
"'Saddam is gone and good riddance,' former President Bill Clinton said yesterday. Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found. 'I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. ... That is what I was always told.'" (Joel Siegel, "W Fought A Good Fight, Clinton Says," [New York] Daily News, 4/16/03)
"I supported the president when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." (Former President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Tougaloo College Commencement, Jackson, MS, 5/18/03)
You lack of knowledge of what Clinton said previously about the Iraq war does not equate to dishonesty on my part. It's just means you were ignorant about what he said.
How did any of those quotes contradict what was said in the long excerpt that Craig provided?
I countered his assertion that I was being dishonest. I was not. Clinton was not "opposed to the war from the start."
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Craig234
Unlike TLC's typically dishonest post, here's a fair summary of the issue of how accurate Bill Clinton's claim was.
Dishonest? Hmmm. Let's a take a look at some previous quotes on Iraq by Billie:

"So, you're sitting there as President, you're reeling in the aftermath of [September 11], so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that. That's why I supported the Iraq thing." ("His Side Of The Story," Time, 6/28/04)
"'Saddam is gone and good riddance,' former President Bill Clinton said yesterday. Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found. 'I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. ... That is what I was always told.'" (Joel Siegel, "W Fought A Good Fight, Clinton Says," [New York] Daily News, 4/16/03)
"I supported the president when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." (Former President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Tougaloo College Commencement, Jackson, MS, 5/18/03)
You lack of knowledge of what Clinton said previously about the Iraq war does not equate to dishonesty on my part. It's just means you were ignorant about what he said.
How did any of those quotes contradict what was said in the long excerpt that Craig provided?
I had meant to post a prediction that the response from TLC would be to cherry pick the quotes that fit his phony claim, and ignore the context/other quotes.

Unfortunately, publishing such a prediction can affect the response, but it was shown true.

His use of selectivity to mislead is not honest. The fact is, you see again and again where Clinton included the phrases such as 'I would have waited for Hans Blix to complete his inspections' to preface his statements. He's walking a line between expressing his views and the tradition of former presidents not gratuitously second-guessing their successors, and the politics of 'support the troops' nonsense and such. Saying things like 'I would have waited for the inspections, but it's his call' or listing benefits to each side, support his claim.
Trying to point out how Clinton would handled things differently is not the same thing as being against the war. Stop trying to muddy the water. Clinton was not against the war from the start as his own quotes show very clearly.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,624
23,724
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I countered his assertion that I was being dishonest. I was not. Clinton was not "opposed to the war from the beginning."
I think that you are taking opposed to mean something different then Clinton said in his interview. While this is certainly Clintonesque parsing to some extent, there is also most certainly a valid point in saying that he approved taking a tough stance towards Iraq, but only invading after the inspectors finished their work.

EDIT: And being against a war in the manner and in the time it was carried out should certainly count as being opposed to it. Again I do believe he is trying to have it both ways, but to say that he is being completely dishonest is also not fair.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe Rove and Bill Clinton should team up together to write a historical novel since Billy claims he "opposed the Iraq war from the start," which is also completely revisionist and untrue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22004475/
I was wondering how long it was going to take to bring Clinton into this. CDS is a serious disease, you might want to get it checked out.

(Look, I made a tasteslikechicken post! har har)
Not at all. You see, I'm not trying to make profuse apologisms for the other side like you partisan hacks in here do. Rove was wrong too.
One truth and one lie doesn't equal 'correct'.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Craig234
Unlike TLC's typically dishonest post, here's a fair summary of the issue of how accurate Bill Clinton's claim was.
Dishonest? Hmmm. Let's a take a look at some previous quotes on Iraq by Billie:

"So, you're sitting there as President, you're reeling in the aftermath of [September 11], so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that. That's why I supported the Iraq thing." ("His Side Of The Story," Time, 6/28/04)
"'Saddam is gone and good riddance,' former President Bill Clinton said yesterday. Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found. 'I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. ... That is what I was always told.'" (Joel Siegel, "W Fought A Good Fight, Clinton Says," [New York] Daily News, 4/16/03)
"I supported the president when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." (Former President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Tougaloo College Commencement, Jackson, MS, 5/18/03)
You lack of knowledge of what Clinton said previously about the Iraq war does not equate to dishonesty on my part. It's just means you were ignorant about what he said.
How did any of those quotes contradict what was said in the long excerpt that Craig provided?
I had meant to post a prediction that the response from TLC would be to cherry pick the quotes that fit his phony claim, and ignore the context/other quotes.

Unfortunately, publishing such a prediction can affect the response, but it was shown true.

His use of selectivity to mislead is not honest. The fact is, you see again and again where Clinton included the phrases such as 'I would have waited for Hans Blix to complete his inspections' to preface his statements. He's walking a line between expressing his views and the tradition of former presidents not gratuitously second-guessing their successors, and the politics of 'support the troops' nonsense and such. Saying things like 'I would have waited for the inspections, but it's his call' or listing benefits to each side, support his claim.
Trying to point out how Clinton would handled things differently is not the same thing as being against the war. Stop trying to muddy the water. Clinton was not against the war from the start as his own quotes show very clearly.
Uh, how Clinton would have handled things differently, when 'handling things' means 'would have gone to war before the inspections completed as Bush did, or would have waited for the inspections completed to try to avoid war', is central to the topic, that Clinton was opposed to the decision to go to war instead of waiting for the inspections to complete.

There's some gray area that Clinton ignores in his statement that can be criticized, as the article I posted points out, but you said - and here's YOUR revisionism as you now backpedal away from what you said - that Clinton's claim was "completely revisionist and untrue", when that's clearly not true.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Craig234
Unlike TLC's typically dishonest post, here's a fair summary of the issue of how accurate Bill Clinton's claim was.
Dishonest? Hmmm. Let's a take a look at some previous quotes on Iraq by Billie:

"So, you're sitting there as President, you're reeling in the aftermath of [September 11], so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that. That's why I supported the Iraq thing." ("His Side Of The Story," Time, 6/28/04)
"'Saddam is gone and good riddance,' former President Bill Clinton said yesterday. Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found. 'I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. ... That is what I was always told.'" (Joel Siegel, "W Fought A Good Fight, Clinton Says," [New York] Daily News, 4/16/03)
"I supported the president when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." (Former President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Tougaloo College Commencement, Jackson, MS, 5/18/03)
You lack of knowledge of what Clinton said previously about the Iraq war does not equate to dishonesty on my part. It's just means you were ignorant about what he said.
How did any of those quotes contradict what was said in the long excerpt that Craig provided?
I had meant to post a prediction that the response from TLC would be to cherry pick the quotes that fit his phony claim, and ignore the context/other quotes.

Unfortunately, publishing such a prediction can affect the response, but it was shown true.

His use of selectivity to mislead is not honest. The fact is, you see again and again where Clinton included the phrases such as 'I would have waited for Hans Blix to complete his inspections' to preface his statements. He's walking a line between expressing his views and the tradition of former presidents not gratuitously second-guessing their successors, and the politics of 'support the troops' nonsense and such. Saying things like 'I would have waited for the inspections, but it's his call' or listing benefits to each side, support his claim.
Trying to point out how Clinton would handled things differently is not the same thing as being against the war. Stop trying to muddy the water. Clinton was not against the war from the start as his own quotes show very clearly.
Uh, how Clinton would have handled things differently, when 'handling things' means 'would have gone to war before the inspections completed as Bush did, or would have waited for the inspections completed to try to avoid war', is central to the topic, that Clinton was opposed to the decision to go to war instead of waiting for the inspections to complete.

There's some gray area that Clinton ignores in his statement that can be criticized, as the article I posted points out, but you said - and here's YOUR revisionism as you now backpedal away from what you said - that Clinton's claim was "completely revisionist and untrue", when that's clearly not true.
Clinton did NOT say he was against Bush's decision and timing to go to war. He specifically said he was "opposed to the war from the start." That IS complete revisionism and completely untrue.

What next? Are we going to discuss whether or not a blowjob really is having sex?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Clinton did NOT say he was against Bush's decision and timing to go to war. He specifically said he was "opposed to the war from the start." That IS complete revisionism and completely untrue.
His phrase is ambiguous - it can fit either that he was against the war in the situation Bush went to war, but he might have been for it if, say, the inspectors found a threat to the US; or it could mean that he was opposed to any war with Iraq, no matter the circumstances. To see which he meant you have to look at other things he said; you don't, you grab on to the second possible meaning not because it's what he said - his other statements prove he meant the first - but because it's a lie with which you can attack him.

His statement is NOT "complete revisionism". He repeatedly said he was opposed to war in various situations - including the one we went to war in

His statement is NOT "completely untrue". To be completely untrue, he'd have to have said he was simply, unequivocally, for the war, period - which is not what he said.

No, what we have here is more typical dishonesty from TLC.

What next? Are we going to discuss whether or not a blowjob really is having sex?
Knowing you, yes - and whaddya know, you just did.

And ignore the fact that the court had given him a legal definition of 'sexual relations' which did not include blowjobs, which he misused to mislead people. Facts are useless to you.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
I'm with TLC on this guys, Slick is inserting his truthiness here and he was wrong to say it the way he did, regardless of his intent.

Lately, he's been hurting Hillary and really just needs to be quiet.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: ayabe
I'm with TLC on this guys, Slick is inserting his truthiness here and he was wrong to say it the way he did, regardless of his intent.

Lately, he's been hurting Hillary and really just needs to be quiet.
So, you're saying that Clinton's statement that he was opposed to the war as it happened from the beginning was *completely* false and *completely* revisionist, not merely fudging?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY