Bill Clinton on Bush uranium line:'Everybody makes mistakes'

[Matt]

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/

Bill Clinton on Bush uranium line: 'Everybody makes mistakes'
Former president accepts explanation on State of the Union

WASHINGTON (CNN) --The White House, attacked by critics for a now-retracted line about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa in President Bush's State of the Union address, has gotten some surprising support from former President Clinton.

"I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying 'we probably shouldn't have said that,' " Clinton told CNN's Larry King in a phone interview Tuesday evening.

"You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president," Clinton said. "I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now. That's what I think."

Clinton had called King to honor his guest, former Republican Sen. Bob Dole, on Dole's 80th birthday.

Clinton's comments took other Democrats by surprise, many of whom have questioned whether the Bush administration misled the public about the threat from Saddam Hussein. The uranium claim was made at a time Bush was trying to rally world support for military action against Iraq and was used to suggest that Saddam was acting on his nuclear ambitions.

Wednesday, some members of the Clinton administration indicated they didn't agree with their former boss's take on the controversy.

"In some critical respects, intelligence was overstated, and it's important for the administration to resolve these questions," said Sandy Berger, the national security adviser under Clinton.

He said Bush needs to have a news conference to fully explain how the claim about uranium made its way into the nationally televised address, despite CIA concerns about the quality of the intelligence.

Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta agreed. Unless Bush appears before the America people, the "drip, drip, drip is just going to continue."

But former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright didn't sound so sure. "The most important thing is to move forward," she said. "I agree with President Clinton on that."

The three came to the Capitol Wednesday to present a foreign policy paper at the request of Senate Democrats.

Clinton also said Tuesday night that at the end of his term, there was "a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for " in Iraq.

"So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'"

Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Earlier Tuesday, Bush's No. 2 national security aide took partial responsibility for allowing the inclusion of the dubious claim in the State of the Union address.

The admission by Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley marked the first time the White House had taken any blame in the matter. An administration official told CNN that Hadley offered his resignation, but Bush didn't accept it.

CIA takes blame
Until now, the Bush administration has said it was the CIA that permitted the shaky intelligence to get into the speech, and CIA Director George Tenet has publicly taken full responsibility, although he reportedly told a Senate panel in a closed hearing that he never read the final draft of the speech before Bush delivered it.

Democrats seized on Tuesday's admission, with Howard Dean -- one of the leading Democratic presidential hopefuls -- calling on Hadley and any other administration officials involved in the flap to step down.

"It is unacceptable for anyone who misled the president on an issue as significant as a rationale for war to continue to retain a post in government," Dean said in a written statement.

Democratic National Committee spokesman Tony Welch suggested the president should be held responsible for the retracted claim.

"First they blamed the Brits. Then, CIA Director George Tenet walked the plank," Welch said. "Now, the Bush White House is dragging former Cheney aide and Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley forward to take the fall for the president's bogus claim in this year's State of the Union address."

Welch added: "Apparently, at the Bush White House, the buck stops everywhere but the president's desk."

Hadley gave his admission to reporters at an off-camera briefing during a moment when the nation's attention was focused on a decidedly different Iraqi story: the deaths of deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay, in a firefight with U.S. troops.

Hadley, who was responsible for vetting Bush's State of the Union address, said he should have deleted the reference to Iraq's attempts to buy uranium because the CIA had warned him months earlier -- in two memos and a phone call from Tenet himself -- that the claim was weak.

Those warnings were made to him before a speech the president gave in Cincinnati in early October, and he said he failed to recall them three months later.

"The high standards the president set were not met," Hadley said.

He said he had spoken with the president about the matter and that Bush expressed confidence in him and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Tenet has said the line in Bush's address was technically accurate because it cited British intelligence, although he said the CIA's own investigation of those same allegations had led the agency to decide that the evidence was inconclusive. Britain stands by its claims.

--Congressional Producer Steve Turnham contributed to this report.

[Ron]

Democrats are pussies. Oh. I've said that before. Sorry.

[Rspaight]

Bears repeating, though.

Ryan

[Ron]

Yeah, they're pussies, all right. Imagine what the Republicans would do with the same issue were a Democrat president--they wouldn't let up until he either resigned or was impeached.

But pussiness aside, what exactly is Clinton up to? Does he want to be some sort of statesman or something? Christ, he sure pulled the rug out from under those Democrats who wanted to press Bush on this issue. In retrospect, I no longer fault Gore for keeping his distance from Clinton during the 2000 campaign. I wouldn't want that prick on my team either.

[Rspaight]

I wouldn't be surprised if he pops up as a game show host or something. Or the center square on "Hollywood Squares."

Ryan

[Matt]

In retrospect, I no longer fault Gore for keeping his distance from Clinton during the 2000 campaign.

Seriously, until now you faulted Gore for distancing himself from Clinton?

[Ron]

In retrospect, I no longer fault Gore for keeping his distance from Clinton during the 2000 campaign.

Seriously, until now you faulted Gore for distancing himself from Clinton?

Yes, I did.

[mikenycLI]

Clinton is just as guilty as Bush, about not doing anything constructive about terrorism during his watch and he knows it, so rather than criticize Bush, and draw FIRE to himself, Clinton is being "nice" to Bush. Self-preservation is a strong, primal, urge for the guilty. Does ANYONE actually think, he is going to admit he made half-hearted attempts to track down Bin Laden, and screwed up ?

If Clinton's remarks took Democrats "by surprise", it was only those naive Democrats that "didn't get it"...yet. They are keenly aware that Clinton is more a liability, in the long run, too. Look at the "distance" between him and his wife, and the poll results on her popularity vis. Bush. It's like the Grand Canyon, these days.

[Matt]

Clinton is just as guilty as Bush, about not doing anything constructive about terrorism during his watch and he knows it, so rather than criticize Bush, and draw FIRE to himself, Clinton is being "nice" to Bush. Self-preservation is a strong, primal, urge for the guilty. Does ANYONE actually think, he is going to admit he made half-hearted attempts to track down Bin Laden, and screwed up ?

If Clinton's remarks took Democrats "by surprise", it was only those naive Democrats that "didn't get it"...yet. They are keenly aware that Clinton is more a liability, in the long run, too. Look at the "distance" between him and his wife, and the poll results on her popularity vis. Bush. It's like the Grand Canyon, these days.

Bush has not been in office as long, I feel being "Just as guilty" is not a completely fair comparison.

I understand why Clinton did that. How is Hillary's popularity vs Bush in the polls?

[mikenycLI]

That Bush has NOT been in office long, has nothing to do with it. 1) It happened on Bush's watch, even though it hadn't been that long at the time, and 2) This Whole Iraqi War Thing, currently, is "cleaning up", for what his father failed, quite miserably, to do in the first Gulf War: that is, completely destroy the Iraqi government from functioning, and violently depose Saddam Hussein.

During the first Iraqi war, Bush Sr., failed those internal Iraqi political elements, that put their necks out, expecting Bush Sr. to assist them in toppling Saddam Hussein, when the coalition forces were speeding through Kuwait. After that first war, when the war was over, one of Saddam's first acts, was to eliminate
...read "slaughter"...the pro-coalition Iraqi freedom fighters. If Bush Sr. went into Iraq to free the country, like he should of had, and NOT stopped at the Iraqi border, this genocide wouldn't have occurred.

Clinton and Bush, like the murderers of Caesar, have washed their hands in the proverbial, pool of blood of 9/11, and share an odious friendship that their relationship typifies and required. They will be forever bound by this compact, and that is why you will hear NO discouraging words from Bubba on Bush, or Bush about Bubba !

[Matt]

That Bush has NOT been in office long, has nothing to do with it. 1) It happened on Bush's watch, even though it hadn't been that long at the time, and 2) This Whole Iraqi War Thing, currently, is "cleaning up", for what his father failed, quite miserably, to do in the first Gulf War: that is, completely destroy the Iraqi government from functioning, and violently depose Saddam Hussein.!

I think the length of thier terms makes a comparison unfair. Yes, I believe Iraq should have been dealt with properly by Bush Sr., he dropped the ball for whatever (presumably lame) reason. Bush Jr. didn't start this and Clinton didn't continue it either.

During the first Iraqi war, Bush Sr., failed those internal Iraqi political elements, that put their necks out, expecting Bush Sr. to assist them in toppling Saddam Hussein, when the coalition forces were speeding through Kuwait. After that first war, when the war was over, one of Saddam's first acts, was to eliminate
...read "slaughter"...the pro-coalition Iraqi freedom fighters. If Bush Sr. went into Iraq to free the country, like he should of had, and NOT stopped at the Iraqi border, this genocide wouldn't have occurred.

And again, I agree Bush Sr. should have taken care of buisiness - I am with you on that. The genocide was a terrible act. Also, at that time he would have got less shit than his son gets for going there now. Then again you can't always win.

Clinton and Bush, like the murderers of Caesar, have washed their hands in the proverbial, pool of blood of 9/11, and share an odious friendship that their relationship typifies and required. They will be forever bound by this compact, and that is why you will hear NO discouraging words from Bubba on Bush, or Bush about Bubba !

Clinton had reasons to get Osama and he obviously failed. So as Bush Sr. could have prevented murder of pro-coalition Iraqi freedom fighters, Clinton could have prevented the murders of 9/11.

[lukpac]

Has the US/Taliban/Pipeline story been updated or reported on lately? I haven't seen anything.

[mikenycLI]

Clinton is just as guilty as Bush, about not doing anything constructive about terrorism during his watch and he knows it, so rather than criticize Bush, and draw FIRE to himself, Clinton is being "nice" to Bush. Self-preservation is a strong, primal, urge for the guilty. Does ANYONE actually think, he is going to admit he made half-hearted attempts to track down Bin Laden, and screwed up ?

If Clinton's remarks took Democrats "by surprise", it was only those naive Democrats that "didn't get it"...yet. They are keenly aware that Clinton is more a liability, in the long run, too. Look at the "distance" between him and his wife, and the poll results on her popularity vis. Bush. It's like the Grand Canyon, these days.

Bush has not been in office as long, I feel being "Just as guilty" is not a completely fair comparison.

I understand why Clinton did that. How is Hillary's popularity vs Bush in the polls?

Matt,

Here's how Hillary is going to do it...from a person who should know !

Courtesy of the new york post.com...

AS BUSH FALTERS, WATCH HILL RUN




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email Archives
Print Reprint



July 23, 2003 -- GEORGE W. Bush's job approval ratings are dropping a point every other week. Most polls now have his support down in the high or mid-50s. Pollster John Zogby has them at 53 percent - a huge drop from the low 70s he was registering just two months ago.
The lower Bush drops, the more likely it is that Hillary Clinton runs for president in 2004. She and her husband cannot permit a Democrat not named Clinton to beat Bush in '04. If one does, she can't run in '08 against an incumbent Democratic president. She'd have to wait until 2012, by which time she would be 65 and out of the White House for 12 years. The weaker Bush gets, the more likely a Hillary Clinton candidacy becomes.

One can imagine the breakfast table conversation in Chappaqua. President Clinton will say "remember how Mario Cuomo decided that my predecessor, George H.W. Bush, couldn't be beaten and didn't run? Remember how I did?"

The analogy will be most on point. Like Hillary in 2004, Cuomo could easily have won the nomination in 1992. By staying out, he left the door open for Bill Clinton much as Hillary may be opening it for another Democrat this year.

But the historical parallel that rings most true is buried deeper in New York and American history. In 1968, Robert F. Kennedy, also a carpetbag senator from New York, resisted running for president against Lyndon Johnson. Convinced that he could not defeat an incumbent chief executive from his own party, Kennedy refused to take the president on. Then, an obscure Senator from Minnesota, Eugene McCarthy, showed how vulnerable Johnson was by scoring well in the New Hampshire primary. Kennedy, seeing his chance for the White House slip away, jumped into the race to challenge Johnson. Freaked, LBJ withdrew a few weeks later.

If Hillary ran, she'd march, almost unopposed, to the nomination. Every candidate but Edwards and Dean is funding his campaign with donors borrowed from the Clinton organization.

Would she run? It would depend on how low and how fast Bush sinks. If he remains in free fall until September and October and his ratings drop below 50 percent, Hillary will be itching to go.



How can Bush keep her out? How can he reverse the slide?

The superficial reason for his drop is the idea that he "lied" to us in the State of the Union speech. The more serious reason, lying underneath, is the drip-drip-drip of casualties in Iraq. Public opinion in the U.S. is not willing to lose lives in pursuit of what Bush once derided as "nation-building."

But the most fundamental reason for Bush's drop is his own success.

Recent polls show terrorism down below 10 percent as a major issue. By his success in facing down domestic terrorism and in winning the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he has done himself out of his best issue.

The solution?

* Focus on the Palestinian-Israeli talks and emphasize that no cease-fire would have been possible while Saddam Hussein was still writing checks to suicide bombers.

* Don't leave Iran to the United Nations or the International Atomic Energy Agency. Intervene directly. Increase financial pressure on Tehran and move its incipient nuclear capacity to center stage in foreign policy.

* Play a more active and visible role in dealing with North Korea. As long as there is a perceived threat to our security from terrorist nations, the American people will never vote for an untested president.

* Don't go on vacation, as much as Bush deserves one. Instead, focus on passing a Medicare prescription-drug benefit and forcing the sides to compromise.

The White House needs to remember that it doesn't have a year to improve Bush's popularity. Hillary will decide in the next four months whether to run.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedc ... s/1275.htm

[lukpac]

Hmm...seems like a whole lot of speculation there. Especially for someone who has said over and over they won't be running.

People seem to be obsessed with what Hillary does and complain that she's some power hungry bitch, but yet most of it seems to be based on "she might" and "there's no way she won't", etc...

And of course, even if she does run, the big question remains: is this country ready for a female president? By that I don't mean "could the country survive?", but rather "would people actually vote for a woman?"

[mikenycLI]

Hmm...seems like a whole lot of speculation there. Especially for someone who has said over and over they won't be running.

People seem to be obsessed with what Hillary does and complain that she's some power hungry bitch, but yet most of it seems to be based on "she might" and "there's no way she won't", etc...

And of course, even if she does run, the big question remains: is this country ready for a female president? By that I don't mean "could the country survive?", but rather "would people actually vote for a woman?"

Luke, He KNOWS how their minds "click", having been a Clinton Family insider since their Arkansas pre-governor and governor days, through the White House. His opinion, is that of the consumate Clinton insider, of which most of them clam up these days, totally. His insight is of value, if even for that.

Bush polarizes people on issues, radically, more than any other candidate...you either like him or not, for one reason, and ONLY one reason is enough.

If the timing is right, she could pull it off, irregardless of the Woman Question. People could become THAT desparate by then, and just, plain, fed up!

Change for the sake of change. It's not the best of reasons to vote for one person, over the other, but circumstances put the voters in this box EVERYTIME !