April 16, 2003
MAY HE LIVE TO BE A THOUSAND:
Clinton blasts US approach to international affairs (AFP, Apr 15, 2003)Former US President Bill Clinton blasted US foreign policy adopted in the wake of the September 11 attacks, arguing the United States cannot kill, jail or occupy all of its adversaries."Our paradigm now seems to be: something terrible happened to us on September 11, and that gives us the right to interpret all future events in a way that everyone else in the world must agree with us," said Clinton, who spoke at a seminar of governance organized by Conference Board.
"And if they don't, they can go straight to hell."
The Democratic former president, who preceded George W. Bush at the White House, said that sooner or later the United States had to find a way to cooperate with the world at large.
"We can't run," Clinton pointed out. "If you got an interdependent world, and you cannot kill, jail or occupy all your adversaries, sooner or later you have to make adeal."
In the thumbsuckers when he was leaving office, reporters speculated about how influential Bill Clinton could be, such a young and popular ex-President with a penchant for the limelight; his pronouncements could continue to shape our politics long after he his administration... Well, it's been almost two and a half years now and he hasn't said a single thing that's mattered. Now, as if to demonstrate his own insignificance, he proposes cutting deals with our adversaries? On what exactly do people base the case for his political genius? Posted by Orrin Judd at April 16, 2003 9:39 AM
Think about Ronald Reagan's term in office. Replace Mr. Reagan with slick willie.
What would the world look like today?
Comrade, the historical dialectic does not allow for history to be other than as it was.
By the way, I'm not sure that I've seen a Democratic satire of current security policy with which I disagree. "Our paradigm now seems to be: something terrible happened to us on September 11, and that gives us the right to interpret all future events in a way that everyone else in the world must agree with us . . . . And if they don't, they can go straight to hell." I got no problem with that.
Clinton's skill was being a shrewd political operator, something which Gingrich probably realised too late.
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at April 16, 2003 11:28 AMI argued in the 90s with the democrats/liberals I know that Clinton was a horse's patoot to no avail. Lately, as he keeps opening his mouth, they are beginning to agee with me.
Posted by: AWW at April 16, 2003 11:43 AMAWW:
Assuming that's his mouth.
You're all missing the point: He's on the take from Rove. Don't you get it? No Democrat in his right mind -- especially an allegedly centrist Democrat, who allegedly restored the country's faith in Democrats' ability to handle national security, and who is easily the most visible Dem in the country -- would do something like this, essentially knocking the whole party back a couple of decades.
All I wanna know is, how much is he being paid?
At least he's consistent. Mr. Clinton has clearly angled for and promoted the idea of an era where the US is not the biggest power on the block
openly. So, gutting the military and selling secrets to China are just preparatory acts of 21st century peace.
I think most of our enemies would agree with Bill. A weaker America is just what we need.
At least he's consistent. Mr. Clinton has clearly angled for and promoted the idea of an era where the US is not the biggest power on the block
openly. So, gutting the military and selling secrets to China are just preparatory acts of 21st century peace.
I think most of our enemies would agree with Bill. A weaker America is just what we need.
I can't believe Clinton would be this petulant/stupid to make a comment like that in New York without some alterior motive. Personally, I think it's part of a "good cop, bad cop" strategy he and Hillary are playing on the Iraq war.
Remember, Hillary's voting record in the Senate on the Iraq issue has been almost uniformly with Bush, which in the long run is good for her nationally, either in 2004 or certainly 2008, when 99.9 percent of the rhetoric will be forgotten and only the actual voting record will resonate with the public, the same way Gore used his Gulf War vote in 1991 to help Clinton in the 1992 election.
So while the missus is seemlingly "going off the reservation" to the hard-core Democratic left voters and casting votes they would never let another presidential hopeful get away with (Liberman), Bill can come in and make statements like this, which are really a wink and a nod to the faithful that "She may be voting like that, but she (we) don't really mean it."
And Reupblicans can try and call Clinton on these comments in the future, but she'll have the voting record to (in their eyes) hopefully negate the problem.
It was too much to hope Clinton would depart the scene after he left the White House. Given his failed foreign policy record does anyone besides Peter Arnett take this man seriously any more?
Posted by: Thomas J. Jackson at April 16, 2003 8:30 PMAny day now Hillary will shoot him for not keeping his mouth shut. If BJ would just lay low for a while most people would forget why they hate him, and he would get another chance. Just look at what Nixon did. He stayed out of sight of the media untill the hatred died down, and then came back as a respected senior statesman.
Posted by: scooterboy at April 16, 2003 8:41 PMPage Six of the Post had a tidbit about how Bill is holed up in Westchester scribbling away at his memoirs, while Hill is in Georgetown doing the same. Can't wait for the book tours...
Posted by: oj at April 17, 2003 7:59 AMI agree that Clinton's 'brilliance' is pure press-agentry..
paraphrasing Ms. Noonan's comment : 'if he's so brilliant, it must have taken a real effort of the will to talk for 11 years and never say anything intellectually interesting...'
Jon:
That's the remarkable thing--other than one speech at a black church (maybe for MLK Day?) I can't recall a talk he gave that made you want to read it afterwards. George Bush is judged to be challenged by the English language, yet he's given 6 or 8 that you can refer back to ands be rewarded (Convention, Inaugural, the two after 9-11, the Palestinian speech in the Rose Garden, the past two State of the Unions, etc.).