Monday, September 19, 2005
I've seen a lot of bloggers talking about this story. Like the title says, are you really surprised at this? I mean, he is a Clinton. They're the most opportunistic people on the face of the planet. They do and say whatever they feel they need to get what they want. They'll look you in the eye with a smile while reaching around to jab the knife in. I admit, he's done a damn good job at making himself look good, hell, I fell for it, but that's all it is. A job. And the American people were the marks.
We Have Every Right To Dream Heroic Dreams.
Those Who Say That We're In A Time When There Are No Heroes, They Just Don't Know Where To Look.


Anonymous said...

How is this opportunism? He's only saying what the majority of Bush's opponents say - that he jumped into the Iraq war without support and undermined his own international support base.

And for the love of Pete, Clinton said exactly what you've been saying about Katrina. Let me quote the article here:
On Hurricane Katrina, Clinton faulted the authorities' failure to evacuate New Orleans ahead of the storm's strike on August 29.
And he blames the head of FEMA, not Bush.

Similarly, he voiced concern over the ridiculously high federal deficit... which just about everyone concerned with the US budget has been doing.

So what's this tripe about him being "opportunistic"? He barely took a swing at Bush at all!

Christopher Lee said...

My fault, I should have read the story. What's posted there isn't the whole Clinton piece. He launched into a diatribe about how Bush went into Iraq before UN inspections were completed completely reversing his prior statement he made in June of 2004. He also went into a bold face lie about how Bush had cut some sort of program that was helping the poor, when in fact he hadn't. That under Bush blacks are suffering more than under Clinton. Lie. Here's the simple facts.

Under Bush:

Black homeownership is up 2%

Poverty spending is up

Educational spending for the poor is up

Poverty rate halfway though Clinton's
second term was 13.7%, under Bush's it's 12.7%

Federal tax revenues are up

And Clinton's organ grinding monkey, Stephanopoulos, didn't even attempt to challenge him on his lies.

Anonymous said...

Well he did go into the war before the weapons inspections were completed.

And would that be the $2.5 tril. set aside for Social Security that Bush promised he wouldn't touch but spent within the first year of his presidency, or the cuts to actual Social Security benefits, or the cuts to housing assistance, or the cuts to heating assistance, or the food stamps cut, or the cuts to Medicaid or...?

As for the rest you claim, anti-poverty spending is actually down - it's the only area Bush's been cutting. Similarly, employment rates are down, as are average wages. Black homeownership may be up - but so is the black population. And no, federal taxes are up from the paltry rate they'd been dropped to by Bush's tax-cuts-for-the-rich, they're not up compared to Clinton.

To quote a recent article:
"The federal government runs various programs designed to help the poor. That set of activities has been made uniformly less generous under the period of Republican rule. And they haven't been made less generous thanks to broad, across-the-board spending cuts. Virtually nothing has been cut except anti-poverty spending."