David Corn runs into Grover Norquist, and is able to check out some Norquist-quality facts firsthand:
Posted by DeLong at July 7, 2004 12:19 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postCapital Games: When we were just on [the Diane Rehm Show], I said to [President] Clinton, [Grover] Norquist claimed that you supported Bush's invasion because you were concerned about Saddam Hussein's WMDs. Is that true?
The moment was reminiscent of that scene in Woody Allen's Annie Hall when Allen is standing on line inside a movie theater lobby and listening to some blowhard in front of him expounding on the theories of real-life media critic Marhsall McLuhan. Allen then produces McLuhan from behind a movie poster, and McLuhan tells the man on line, "You know nothing of my work." After that Allen says to the camera, "Boy, if life were only like this!"
With Norquist squeezed next to him, Clinton said that had not been his position. He acknowledged that he had endorsed the congressional resolution granting Bush the authority to wage war. But, he explained, that was because he had figured Hussein would not have permitted weapons inspectors to return to Iraq without the threat of force. "Hans Blix [the chief weapons inspector] was tough," Clinton said, adding that he had wanted to see inspections continue.
Clinton, who later told Diane Rehm that he had indeed been concerned about the possibility of unaccounted-for WMDs in Iraq after inspections ended in 1998, dismissed WMDs as a reason to go to war. "Paul Wolfowitz tried to get me to invade Iraq," he recalled. In the 1990s, he said, Wolfowitz considered Iraq to be "the biggest problem"--greater than terrorism or the absence of peace in the Middle East.
Being kind to an ideological foe, Clinton noted that Wolfowitz had developed a whole theory about how a US invasion of Iraq would lead to a democratic Iraq and that the existence of this new Iraq would remake the region. Clinton indicated he never accepted this point of view, but it was, he said, a theory worth debating. Referring to the Bush administration's rationale for war, he remarked, "They should have just said that, without the pretext [of WMDs]." It was a polite way of saying the Bushies had been untruthful. After all, who is Clinton to call another president a liar?
With radio station staffers and security people trying to coax Clinton into the studio, our brief interview was over. "Good to see ya," he said in his drawl, and he headed down the hallway.
"That was illuminating," I said in Norquist's direction. I don't recall if he responded. I was too busy writing in my notebook.
This was funny the first 3 times i read it.
It was funny this time too.
I think i would have liked to have a reaction from norquist. But i suppose he is too classy to do a Cheney.
Posted by: Carol on July 7, 2004 12:53 PMGrover is the ulitmate Selfish Republican:
No family and no hopes for one.
Is there anywhere on the web an authoritative compiled list of what Clinton was supposed to have lied about? Other than that stupid Monica thing, of course.
Wing-nut fantasy lists need not apply. Something backed by solid journalism.
Posted by: Alan on July 7, 2004 01:23 PMAlan, if you take out 'solid journalism', you'll have a hundred responses by suppertime.
Posted by: cc on July 7, 2004 01:35 PMDavid Corn writes, "With Norquist squeezed next to him, Clinton said that had not been his position."
Interesting. I saw part of a Clinton interview, and it was my impression that it *was* his position that he supported the "war" in Iraq.
"He acknowledged that he had endorsed the congressional resolution granting Bush the authority to wage war."
So, it *was* his position, after all! Just like I thought!
"But, he explained, that was because he had figured Hussein would not have permitted weapons inspectors to return to Iraq without the threat of force."
In other words, he supported the Congressional resolution only if the resolution was a lie. What an absolutely typical Bill Clinton move. That is *precisely* why I switch channels whenever I see him. I have no idea whether he's lying or telling the truth...and he lies so much that I would never give even money that he was telling the truth.
And apparently John Kerry is cut from the very same Bill Clinton mold. Pretty sick...not something to be crowing about!
Posted by: Mark Bahner on July 7, 2004 02:38 PM"Is there anywhere on the web an authoritative compiled list of what Clinton was supposed to have lied about?"
Do you want lies, or where he said something that was untrue...and has never admitted that what he said was untrue?
Posted by: Mark Bahner on July 7, 2004 02:51 PM"Other than that stupid Monica thing, of course."
And the stupid Gennifer Flowers thing, too?
And also not including the stupid Kathleen Willey thing?
And not the stupid Paula Jones thing either, I presume?
Or the stupid Juanita Broaddrick thing?
You seem a little obsessed with another man's penis if you ask me...
Posted by: unseelie on July 7, 2004 03:11 PM"You seem a little obsessed with another man's penis if you ask me..."
3 of those 4 examples involve *unwanted* sexual advances. In fact, the last one could easily be considered attempted rape.
Of course, when it's Bill Clinton doing the attempted rape, it apparently isn't very important to many Democrats...
Posted by: Mark Bahner on July 7, 2004 04:20 PMHey Mark, tell us all about how Hillary murdered Bill's childhood friend, Vince Foster.
Posted by: masaccio on July 7, 2004 05:14 PM"In other words, he supported the Congressional resolution only if the resolution was a lie. "
>>What? Pay attention, Mark. He is saying that the threat of force was necessary to reinstate the inspections to see what the WMD story was. How is it that you arrived at the above inference?
Granting the authority to wage war if deemed immediately necessary is NOT an endorsement of wanton and reckless decision-making in order to use that authoity. You want the President to be able to act expeditiously if the situation calls for it, but you hope he has the wisdom to arrive at the best decision on when, if, and how to do it. Surely you see that, no?
Posted by: Abhishiktananda on July 7, 2004 05:36 PMRe voting for the Iraq resolution: My recollection matches that of Abhishiktananda on Clinton's position. And that
I don't understand the thinking of people who say that a vote for the resolution meant that you must agree with everything (or anything) Bush did subsequently or otherwise you are cynical or a liar.
A very good case can be made that Bush did not fulfill the conditions of that resolution in good faith. I don't think I could have voted for it if I had been in office because I don't trust Bush as far as I could throw a large building. But I can see how someone who had some faith in the Pres might be a difficult position on that vote, or some faith that Powell would exert enough pressure to get a good faith effort off the ground.
The attitude of this argument is disturbing also. It seems to be "Aw, come on, we all know the whole thing was a charade and Bush was going to do what he did, and everyone knows that you know that was going to be what we were goint to get, so if you say different now, you are cynical or a liar."
So, if you voted for thing and disagreed with what Bush did, or now believe he did not act in good faith, you are a double cynical liar now because you were not cynical enough then.
Well, if I were to accept that argument, the shades of cynicism and dishonesty are so fine between the accuser and the accused, that I cannot distinguish the two at all. That kind of argument comes close to being nothing more than a smear. Another extreme right wing argument that is really a slur which makes no sense, and is a species of sour self parody.
masaccio writes, "Hey Mark, tell us all about how Hillary murdered Bill's childhood friend, Vince Foster."
No, masaccio, you tell me about how Juanita Broaddrick was lying.
You tell me how your man Bill Clinton would never try to rape a married woman, and then lie about it. You tell me about how your man Bill isn't that kind of guy.
And after you get done with that, you tell me about how Paula Jones was also lying. You tell me about how Bill Clinton, because he was Governor of Arkansas, would *never* use a member of the State Police to bring a low-paid Arkansas government worker to his hotel room for sex. (And a woman engaged to be married, to boot.) You can tell me how Bill Clinton would know that's wrong on so many levels.
You tell me how those women are lying, masaccio(you jerk).
So Mark I take it the answer is no, there is no such list?
And if you had done any homework instead of doing the rah-rah-for-my-side thing, you would probably be aware that Flowers, Willey, Jones, and Broddrick have all been resoundlingly discredited.
I have been asking this question on the net here and there for years now and the answer is always the same, and always hysterical. You would think that the people who hate Clinton so much could come up with something credible to use against him. Even the oh-so-great Ted Olsen was forced to write fiction in the effort.
As it is I am forced to conclude that Clinton was the most honest and truthful president of modern times.
Posted by: Alan on July 8, 2004 09:52 AM"So Mark I take it the answer is no, there is no such list?"
First, you need to answer my question. You need to tell me whether stating something that's untrue, and never admitting that what you said was untrue, is a lie.
"And if you had done any homework instead of doing the rah-rah-for-my-side thing, you would probably be aware that Flowers, Willey, Jones, and Broddrick have all been resoundlingly discredited."
Complete and utter bullshit. You're obviously in the fantasy land occupied by supporters of Bill Clinton.
Even *Bill Clinton* has admitted Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/01/60minutes/main620619.shtml
"Mr. Clinton plummeted in the polls, so in an effort to salvage his campaign, he took the risky step of doing an interview on 60 Minutes in front of a huge audience right after the 1992 Super Bowl. During his interview with Correspondent Steve Kroft, Mr. Clinton, who was joined by his wife Hillary, denied ever having an affair with Flowers."
"It took years for Mr. Clinton to admit that he was lying in that interview, and that he once had a relationship with Flowers."
Alan, why should anyone take you seriously, if you're so completely ignorant/foolish that you think that "Flowers, Willey, Jones, and Broddrick have all been resoundlingly discredited."
It's Bill Clinton that's been discredited. But not to fools living in fantasy land.
"As it is I am forced to conclude that Clinton was the most honest and truthful president of modern times."
See comment above. You are a fool. Or phenomenally ignorant. Or both.
Is the premise that the "better" outcome would have been continued sanctions, continued military pressure, and continued inspections? Until when? Under what circumstances would it have ever ended? The sanctions were evil - they caused death and misery among the Iraqis. Should Iraq have become the new Cuba, with a dictator propping up his regime by pointing to how none of the problems are his fault, but rather the result of the evil Americans? I agree that Bush/Wolfie/etc. shouldn't have focused on the idea that WMDs were a danger. The debate should have been "Sanctions have failed. Do we fish or cut bait?" Because, by even 2000, after almost a decade of sanctions, those were the two humanitarian options - take out Hussein and free the Iraqi people from a tyrant, or lift sanctions and free the Iraqi people from isolation from world markets and the poverty that created, and let Hussein stay. (It is obvious sanctions had failed - Iraq never committed fully to the accounting required of him by the cease fire. Maybe, in hindsight, it was obvious he never would. In that case, the first war should have ended with Hussein's arrest - morally, that was the right outcome, anyway.) There was no optional "second gulf war" - the first one never ended, the options were surrender and end the first war as a draw, with the instigator of that war still in place and able to claim victory, or terminate the cease fire, and finish the first war. This decision shouldn't have been made in 2003. It should have been made in 1998. The President at the time didn't have the guts to make the call.
Posted by: rvman on July 8, 2004 11:21 AMMark Bahner, who may be a troll or a True Believer says:
> See comment above. You are a fool.
> Or phenomenally ignorant. Or both
Your whole argument seems to rest on the veracity of Gennifer Flowers versus Bill Clinton. OK, here's a cut and paste (from Tamara Baker), since I don't have time for more:
--START PASTE--
Cripes, where do we start?! Fortunately, Bob Somerby has done the grunt work for me . Among the Gennifer lies he's managed to pack into one small web page:
-- She claimed she was Miss Teenage America in 1967. No, she wasn't. Ever.
-- She claimed to have attended a fashionable Dallas prep school. No, she didn't.
-- She claimed to have earned a nursing degree from the University of Arkansas. Uh-uh.
-- She claimed to have a twin sister named Genevieve. No, she doesn't.
-- She claimed to have once been the opening act for Rich Little. Nope.
-- She claimed to have been kidnapped, as a way to excuse her two-week absence without leave from her job on the TV show Hee Haw. In reality, she had spent the entire time with a man she'd met at a Las Vegas casino.
-- She said that her "twelve-year affair" with Bill Clinton started in the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock in 1979. Trouble is, the hotel didn't exist until 1982.
(To be scrupulously fair -- something that Flowers and her media allies are not -- Clinton admits to having met her at least once. But this obviously was not the long-term relationship Flowers keeps saying it was.)
--STOP PASTE--
The other accusers have similar problems with their stories. Don't bother ranting about them. Nobody who matters cares about your peculiar sexual obsessions or your obvious immaturity.
I am still waiting to hear where Bill Clinton lied about foreign affairs, the economy, the environment, education, affairs of state or ANYTHING that matters. That is what my original question was and still stands. And I don't care if he later admitted to it or not, although I don't see what difference that makes to you.
I am just observing that the fact that a CREDIBLE and OBJECTIVE list never seems to come suggests that there is no list that can be made. I am sorry if that upsets the likes of Mr. Bahner, but he doesen't have anything in that line I would suggest he just go back to freerepublic.com where they all have a similar understanding of the rules of evidence.
Posted by: Alan on July 8, 2004 12:20 PMAlan does a cut/paste, which ends with this beauty:
"To be scrupulously fair -- something that Flowers and her media allies are not -- Clinton admits to having met her at least once..."
So that's it?!
You really think that Bill Clinton NEVER had an affair with Gennifer Flowers? You really think that Gennifer Flowers was lying when she said she had an affair with Bill Clinton?
"The other accusers have similar problems with their stories."
Bullshit.
You name every single problem with Juanita Broaddrick's allegation that Bill Clinton raped her.
Then you name every single problem with Paula Jones' story that Bill Clinton, while he was governor of Arkansas, used an off-duty state police officer to bring Jones (Corbin, at the time) up to his hotel room, where he propositioned her for sex.
You're calling Broaddrick and Jones liars. Provide your evidence.
"...where they all have a similar understanding of the rules of evidence."
You talk about the "rules of evidence." Well, you've written that Juanita Broaddrick was lying when she said that Bill Clinton raped her, and that Paula Jones was lying when she said that Bill Clinton, when he was governor of Arkansas, and she was a low-paid Arkansas state employee, had a state trooper bring her to his hotel room, where he propositioned her for sex. Provide the EVIDENCE that they were lying when they said those things.
Posted by: Mark Bahner on July 8, 2004 02:20 PMMark, as entertaining as your conjecture about Clinton conspiracies is, I would be interested to hear your response to the above comments about your dubious, dubious inference about Clinton's position on Iraq.
Posted by: Abhishiktananda on July 8, 2004 03:11 PMSorry, but Mark would rather focus on the Clenis.
Posted by: Demise on July 10, 2004 12:10 AM8511 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com
Posted by: Viagra on August 7, 2004 06:22 PM5788 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?
http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com
6548 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com
Posted by: online poker on August 10, 2004 03:01 PM2379 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com
Posted by: online poker on August 15, 2004 08:02 PM