Bill Clinton defends Lieberman's Iraq stance

[Sam Odom]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/07/14/bill_clinton_defends_liebermans_iraq_stance_1152922213/

HARTFORD, Conn. --Former President Bill Clinton is sticking up for U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman and his support of the Iraq war. Clinton, who spoke at an Aspen Institute conference last week, questioned why Democrats in Connecticut are focusing on ousting a fellow Democrat, Lieberman.

Lieberman faces a stronger-than-expected Aug. 8 primary challenge by Greenwich millionaire businessman Ned Lamont, who has criticized Lieberman for his support of the war and his perceived closeness with Republicans and President Bush.

"If we allow our differences over what to do now in Iraq to divide us instead of focusing on replacing Republicans in Congress; that's the nuttiest strategy I ever heard in my life," Clinton told the nonprofit cultural organization.

[tularetom]

1. "If we allow our differences over what to do now in Iraq

divide us, Hillary don't stand a chance in hell of becoming president", Clinton told the well scrubbed audience of well to do businessmen

[davidwparker]

7. that's it exactly. His wife is out on the same limb as Lieberman.

So, I'll add what was going to be my next post.

If Clinton said it, it must be true. :sarcasm:

[stepnw1f]

2. No He Doesn't

That's not a defense of Lieberman at all. It's just a reminder to keep an eye on the Prize regardless of differences. And to not fuel the fire for more political infighting. I as a Dem agree and want the Dems to win, because we have to. The Republicans want infighting. They also want other Dems and progressives to denounce Bill Clinton... no way... nice try.

[Sam Odom]

3. "no way... nice try" ?

Take it up with the Boston Globe, it's their headline.

[stepnw1f]

4. I Wasn't Talking to You

I was talking to the one one who chose the title.

[Sam Odom]

5. no problem

IMHO, this is bill's way of giving hillary cover.

[Vickers]

6. I should support the incumbent, even if they aren't the better candidate?

:wtf:

Got democracy? :eyes:

[LUHiWY]

8. ????

Once in the White House they become spokesmen for the shadow govt...or the uncontrollable steam roller?

Seems that way.

[applegrove]

9. Go Bill Go. Some americans are born Israeli hawks. But are dems

in every other way. And they were forced to make a Sophie's Choice on this war in the ME. It is totally predictable that Lieberman would vote as he did. And that is what Rove/Bush want in this next election. And now there is war in Israel, Lebannon..so the choice of to back Israel or not..will become more divisive. Why? Cause it is election season for the GOP.. and the world burns... and people will be wedged...

ahhhh me loves the smell of napalm in the morning.:sarcasm:

[Donna Zen]

10. A Sophie's Choice?

That would imply that voting for war in Iraq was equal to voting against it. The actual choice was between love of country, and personal political gain. Everyone knew that bush was going to war, and everyone knew that Saddam was not a threat to our nation. Some like Lieberman, and others believed--still do--that a policy of "cleaning the swamp" was the right policy. They are victims of their own stupidity, because the entire concept was flawed from the start.

If bush had been forced to go to the UN with a very split vote from the Senate, he could not have convinced them to play ball. Sure voting for the country held a possibility of personal political risk, but honest Senators in swing states running for office that fall, did their duty.

[ChipsAhoy]

11. Oh dammit!!

I was hoping he had better sense than to defend Lieberman. damn!