Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama Disputes Bill Clinton’s Take on War Views

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Ethelk2044 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 04:34 PM
Original message
Obama Disputes Bill Clinton’s Take on War Views
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/obama-disputes-bill-clintons-take-on-war-views/


Senator Barack Obama is pushing back against former President Bill Clinton this morning over Mr. Clinton’s apparent statement that Mr. Obama was initially ambivalent about the Iraq war.
According to an item in the gossip column Page 6 in today’s New York Post, Mr. Clinton said at a private fundraiser Tuesday that Mr. Obama was asked in 2004 how he would have voted on the Iraq war resolution of 2002, had he been in the Senate at the time. According to people who attended the fundraiser, Mr. Clinton was said to have quoted Mr. Obama as saying, “I’m not sure,” and then criticized The New York Times for not highlighting that position as ambivalence over the war.
In a statement volunteered by the Obama campaign this morning, Senator Obama said:
“In 2002, I opposed giving President Bush the authority to invade Iraq, and said that a war based not on principle but on politics would lead to a U.S. occupation of undetermined



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. Obama opposed timetable for withdrawal in 2004 and in 2006
Edited on Fri Mar-16-07 04:45 PM by DemKR
Opposed Timetable in 2004

"I'm not somebody who can say with certainty that a year from now or six months from now we're going to be able to pull down troops." - Oct 12, 2004 IL Radio Network

Withdraw by July 1, 2007, on June 22, 2006:


1. The President shall redeploy, commencing in 2006, US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces and conducting specialized counterterrorism operations.
2. The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.
3. Within 30 days, the administration shall submit to Congress a report that sets forth the strategy for the redeployment of US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.

Obama voted...NO to withdrawal within ONE year. (but Hillary is evil)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Barack_Obama_War_+_Peace.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Obama says that he opposed the war in 2002 and continues to today. Where is Gingrich?
Edited on Fri Mar-16-07 04:46 PM by IndyOp
You seem to be commenting on what Bill Clinton said that Obama said... The purpose of the post is for Obama to get a chance to say that Bill Clinton was wrong in ever saying that Obama was "ambivalent" --

“In 2002, I opposed giving President Bush the authority to invade Iraq, and said that a war based not on principle but on politics would lead to a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I wish those words had never come true, but I have stood by them since that day and continue to today.”

Do you have an additional link that will add more information to this discussion about whether Obama has been consistent in opposing the war?

ON EDIT: My reply was to a totally different post than is now shown above -- the edit was major. Previously, the first reply to the OP said (paraphrasing) "Did Obama say that or Newt Gingrich? SHAME on Obama."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. So Bill Clinton is lying? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. You want to discuss Bill Clinton's character and not information about Obama's stance
Edited on Fri Mar-16-07 04:49 PM by IndyOp
on the war? I am not biting. The accuracy of Clinton's statement is to be judged based on artifacts - quotes from Obama before the war started - not based on Clinton's credibility.

On Edit: "can" changed to "want" in subject line to clarify
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Shit's going to hit the fan
Attacking Mrs. Clinton is one thing but when they go after the Big Dawg, they have bitten off more than they can chew. Film at 11:00.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Accusing Bill Clinton of lying was Gingrich's thing...Now it's Obama's n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheConstantGardener Donating Member (264 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Obama did not say that the Clintons lied, died he?
However some of his constituents, and even some other candidates' constituents might say that. Whatever your opinion on the Clintons and the DLC, they definitely are wry politicos. I don't think most of these high-level politicians are beyond lying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Its also Bahrbearians thing too!
Bill Clinton loved this war as much as the Chimp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Oy vey.
:eyes:

I need to grab my boots!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ethelk2044 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Lie
We have to look at who started it. If someone accuses me of saying something Yes, I will attack and attack back hard. I realize Bill is Bill and many people respect him. However, Obama will attack him as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. When the big dog needs a
correction I'm sure Obama is up for it. I don't think he's one of these :scared: Dems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Miss Chybil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
19. Perhaps the person who said Clinton said what he did about Obama is lying.
Too many mouths in this chain to put a lot of credence in this story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
22. Hillary voted no too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
2. Full quote
“In 2002, I opposed giving President Bush the authority to invade Iraq, and said that a war based not on principle but on politics would lead to a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I wish those words had never come true, but I have stood by them since that day and continue to today.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheConstantGardener Donating Member (264 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
8. But unlike the Clintons he didnt back legislation that launched the war
From Clinton's official policy of "regime change" and constant bombings/sanctions to HRC's vocal support of the war (but not how it was run -- the Chuck Hagel criticism if you will), Obama deserves some credit for at least speaking out against it (especially during a primary campaign where he was virtually unknown in 2002 in a climate of great fear).

Of course that doesn't excuse his shameful voting from 2004-2006 against withdrawal timetables, but he's a hell of a lot better than the Clintons on this issue I would say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ethelk2044 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Obama - Video Clinton was Wrong
Obama video which is proof of what he said. Clinton was wrong.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheConstantGardener Donating Member (264 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Say it slowly if you have to: Clinton Lied
The Clintons have always been a very calculating political bunch. You think they're not going to lie to take down Obama, who has the best shot at taking the white house in 2008?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. I would love for the "liar" to be taken
down just once. It's always the person who is telling the truth but is swiftboated that is smeared into oblivion.

The corporatemediawhores were swiftboating Gore before it was invented!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. "best shot," Obama? How do you figure? He doesn't do that well in
Edited on Fri Mar-16-07 07:13 PM by saracat
matchups with the GOP.And before you scream. I don't have a dog in this fight yet anbd I am NOT a fan of Hillary's. I think Edwards and Richardson did better in the GOP matchups .Just sayin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheConstantGardener Donating Member (264 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. The GOP has a horrible chance of winning period in 2008
And Obama doesn't have the hate cult that Hillary has or the lack of actually even being a government official like John Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. I follow polls pretty closely and
Obama and Edwards generally do better than HRC against Weathervane McCain, Dame Rudy and Multiple Choice Mitt. I should note that Dame Rudy constently beats them all. ANy poll with the "2nd tear" candidates is useless since no one knows who RIchardson or Huckabee etc is. Rasmussenreports.com has a lot of info. They were the most accurate pollster in 2006.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Very nice! If it had come to an up or down vote I would have voted "ney" -
following our Senior Senator. I love video!

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rebel with a cause Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
20. First of all the NY Post is a rag and I hope this is another of their
underhanded trying to cause trouble bits of reporting. If what they say is true about what Clinton said, I will have to say it does not go along with what I heard Obama say in 2004.

Obama may have said that he did not want to say anything bad about his fellow democrats, but he never to my knowledge said that he did not know how he would have voted, and I believe I saw him speak at least six times. He said he was against the war, had been from the beginning and remained unchanged.

Like I posted the other day, he also campaigned with Max Cleland when Max campaigned for Kerry. They both took it to bush and to the war. And like I also posted the other day, Obama would not have voted for the power to go to bush to start the war because Durbin did not and there is a connection there. Both men were mentored by our late Senator Paul Simon, and they are both cautious in Washington politics.

OTS: fans of Simon, his daughter Sheila is running for mayor of Carbondale here in Southern Illinois and she was top vote getter in the primary. Their republican now mayor must be a little afraid of her, because going into the town there is a large sign, the size of a billboard, with his name, party and that he is running for mayor. Never saw one that big, even when Keyes was running against Obama, and they were pretty big. What is it with these republicans and their need to show off their big signs. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MBS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. here are the links to the original Clinton quote from TPM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013101.php
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/03/ob...

Also, since a lot of the comments here seem unclear as to who did or did not vote for a withdrawal timetable (Kerry-Feingold amendment ) In June 2006, here is the roll call vote. I've listed here the votes of former, current, and possible presidential candidates (yes that's, right: Biden, Clinton, Dodd AND Obama all voted AGAINST a withdrawal date )and all the 13 "yea" votes (the brave, the few, and the proud who voted for a defined withdrawal date). Folks, Kerry (and Feingold) deserve real credit for putting forth this amendment in June 2006, and sticking to their guns and continuing to press their point over the last 8-9 months until most of the rest of the Dems in the Senate caught up.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_2.htm
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00181

Kerry Amdt. No. 4442 to S. 2766;

Statement of Purpose: To require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror.
Vote Counts:
YEAs 13
NAYs 86
not voting: 1

Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Yea


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ethelk2044 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Obama
He was right the Case was not made. Bush wanted a war. They gave him a white slate to do whatever he wanted.

''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rebel with a cause Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. I don't know which point I should address first, so here goes.
As far as Clinton is concerned, I think Bill should have kept his mouth shut. This is not a point to attack Barack on, he was going out of his way not to attack the democratic candidates in 2004. But he did go on to question why all of congress did not ask the questions that needed to be asked, and Hilary was there and maybe should have asked the questions. Just a thought that Bill should have thought of when he wanted this looked at.

Point 2, I am surprised that Barack did not vote on this the same as Durbin, which he usually does. I don't know why he did not, if there was some reason we do not know, I don't know. But since none of them did, I guess that it is a wash on this one. I will say nothing more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MBS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. he must be asked to explain his vote just like everyone else
. . .especially since he's making a big point in his campaign about being clearly against the war in 2002, before he came to the US Senate. Once in the Senate, it's seemed to me his votes and comments on foreign policy became more more cautious/conservative (vote against Kerry/Feingold amendment, vote to confirm Rice. . . etc). So he should be asked to explain himself.

That's what campaigns should be for - to find out answers to these questions. In case you're wondering about my hidden agendas, I don't have any favored candidate in this race at this point. The only strong feelings I have about it are about the 2008 race itself, which I hate on every level: the bizarrely accelerated pace, the moving up of the primaries so that most are now all bunched into February (just a terrible idea), the money, the hype, the sniping, the shallow-as-usual media. Look, I like Obama. In fact, if I were forced at gunpoint to make a choice among current candidates right now, I'd most likely vote for him. But I also worry about his lack of experience and track record, and I believe strongly, especially given the dire state of our country right now, and the number and seriousness of problems to be addressed, that every presidential candidate needs to be vetted and road-tested in every possible way. That's why this race disturbs me so much. Candidates can't be adequately road-tested when voters make their primary decisions 9 months before the general elections and at least 5 or 6 months before the party conventions: it's just nuts. Candidates can't be adequately road-tested when, even this early in the race, their only contact with voters is large rallies, fund-raisers, and staged photo-ops. They SHOULD be meeting voters one-on-one, right now, interacting with them, giving unscripted answers to unscripted questions. If this one-on-one, up-close-and-personal campaign stage doesn't happen, we never have a chance of knowing who we're voting for.

Bottom line: ALL candidates should be asked to explain themselves, their record, and their detailed plans for the country. That's what campaigns are for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rebel with a cause Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. While I agree with you on some things
I disagree about the primaries. In 2004, the nominee was decided before most of us even had a chance to vote in a primary. Some of us did not get to vote until months after we all knew that the ticket would be Kerry/Edwards, a ticket that I did not like it all. When my primary happened, I voted for my candidate anyway. When the election came about I voted for the democratic ticket with resentment because they were not the people I wanted to represent me. My attitude of "anyone but bush" was enough for me, but it was not enough for a lot of people who usually voted democratic down here. Kerry still carried our state, but surprisingly he did not carry some counties that Obama did. This time I am glad that the candidate decision will be made by more than a few small states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
27. Barack Obama, October 26, 2002, at the Federal Plaza in Chicago
Edited on Sat Mar-17-07 12:01 AM by never cry wolf
Unequivocally against the war before the fact...

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

snip---
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

------------
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda


more---> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
30. There is no disputing the fact that if elected President, Hillary will continue the war in Iraq
perhaps with John Negroponte's El Salvador option that the Pentagon is now discussing as an option if the "surge" fails, as it seems to be doing.

Published on Thursday, March 15, 2007 by the New York Times

If Elected... Clinton Says Some G.I.’s in Iraq Would Remain

by Michael R. Gordon and Patrick Healy


WASHINGTON — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of “bringing the troops home.”

She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0315-02.htm

Published on Friday, March 16, 2007 by The Progressive

Salvador Option Surfaces Again

by Elizabeth DiNovella


During Bush’s “social justice” tour of Latin America, he didn’t stop in El Salvador, a nation sorely needing some social justice. His military planners, though, had the small Central American country on their minds.

The same day Bush talked about the U.S. being “generous and compassionate” on his Latin American tour, Pentagon officials and military consultants discussed a fallback strategy for Iraq based on counterinsurgency tactics used in El Salvador.

The U.S. government spent millions of dollars to support the Salvadoran military throughout the 1980s as part of its Cold War strategy of propping up anti-Communist forces. Reagan also sent fifty-five Green Berets to train Salvadoran troops, led for several years by James Steele.

<snip>

And James Steele is back prosecuting another counterinsurgency conflict, this time in Iraq.

But the similarities between U.S. military involvement in Iraq and El Salvador don’t end there. In order to circumvent Congressionally mandated limits on the number of U.S. military personnel on the ground, the Pentagon outsourced the work to private contractors. Some of the same private military contractors, such as DynCorp, now hold contracts for security work in Iraq.

The use of paramilitaries and mercenaries led to the deaths of thousands of people in El Salvador. This is not a decent option for the people of Iraq.

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0316-29.htm

Published on Thursday, March 15, 2007 by the New Statesman/UK

The Liberal War on Democracy

by John Pilger


When you see who is controlling the means of production here, when you see who is controlling the newspapers and periodicals, and the TV stations, from which most Americans take their news, and when you see how the so-called war on terror is being conducted, you begin to understand where we are headed. It's quite something that the nuclear threat today should be seen first and foremost as coming from the United States of America and Great Britain."

McGovern was the author of the president's daily CIA intelligence brief. I interviewed him more than three years ago, and his prescient words are as striking today as Cockburn's revelation of Rumsfeld's secret life is illumin ating. His description of fascism within a nominally free society recalls George Orwell's warning that totalitarianism does not require a totalitarian state.

The lies that have caused this extremely dangerous time are understood and rejected by the majority of humanity. This was illustrated vividly on 15-16 February 2003 when some 30 million people took to the streets of cities around the world, including the greatest demonstration in British history. It was illustrated again the other day in Latin America, which George W Bush on tour sought to reclaim for America's lost "backyard".

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0315-29.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
31. The source is Curtis Sliwa
From the NY Post gossip column:

"At a fund-raiser Tuesday night at the Trump World Tower apartment of mortgage mogul Keith Kantrowitz, the former president spoke for two hours to a select group that had contributed the maximum $2,300 to Hillary's presidential campaign, and much of his talk was devoted to attacking the Times.
"He said his wife wasn't getting a fair shake from the Times," said Curtis Sliwa, the WABC Radio host, who was there as a guest.
"Clinton said the Times is attacking Hillary because she won't apologize for her vote on the war in Iraq," Sliwa said.

Clinton focused on the fact that three years ago Obama was asked how he would have voted on the Iraq war if he'd been in Congress at that time.
"And Obama said, 'I'm not sure,' " Sliwa recalled.

------

This is absurd. Sliwa tells a Post gossip columnist about what Bill said in a billionaire's apartment, at a Hillary fundraiser, about what Obama was allegedly overheard saying three years ago, but which Obama says in inaccurate? Is that the story?
And Clinton wants the Times to report this nonsense?

Spreading rumors may amuse the rich folk at Mr. Kantrowitz's mansion-in-the-sky cocktail party, but the Times is going to want some corroboration.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC