Bill Clinton Really Believes He Is Running for President. So Sad . . . . . .

The following artile, “Good Bill vs. Bad Bill” by RON FOURNIER, Associated Press Writer Wed Nov 28, 11:09 AM ET, is excellent, and begs the question, “Just WHO does Bill Clinton think is running for president?  Bill or Hillary?  Bill believes that getting Hillary elected will in effect give him eight more years in the White House.  This will make up for the fact that he was “Impeached” by the US House of Representatives.  But I have a tip for Bill, if elected, Hillary isn’t going to let him stay in the White House. DES MOINES, Iowa – As only he can do, Bill Clinton packed campaign venues across eastern Iowa and awed Democratic voters with a compelling case for his wife’s candidacy. He was unscripted, in-depth and generous.  He also was long-winded, misleading and self-absorbed.“Good Bill” and “Bad Bill” (his nickname among some aides) returned to the public arena Tuesday as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton brandished her double-edged sword of a husband to fend off rivals in the Jan. 3 caucus fight.“Ladies and gentlemen,” Clinton told 400 Iowans at the start of his three-city swing, “I have had a great couple of days out working for Hillary.”In the next 10 minutes, he used the word “I” a total of 94 times and mentioned “Hillary” just seven times in an address that was as much about his legacy as it was about his wife’s candidacy. He told the crowd where he bought coffee that morning and where he ate breakfast. He detailed his Thanksgiving Day guest list, and menu. He defended his record as president, rewriting history along the way.And he explained why his endorsement of a certain senator from New York should matter to people. “I know what it takes to be president,” he said, “and because of the life I’ve led since I’ve left office.” I, me and my. Oh, my. Late in his 50-minute address, Clinton told the crowd that wealthy people like he and his wife should pay more taxes in times of war. “Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers,” he said. In truth, Clinton did not oppose the Iraq war from the start — at least not publicly.If the former president secretly opposed the war but did not want to speak against a sitting president (as some of his aides now claim), what moral authority does he have now? And did he share his objections with his wife? She started out as a hawkish  Democrat but is now appealing to anti-war voters.The former president also put his own spin on the history of free-trade agreements under his watch, blaming President Bush for turning the accords into job-drainers. “Say want you want about my trade deals,” he said, “but I enforced them.”Sen. Clinton benefited from her husband’s verbal sleight of hand when he told a long story about a man who credited the former first lady for playing “an independent role in the Irish peace process.” While that may technically be true (Hillary Clinton did travel to Ireland and played host to the region’s political players), an “independent role” is not the same as a “critical role,” and Clinton didn’t bother to explain the distinction.You might be wondering — so what? Clinton won two presidential elections (and five terms as Arkansas governor) despite his “Slick Willy” reputation and habit of self-aggrandizement. He’s not on the ballot next year.  His wife is. And she benefits from his popularity and rhetorical skills. Clinton‘s stump speeches have always been remarkably accessible despite their length and complexity. One reason is that, while he talks without notes, Clinton’s remarks are organized like a neat classroom outline.  For example, on Tuesday he had four big reasons why Democrats should back her: • She has the best policy plans; • She works well with Republicans; • She’s a problem solver; • And she has the best range of experience.  For each of those reasons, he had a half dozen or so facts, anecdotes or arguments to support them — and each of those categories had several bullet points of their own. Clinton navigated this mental outline with the same rhetorical crutches he used in Arkansas and Washington.  He would mention something in passing and promise to get back to it (“I’ll say more about that in a minute”), and he always did.  He would “show” people what he meant rather than just “tell” them (“I’ll give you just one example,” he said before giving two or three).  He gave any impatient crowd members hope that the speech would soon end (“And, finally, let me say … ,” he said at least twice before launching into another topic). What he left the crowds with was the assurance that his wife understands their plight. For a man who convinced so many voters that he felt their pain, this may be his most powerful calling card Clinton can leave to Iowa crowds and his wife.  “You need somebody who is strong, competent and has good vision, and never forgets what it’s like to be you,” Clinton said.  And, no, he wasn’t talking about himself. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071128/ap_po/on_deadline_bill_clinton_1

 

What is Hillary’s Position on Iraq?

Hillary is quoted as saying, “As we do bring our troops home, we cannot lose sight of our very real strategic national interests in this region”.  If, in the future, Iraq becomes a breeding ground for exporting terrorists, as it appears it already is … that is a great worry for our country.

 So, Hillary believes Iraq is now a breeding ground for exporting terrorists and that causes us to have very real strategic national interests in the region.  Where does Hillary believe the terrorists will be exported to, the USA, or some European country?   

Hillary is quoted as saying, “So as we redeploy our troops from Iraq, I will not let down my guard against terrorism. I will devote the resources we need to fight it and fight it smartly. I will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.”

 Hillary will redeploy our troops, but does not say where.  If she means Afghanistan, check a map, it’s not in the “region”.  She will order specialized units to engage al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.  Where, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, where?  Why not Iraq where al Qaeda is still operating? 

Hillary has publicly challenged the president to promise to bring all American troops out of Iraq, and this contradicts a remark she made to Ted Koppel in which Hillary is quoted as saying, if she were elected president, and then re-elected four years later, she would still expect U.S. troops to be in Iraq at the end of her second term.  That’s almost 10 years, is beginning to sound a lot like LBJ.

 This conflicts with numerous statements by Hillary that she will bring the troops home in her first year in office. 

In an interview with the New York Times Hillary stated, “ there is a ‘remaining military as well as political mission’ in Iraq, and, 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.”

 Again, another conflicting statement from Hillary on Iraq. 

When asked how many troops she would leave in Iraq, Hillary replied by, “saying she would draw on the advice of military officers.”

 i.e., she doesn’t have a clue. 

In the MSNBC Democratic candidates’ debate on September 26, Hillary made statements that implied that even by 2012, a full four years after next November’s presidential election, there may be a continued need for American troops in Iraq and that, if elected, she would give White House blessing to that presence.

 Another conflicting statement.  Depends on the meaning of “may”. 

“I will immediately move to begin bringing our troops home when I am inaugurated.  It is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term,” Hillary stated.

 This conflicts with her statements to have all troops out by the end of her first year in office.  

She went on to said, “ there may be a continuing counterterrorism mission, which, if it still exists, will be aimed at al Qaeda in Iraq. It may require combat, Special Operations Forces or some other form of that, but the vast majority of our combat troops should be out.”

 Still more conflicting statements.  Just what is Hillary position on troops in Iraq, and will anyone force her to give a specific answer?