After reading some of your responses, We need to take our country back and vote them all out dem and repub, and of all the ones running for pres. that seems real and doesn't sound like both side of the partys, and I am going with the lesser of two evils, I would vote for Ron Paul, Why does it have to be the one who gets the most money to win. ya vote Ron Paul, check him out on his web.

Edwards is right, Hillary IS Bush light–just listen to her talk about Iraq in the debates;she sounds like Bush's spin manager in DC

Wasn't not so very ago that bush said the he had no doubt in his mind that his party would win the next presidential election? Hmmmm….

For Bush to say no to "get yourself too locked in where you stand right now. If you end up sitting where I sit, things could change dramatically", shows just how much faith he has in his own statements.

On an off side not, don't vote for the popular candidate, come election time, vote for the candidate that will make the biggest difference, Democrat, Republican, or otherwise.

CNN's headline is an insult to our intelligence. Deliberate misleading headlines that (a) feed the Hillary Haters and (b) misrepresent the story. Bush IS NOT just giving Clinton advice (doesn't even say that it's asked for) his people are giving many candidates advice. Shame on you CNN!

Know for cetain what not do? If Hillary listened to Bush, maybe her newly gained knowledge on Iraq, would make her look less like an idiot. You can't think that Hillary would honestly run this country better than Bush. I mean…Didn't the last Clinton Presidency end in a horribly messy scandel? And the whole 'I have strong family values' thing she has going on? That kinda gets thrown out when A: You don't live in the same house as your husband. and B: He's cheated on you, but you don't want to admit it. The LAST thing America needs right now, is Hillary Clinton preaching about Values that she does not practice herself.

BUSH IS IN NO POSITION TO GIVE ADVICE OF ANY MEANS. HE'S LED THIS COUNTRY TO AN ALL-TIME LOW. IN FACT WAR CRIMES ARE NOT FAR OFF THE MARK!!!!

I think that instead of listening to somebody who has famous quotes like "we must ask ourselves: is our children learning?" she should listen to her husband

UPDATE!

Gee, Whaddya know, I went back to the Hillary Factor story, and my post is back?

Gotta love it!

If it was never removed but there is an update problem on my side, my apologies for a false accusation.

Have a good day,

Bob makes a good point about the knuckleheads that often post.

I'm not too sure about the "paranoid CNN is going to delete my post 'losers.'" It seems that oftentimes when I have made posts answering challenges that HillPraisers bring, the post shows for a while, then I come back and it isn't there anymore.

On one of these tickers, (Sept. 25th Hillary Factor) I responded to your request for the 'sheep' that don't like Hillary to say why.

I outlined, what I thought were, substantive reasons and offered to provide more but was tired of typing (8 is enough to start with)
but alas, the post is gone. I stayed away from 'spewing venom' and don't think I crossed the CNN line for content. (Especially compared to many of the posts we see that are all negative all the time simply calling names).

My grammar, spelling and punctuation were way above the usual quality on this blog, yet the comment no longer exists.

I did have a comment on another blog in answer to a HillPraiser that was posted when I submitted it. It disappeared, and then Voila!, it reappeared after I had posted another comment that had basically the same content. A refresh problem perhaps? Maybe something with the way things get updated on the server side? It's possible, but if it were a browser refresh problem, wouldn't the post appear on one of my other four computers when I go to the page and load it for the first time?

I am surprised to see the posts here by Ignatius J. Reilly still on the ticker. My experience has been that many posts that appear here and have well documented cross-references, but care ritical of Senator Clinton, often go away after awhile. (Maybe when the blogger comes back from lunch or a coffee/bathroom break). I haven't had enough posts removed to see a pattern in the CNN writer/editor that posts the initial story/subject and frankly don't have the time to track that. But, if it looks like you have a post that could perhaps make a blindly devoted HillPraiser do some thinking and possibly reassess, it has a chance of going away.

Happy Wednesday,

stupid Idiot girl…. Hillary is History…. IDIOT……..

I think this is a good example that in the real world of governance politics takes a back seat. Beyond all the aggrandizing and cynicism of politics we see real people dealing with real world problem. Bush, Clinton, and all the others realize that when the cameras are off they have real work to do to ensure the safety and prosperity of the United States. Bush is only carrying on what has been going on between administrations for hundreds of years.

To Bob in San Francisco,

I've never posted on these boards, just read them for the pure joy and amusement of the content.

But you wrote something tonight that compelled me like nothing ever before, PLEASE tell me something good that Bush has done? And I will apologize in advance if I missed some small insignificant thing because to me, the needless deaths of thousands of US soldiers outweighs any good he could've done.

Bush's advice? give me a break. He has no brain, what kind of advice? People don't worry, Hillary is on the top of Bush's head. She will show to Bush how brillian woman she is. Anyway Bush knew it. I am sure she will handle this nonsense wisely.

President giving idea to Hillary and other candidates, is it a lie? Maybe not. That is exactly what politicians and leaders do to run the people (They work together because they are a team strongly united).

That article should be a political and leadership lesson to the people but not something to go bananas over.

Many comments sound like it is a Bush, Hillary, Obama or other candidates' thing. Well, simply ask Kerry or Al Gore why they failed and why they are not willing to give it another try. My friends U.S. was never and will never be for the people and by the people. It that ever happen the U.S. will become a simple third world country.

Here is one interesting point: When confronted the media and opponents of the Irak war over his vote, Senator Hillary Clinton simply gets away with: "If I knew then what I know now… I would vote against the invasion…" And most of the people just buy it.

What sense does that make? Well, to me it does not make any sense at all. It is just a weak but priceless excuse. Why do I say that? Hillary has been in politics for so many years. On top of all that she was the first lady for 8 years, and America has at war with Irak all through the two presidential terms of her husband-Bill Clinton-, then she got elected to the senate. Now if she claims that she did not know the truth about Irak, who does?

What has she been doing in the White House? Did she ever talk or listen to her husband talking about Irak? I think she should have entered the senate as a well-informed, prepared, and credible mentor the rest of the members. Because not one, not one could have had access to any better information than her. Not even the president could have formed a better decision on Irak.

This not a personal attack of any sort against the senator. I think she is a great person and fine politician. I just want to show how important it is for us "The People" to stop letting our political ignorance, passion, and chauvinism cast the ballot and learn to make a difference between between POLITICAL SPEECH and POLITICAL AGENDA.

God bless America

I can't wait for these come up in a public debate. But

This clinches. The parties have put the last nail in Liberty's coffin. NO difference what-so-ever from one side to the other. Both are "bought and paid for" by the major players in every industry imaginable. Look at the laws we see passed. This country was founded on a set of laws that protected the individual from the government. In less than three centuries, we now find our laws written to protect the government from individuals. I would be amazed to find even one member of Congress who isn't tainted. Frankly, if there is one, they are undoubtedly completely impotent and lacking influence.

God help us, we're doomed unless we take this government down, by force of arms, and start over.

If you look at Bush with a free, non liberal slandered mind, sure he has made a lot of mistakes, but we can't just pull out of Iraq now, no matter what decisons were made. Insurgents from Syria, Saudia Arabia, and more are in Iraq fighting, and even if there were no terrorists when Saddam ruled, there are now, and we can't pull tommorow. Democrats, think with your head. People call Bush dumb, but he has traveled the world, and for sure knows more than some average American. He's not the best public speaker,(far from it actually), but that is the one strength Bill had. Hilary would just be another poll president, the media will blantantly cover her mistakes, and she will go down as a great president, when in reality, she will bankrupt everyone who invested in big companies.

We went to war in Iraq based on the available information our country had in 2001 including information from the previous two-term Clinton administration. We may have also attacked Iraq because Sadam had to be removed – something we failed to do during the Gulf War. Instead useless sanctions were imposed and rewarded with over ten years to amass and prepare for the current situation in Iraq, that is, Insurgency, Terrorists, Criminals and Thugs continuing to prevent "a government by the people and for the people" and the killing of people, division of the country and the possible destruction of Iraq.

What we have failed to understand in this great nation is that whatever US motives for being in Iraq – it is in this country's best interests and world we are protecting. We are not the bad guys.

God Bless America and all the rights and freedoms we enjoy and often take for granted!

OK Mr. Reilly,
We get that in 2002 Saddam had everyone believing he had weapons, and that at one time he DID have weapons. Unfortunately, his weapons were a good reason Al Queda was not in Iraq then either.
Besides, it would have made no difference to Bush if the UN HAD completed inspections and found no WMD. Bush would have tied Iraq to 9-11 anyway and gone in, because of lucrative no bids for his Texas pals, and because of OIL.
Just like he's getting us ready for an invasion of Iran-this man thinks he is God. He can't leave too soon for me.

freemasonary at its finest

We went to war in Iraq based on the available information our country had in 2001 including information from the previous two-term Clinton administration. Yes, we also attacked Iraq because Sadam had to be removed – something we failed to do during the Gulf War. Instead useless sanctions were imposed and rewarded with over ten years to amass and prepare for what is currently going on in Iraq – Insurgency, Terrorists, Thugs who continue to do everything possible to prevent "a government by the people and for the people." Innocent lives are being lost, division and the ultimate destruction of Iraq – all presumably in the name of God!

What we have failed to understand in this great nation is that whatever US motives for being in Iraq – it is in our best interests and world that we are protecting. We are not the bad guys. I believe it would be better to have the worst Democrat or Republican President in our history than having a "President" like Iraq did with Sadam or the current "President" in Iran.

God Bless America and all the rights and freedoms we enjoy and often take for granted!

She should listen. You cannot fight ignorance with ignorance.

Bush should listen to Trump and go hide somewhere. If Bush told me it was raining outside I would check for myself. Does anyone in this nation trust this man?

Apparently Senator Clinton is already listening to President Bush's advice. Last weekend in "This week with George Stephanopalous", she said that she intend to end the war in Iraq but she will not make any pledge in troop withdrawal. These are typical Clinton response. You can have 3 different meanings of them and she will be equally competent to defend all of them.

She made a point that she does not know what state Iraq will be in when she will take over if elected. Well Senator Clinton, Leaders are better than average citizen because they can predict outcomes fairly well using their knowledge, wisdom, vision, imagination and GUTs. Making a call after all is said and done is no leadership. Anyone can do that.

Senator Obama would see Iraq of today in 2002, 5 years ago. Other 23 democratic Senator understood the situation and opposed the war. You supported even without reading 900 pages of National Intelligence Estimate were available. Leadership is serious thing because a wrong call can make a nation suffer for years to come. Judgement, vision, imagination and critical thinking are critical components of leadership because leaders often have to make decisions with incomplete information. History suggest, you failed to make good call even with tons of information. Hillary Clinton legacy is a chronic history of wrongs judgement on Iraq or healthcare.
I will stay away from you Senator Clinton. 30 million people deserve better than you.

Soooo like Bush. Make a mess of Iraq himself, I mean screw up every thing about it, and then think he is so high and mighty as to think he has room to advise anyone. Any Republican or Democrat needs to understand they would take Bush's advice at their peril.

Kudos to our President!

Bush's strategic advice to Hillary:

"SIC 'EM"

C. E. Nelson Jonelsboro, AR

Well as they say, we learn something new every day!

I never knew Roosevelt or Truman carried out a Gung HO attack on a Nation that wasn't an enemy! I wish my Father a Seargeant in WWII on the front lines over seas and his three brothers were still living. I know they'd all be shocked to hear this news! Then again maybe they are hearing it. As Poppies Blow In Flanders Field.

Bush, Bush, Bush. Please shut up. You've messed America for almost seven years. I cannot wait till you leave for good.

And take all your people with you.

The only way Bush's current policies in Iraq will continue is if he stays in office. Think it can't happen? He signed an executive order in July allowing him to declare martial law and SUSPEND ELECTIONS. Don't be too shocked if we are attacked again about a year from now. This man sees himself as a savior; the only one who really understands things, the only one who can save the world for democracy (I'm sorry, exactly where is democracy in the New Testament? I get the part about loving your neighbor and thou shalt not kill…) We are so bound and determined to preserve the way of life our money has bought us that we don't even see the hurt in the world, or even down the street, any more. God may have blessed the USA, but unless we learn to share the wealth, we are doomed as well.

When push comes to shove, I generally side with the Democrats on most issues, but I do have to say that the MORONIC ignorance displayed on this Ticker makes me not want to participate at times.

I see a lot of knuckleheads on both sides who stubbornly refuse to think beyond the partisan rhetoric of their own party. C'mon, people. Did you ever think issues are a bit more complex than the simplistic back and forth that we see here everyday?

Democrats who can't acknowledge any good Bush has done at all, and Republicans who think all Dems are America-hate "librils".

I can't stand any of you–especially the paranoid "CNN is going to delete my post" losers.

I want to say a big THANK YOU to the minority of posters here (left, right, or better…in between somewhere) who actually discuss the issue at hand without the nonsense. Don't get me wrong though, I do enjoy a good dose of sarcasm and attitude, just make it relevant to the topic being posted!

Excellent. He's about as qualified to give advice on policy as he is to discover a cure for cancer…or read a book for that matter.

More nonsense from the Republican controlled media. Bush doesn't even know what is going on in Iraq or in the US for that matter.

To Rodney Dallas TX:

Mr. Trump'ss advice to President George Bush is another example of political expediency.

I am sure Mr. Trump's does understand that US is still under continued threat from terrorism from abroad and within.

People in peace and relative comfort tend to underestimate the threats posed by sections of world population who are driven by extreme ideology.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

Posted By Ignatius J. Reilly. Newport, RI : September 25, 2007 2:05 pm
================================

Clinton apologists manual, page 66, paragraph 3, section 1:

"This President misled me, and thus in compliance with the vast right-wing conspiracy, forced me to say those words". Sound about right.

I prefer this quote as it speaks volumes on the subject, but please Bush haters, don't read, keep your head in the sand:

“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

Note the date he said it, 2003.

Everyone believed it, long before Bush came along.

Never finished in Afghanistan?

116,400 American troops currently in Europe/75,000 in Germany

37,500 currently in S. Korea

47,000 currently in Japan

Were people blogging about finishing in Europe, Korea and Japan 50,60,70 years ago? Bin Laden is jumping from cave to cave. If we do get him it will be before the election.

Bush: "I'm the decider." Translation, "I'm a megalomaniacal idiot and will never change my behavior even if I'm proven completely wrong. Besides, I have a large group of intellectually lazy supporters that will believe anything my propaganda machine shoves into their spongy little brains."

I think Hillary can decide for herself.

Let's just say that the Iraq war was completely necessary. Let's just say that Sadaam was gathering WMDs. The thing that makes Bush's policy unsound is the fact that he never finished our commitment in Afghanistan and never captured Bin Laden. It's ridiculous that we managed to find Sadaam hiding in the middle of nowhere, yet Bin Laden still remains at large. Starting one war after another is one thing, but strating two at practically the same time and half-arsing both is inexcusable. Did Bush do good thing? Yes, but the bad outweighs the good at this point.

As far as Clinton taking his advice goes, this is a great thing an effective leader must listen to varying viewpoints. From the comments I see here, it's a good exercise for everyone to try.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Hillary quote:

"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.
For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.

The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.

I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people who's opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations — they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."

Yeah Hillary… listen to Bush. He's the type of policy maker that will certainly seal your shameful defeat… which is absolutely necessary for the survival of our democracy.

Bush is a dork….did anyone see the other day when he said Nelson Mandella was dead. How he ever got elected is beyond me.

I'm all for Clinton but if she fallows bush's advice I tell all Americans to be ready to Vote for an Independent I know that we have voted for either REP or DEM for many many years but I think we should all understand that we are more than ready to bring in the 3rd party at least to scare some corruption for the major parties.

I thought Bush didn't think a Democrat could win. Now he is giving them advice…Clinton is to smart to listen to anything the Bush administration has to say!

Bush is right, things look differently when you recieve and know all the information that Bush does. However, what somebody does with that information defines a good president.

the more data and points of view our next president considers before making an 'informed' decision, the better off the world will be. I think she should lend an ear to everything the little fella has to say.

He can't be serious…..like anyone would listen to that baffoon. Bush should take Trumps advise and just hide. I wish he would do it today rather than next year but better late than never.

What is so hard about understanding and excepting the actions needed for a president to protect a nation? Do you think for a second that CNN, FOX, a senator or arm chair general like yourself has any idea of what is going on behind the defense scene? Is it possible that a Pope, King/Queen, presidents Freemasons, Skull & Bones etc perhaps had a political/economic model set for the Middle East decades ago? With Iraq and Afghanistan currently being heated in the coals, what semi-serious threat really remains? Perhaps Iran or Syria? Hey wait a minute, they are about to be dealt with too. Yeah it would be nice if all this conflict could be handled tantamount to a Starbucks drive thru diplomacy however there is something to be said about patients. Is it so hard to believe that Bill Clintons own George Tenet was the knowledge chief before 911 and the current war with Iraq? What you are witnessing is a good old fashion Good Cop Bad Cop routine between Bush II and Hillary and Bush I and Bill. It is an effective tactic and will work though not as fast as an American armchair politician would like. This tactic can also be shown in Germany’s and France’s tough stance regarding Iran and Syria. They did not support Iraq but now Iran? What will the ending result be? We won’t know for decades perhaps. Why don’t some of you geniuses look up casualty rates of the last 10 big wars and then complain about the current count. Do you really think that man is more civilized today then say 1, 2 or 3 thousand years ago because you have a college diploma and a cell phone and mustard repellant tie? Well you may claim to be since you have not yet had your back against the wall, but there are billions have-nots who don’t pretend to share your in American hedonistic complacency. While you are researching factual past war casualty rates, also research “U-234”. There are documentaries and books about U-234 in-case the internet doesn’t suffice. It is an interesting factual event of our history which reflects the need for our leaders to do just exactly what G.W and Hillary are doing dispite what the polls reflect. In case you are too lazy… the U-234 was a top secret U-boat dispatched by Hitler, to deliver uranium-235 and sophisticated fighter jet technology to Japan. Luckily we got a hold of the sub first because Japan had an air force near ready to decimate our own war planes and Navy and the uranium was abundant enough for Japan to drop 6-8 nukes on our west coast. I believe America dropped the first bomb on Japan only 8-10 days before Japan was planning to bomb us. I also believe that Japan signed the surrender treaty only 2 days before their plan to bomb us. Knowing this now many many years after the fact, do you still think our leaders need to have everyone aware of defense specific intelligence? When/if Hillary does become president, are you still going to cry if she follows the same Middle East diplomatic path? Also do you people play poker with money and where?

A democrat and a republican actually discussing the war in Iraq?

Where is the partisianship that we have all come to know and love? What happened to all the name calling?

Anyone who takes Iraq advice from the Shrub is presumptively unfit for office.

So President Bush is a religious person; he's not; he's just a zelot Ecumenical Christian.
Let's not get lost in adjectives; he reads the Bible every night, that makes him religious! I wonder though–what does he pray about or for? Miracles I guess. Certainly not good sense.
He understands the power of religion in politics; as for all you sceptics just look at Iraq exuding religion from every bomb and every bullet.
He is a man on a mission: "Ms Rodham Clinton, you will deal with religion whether you like it or not".

Don't misunderstand me. I also am a religious person, but with the zeal removed. And I don't believe in miracles.

GWB giving Hillary advice on Iraq?? Sounds pretty-much like the "kiss-of-death," to me. VERY smart move! NO-ONE on the repub. side wants anything to do with GWB….sooo…."make like buddy-buddy" with the dems to ASSURE they will NOT have a chance!

Charles Jones
Canfield, OH

When the next President is inaugurated in sixteen months time, the world will be vastly different from how it is today. America spends billions of dollars each year through its intelligence agencies and think tanks tn trying to predict what that future world will look like. Candidates are not privy to this information, except in special circumstances such as Congressional committees and it makes sense that they should at least in part be briefed with the information available. It is not how they deal with today's problems that is important. It is how they address the issues facing us up to nine years out that matters.

This is exactly why I am not supporting Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee. She is too 'old boy' network for my taste. We need fresh new voices who do not cowtow to the rich and deadly.
And Laura from Tulsa- you are joking about us being in Iraq for noble causes, aren't you? Its all about oil honey! Just ask Hunt Oil from Texas who just signed an agreement to get access to Iraqi oil. Yes this is the same company that donated much of the funds to get Bush elected.

lol!!! talk about not thinking for yourself!!! (re: previous comment about being under a rock) Do republicans send out a mass mailing with a script of what to say when asked why you are for Bush??? It sounds like you got it dude! "God Bless America!, 9/11!, Jesus!, 9/11, Saddam, 9/11, gay people, i'm an idiot!" oops…that last one must've been a freudan slip Where's Osama?!?!?!?!?!?!

Uh, Kathryn from VA Beach—-There's one little problem with your highly educated statement—Hillary is not an INCOMING official (yet). She is a private citizen, like you or me. The types of briefings you are referring to do not take place until AFTER
(s)elections are held. That is, unless you already know who will be taking your place, as is the case here.

Wow…some of you are quite partisan I'd have to say. Before we all jump to conclusions and spew hatred towards Clinton or Bush, please think of our troops. It's easy to sit and babble when you are on the side line and not part of the action.

I am not a Bush fan, never have been, never will be. I consider him one of our worst presidents besides Richard Nixon but I think the President Bush advising the presidential candidates is not a bad thing. He has to deal with the inevitable. A democrat will occupy the oval office soon and the data the president sees is different from what we are led to believe. It's not as easy as you and I will hope.

Being a President is quite a lonely job and Presidents for all of our history have shared information and advised people who some day are going to succeed them. It doesn't mean you have to follow their advice but it's never hurt to listen. The least you can do is listen and make your own rational judgments based on the facts at hand and with input from experts in the field.

For the person on here who said Clinton didn't share information with Bush when Bush took office, I'd advice them to check their facts. Clinton and his team briefed Bush and others of the threat to the U.S. and what did Bush do? He fired the chief terror expert from the Clinton administration. They even had memos that made mention of Bin Laden imminent threat to America and what did Dr. Rice and the others do? Nothing. And even after we were attacked, what did we do? We went after the wrong enemy. Iraq had nothing to do with september 11. The President himself has acknowledged that.

When do the children get off the computer and the adults come on here. First of Hillary will not get elected but if she did she would be a fool not to take this mans advice. Just cause the media says IRAQ is a disaster does not make it true. Bush will go down in history as one of the best war time presidents and the advice Bush is giving them right now is sound advice. You people make me sick with your hatred for BUSH and America. Thank God you weaklings are not in power. If I was Bush after getting talk down to for over 6 yrs I will tell these people to go to ____. GO GW the people still believe in you

To James, Phoenix AZ:

Saddam was always a threat. He has been eliminated.

For all the hue and cry over whether President George was right or wrong in sending troops into Iraq, people and leaders are missing a very improtant point:

Osama Bin Laden is still out there and he is a fox. He is enjoying this petty squabbling among our leaders and waiting for next President Elect to make a mistake, so that he can declare victory.

The image of US is still intact in most parts f the world eg China and fast east Asia (those people still want business with US). The people who are criticizing US are in parts of Europe.

In Europe the think tanks are beginning to turn as evidenced by speech of one of French diplomat recently.

The issue at stake is not principle behind the incursion ito Iraq and overthrowing Saddam. The issue at stake is the restriction in degree of freedom to American Businessman operating abroad. There are Islamic Fundamentalist (and not the majority population) all over world who are willing to target an Amrican Businessman, if he or she should happen to be a bit less vigilant in operating in countries say in Africa.

The people who are raising hue and cry over American Image being tarnished are people who want to sun bathe on a beach let us say in Pataya, Phillipines. These people cannot move around freely and frolic as they used to do before 9/11.

I still think President Bush's advice is relevant and US is staying the right course (though very expensive economically and financially).

Most of you who have commented are closed minded fools and frankly scary. Are you the next Charles Manson?

Anyone who says they know exactly what the circumstances will be 16 months from now and what they will do irregardless of future events is not fit to be President.

Laura – Tulsa, OK ~ why would anyone not want to bring freedom and democracy to a dictator-led country? Let me ask those who oppose being in Iraq – "If you don't want us to liberate people from poverty and despair, what do think our nation should do in Darfur?"

Laura, I have another take on this. The way I see it, you cannot take care of anybody else if you can't even take care of yourself.

Currently, our economy is in big trouble from the deficits this president has created not to mention the looming home loan crisis, our bridges are falling apart, we can't handle natural disasters, our education system falling behind the rest of the world, ski-high health care costs, wide open borders and ports, a huge trade deficit with China, the outsourcing of American jobs, the selling of America to foreign interests, nuclear threats from around the globe, etc., etc.

This story was about BU$H telling Democrats what they should do and frankly, this wannabe cowboy has absolutely no credibility and is in no position to be giving advice to anyone.

What rock do you Bush haters crawl out from under? You spew nothing but pure hatred with such venom. Your reasoning abilites are definitely limited because your facts are all old junk spewed by the liberal press since 2000. All these negative posts about a man who dared run for President and got elected twice and you have acted like spoiled brat losers ever since and your group of haters since the outcome of those elections has been the reason America has been trashed in other countries. President Bush did not cause the crazed actions of the terrorists! Bill Clinton's inaction allowed 9/11 to happen….and why not(? Clinton had let them get away with murder all during his terms. To despise a man for taking action after America was attacked on its own shores for the 1st time in our countries history on 9/11 is what is asinine. Mistakes are made in every War..Roosevelt, Truman come to mind but America did not rip them apart because they knew back then the Commander in Chief was the one with the responsibility of protecting our country just as Pres. Bush had to act with the knowledge presented to him that was left behind from the Clinton Adm…..duh, you people are so transparent…you can't think for yourselves. You have to let the network news room give you one liners to base your empty theories on. Try reading all the information that is out there before you trash the Presidency and the country as well…..If you don't like living here and don't want to protect this country from another 9/11… LEAVE IT!!!

Please! Bush is the last person we want advice from on Iraq. The only thing he knows anything about is cutting brush at the ranch. And he probably makes a mess out of that, too.

Lame ducks should stop quacking.

She should take advice from Ron Paul instead….Go ahead and attack me for saying it. I'll be right in the long run.

People! You people who believe in these conspiracies should consult phychiatrists. Politics 101: President's share wartime information with the incoming officials. Every Pres in history has done this. Too bad Bill didn't completely brief George Jr on the binLaden threat!

James from Phoneix, AZ,

It is nice that you have done your homework in coming up with all the reasons Saddam was showing the proverbial finger to the UN.

Let me ask you, who created Saddam? How did he become so powerful? Where did he get the weapons to fire on his own people and on Israel? Do you know the name of the missiles that he fired on Israel in 1991? Do you know the name of the person who was shaking hands with him in 1988? I would suggest completing your homework before you go on in a one-sided rant.

Yes, Saddam was evil. But there are a lot of other evil guys in the world right now who do not like the US. How many of them are we going after?

There are UN resolutions against many countries right now that are not being acted upon. In fact, some UN resolutions have been outstanding for so long that people have now started accepting the status quo. If we are so concerned about UN resolutions, why don't we start going after everyone else in the world?

On top of everything, we are spending our own hard earned money and our own valuable soldier's lives for what? What is the end result? The end result is that Al-Qaeda now has a safe haven that they did not have before. They don't need to spend time and energy coming here because we have presented ourselves as an easier target over there. The reason Iran's president and Hugo Chavez can go on with their rants is that they know America, the superpower, cannot afford to attack them right now. There is no threat left.

Reagan did not win the cold war by attacking anyone. He merely kept a constant threat active which forced the downfall of the Soviet empire.

You and your neo-con buddies thought you could change the world with your revolutionary ideas. Yes, you have changed the world alright. The sad thing is you have done it in the interest of the terrorists and to the loss of this great superpower.

The Republicans are doing their darnedest to project Hillary as the Democratic candidate!! so they can trounce her in the general elections
WAKE UP democratic fools!! they're playing you and you're playing right into it.
They DONT want Obama to win because he is polling no 3 among repubs!

The recent vibes from the White House, regarding statements such as "I will do everything I can to put a Republican in the White House" and "…a Democrat will have the obligation" to continue the war, are disturbing to say the least.

We must do everything we can as a nation to maintain the security and integrity of our free elections.

MEDIA, GET RESPONSIBLE!!!!

The misleading headline on this story is a perfect example of the American media's misguided mission to sway opinion one way or the other. Only those who take the time to read the story will understand that this is not a Bush-Clinton thing — it is really a Bush-ego thing.

I'm beginning to forget what responsible journalism even looks like. STOP sensationalizing. Give us the FACTS and let us make up our minds.

While it is always amusing to read the irrational rantings and ravings of the Bush Haters, it is frightening to think that so many of them are naive enough to think that Hillary will actually end the war next year. Put down the kool-aid and welcome to the real world. Hillary and other Democrats are not nearly as ignorant as some of you, and realize that surrender in Iraq is the wrong answer.

This is why you shouldn't trust Hillary. She is more of the same old Washington politician. Her way of thinking is influenced by Washington and she knows too much of the insider games. This country needs an outsider that can come in and make real changes. Obama 08′

Bush giving advise on Iraq to Clinton or anyone else whether they are democrats or republicans is only an attempt to change his legacy. Good try but we Americans won't forget who created this mess that will be left behind by Bush.

If you Hillary supporters think she is going to stay anti-war after elected, get ready for your hearts to be broken.

She is only saying what you want to hear to get the Democratic nomination, after that she will turn into a completely different candidate. If elected, watch out, NO ONE knows what she'll be by then.

C'mon people. Thankfully, both Hillary and George care enough about this country to put partisan politics aside and have some valuable discourse on an issue that is not going away, whether the "war" ends or not. This is what responsible politicians should do. In the event Hillary is elected, she may see things differently and this also allows her an opportunity to not be blindsided when it comes to the inevitable difficulties in Iraq.

Do I see Roves hand in this 'press release'?
gem Detroit

Another example of this president's arrogance is the fact that both he and his so called national security chief Condoleeze completely ignored the warnings of the previous administration, namely the bi-partisan report that said Al Qaeda was planning on using planes as weapons against U.S. landmarks, they called it "an historical document" and therefore paid no attention to it. Viola! September 11th, 2001.

Yet he believes he can dictate a failed foreign policy for the next president to adhere to. Why not just consider it "an historical document" and go read "My Pet Goat" instead?

What an idiot. He doesn't even know he's beyond a lame duck; not even the republicans want to be seen with him. Yet he thinks he can leave an assignment for the next president? The only thing he is leaving the American taxpayers and the next president is a huge deficit and thousands of dead people.

You wrote, "the original reason for going into iraq was based on WMD and the perceived threat to america and its interests…
it was only later,AFTER not having a plan worth mentioning, that bush decided "why not stay" and destroy a country."

I doubt CNN will print this…. but let me help YOU remember a few other minor details about our getting involved in Iraq:

11 UN Resolutions spanning 12 years: 660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, 1284, and 1441.

For 12 years Saddam toyed with UN Inspectors and refused to fully comply with these resolutions. Specifically Saddam was in material breach to WMDs (evidence of destruction), prohibited missiles, purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and failed to compensate Kuwait for losses suffered after the Iraq invasion of Kuwait.

Nov 8, 2002 the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 unanimously (including Russia, China, France, and Syria).

Saddam was giving the world the proverbial finger. Many nations (49 to be exact), lead by the US, decided we had enough.

But hey…it's good to know if you were in charge, Scott, Saddam would still be in power – killing Kurds by the thousands, torturing political rivals, and his brothers raping women at will.

The Bushes and the Clintons are close. This is news? Of course he is advising Hilary. It would really be shocking if Bush was talking to Obama.

why not any other canndidate?

Can you imagine someone forgetting that Hillary voted for the war in Iraq with the same information President Bush had?? (wait…I forgot the excuse machine is in full operation) – actually Giuliani will win the Whitehouse…far too many people hate Hillary..and remember what and who she is….Rudy 08! (the only moderate running!)

Carl Rove may not be officially advising Bush any longer, but he's still advising. All of Bush's comments about the '08 race smacks of Carl Rove — calculating, manipulating, lies. And remember, Bush is the same man who lied about going into Iraq and who still keeps us there! If Bush is going to make any of the dems change their minds now about the whole Iraq thing, then they don't need to be president. Bush is predicting Hillary will win primary, now he is telling her (and others?) not to be locked into their Iraq mindset. Oh brother. He wants his Iraq policy to continue. Well why in the heck then would she or any of the others be screaming about bringing the troops home when that is not Bush's policy? I think that the Clintons, since Bill and George I, hang together, are all in "Rove" together and that means we can look forward to the same outcome with Clinton, but for the primary election this time, that we saw with Bush in 2000. Wake up America!!! Looks just like another G. W. Bush presidency if Clinton gets into the white house in '08. And remember this too, 'It ain't over 'til it's over!' OBAMA '08!!!

"The arrogance of this man in the white house is truly amazing. "

- – - – - –

What is truly amazing is the arrogance (or is it ignorance) that every-day-common-citizens think they have the insight into sum total of information on Iraq to be making supposed intelligent comments on CNN's blog.

You people are ridiculous. Do you REALLY think we have a transparent military plan? Do you really think ALL the information about our successes, challenges, our allies, covert operations, etc. are being debated on the open floor of Congress or released to the media for all the world to see?

And you people vote. Scary.

Yes, and Cheney is giving her advice on how to take care of her heart.

It does sound as if Bush is saying that he sees a much different war from where he sits. I wonder why we really invaded Iraq? Maybe they have captured flying saucer technology and if we don't stop them soon an army of giant robots will come marching out of the Middle East and crush us all! Or maybe Hitler is alive and well with bad hair and is coming back, or maybe an angel gave Bush orders to invade. Perhaps we're actually fighting against zombies over there. I guess if Hillary's elected she'll be told all this and then sworn to secrecy like the last ten presidents.

Pres. Bush needn't worry about anyone sitting where he is on Iraq! No one running for president would have done what he did , a preimptive attack on a defenseless country for it's oil, killing hundreds of thousands in the process and also seeing that the leader
was tried & killed quickly so he couldn't speak out. I also wonder why he is being called Evangelical as he does not follow the laws of faith, the main ones being, 'you only kill in self-defense' and 'thou shalt not steal'!

Nobody is ready for this loosers tactics. Bush is using all means and mind game on politics without lifting a finger. Just look, Iran president in NYC, this is to bring obama's comment that he would meet with Iranian president and other enemies, saying that he knows clinton will be the nominee is to lift her up as a democrat but also says that he know his party will win, that is to say we will have a democrat running against a republican and that democrat is hillary but the republican will win. Now American people seem to follow what they are told not what they know is right. looks like we have a real dictator!

To Jay:

It is unfair to categorize Bush as failure in Iraq.

I say Bush has been slightly successful in Iraq.

Let us take the situation in 2001-2003. Everybody in US (democrats included) was clamoring for some action to be taken to curb terrorism and avenge what happened on 9/11.

President Bush was faced with a population of 300million to do go after al-qaida the way he knew best.

After sending in forces in Iraq, he still has been able to maintain stability and democracy in Iraq.

I think given the atmosphere of 9/11 and years after that 2001-2003, George Bush did the right thing.

Come to think of it, even Sen. Hillary Clinton has supported Iraq War and actions that President Bush took after the War until very recently.

It is only for expediency of elections that now leaders in both parties have changed their positions.

Technically, President elect from next election (Democrat or Repulican) will have to maintain status quo or UN forces in Iraq for a very long time. So I think President Bush's advice in very much relevant.

For once I have to say, "Smart move, Mr. President!"

Both families are much closer than we'd like to believe. Hillary's campaign does not even deny that they're using same tactics like Bush. This is transfer of power from one family to another to preserve the influence of special interest. Clintons are as power hungry, cocky and ruthless as Bushes and they get along just fine. American people are suckers to think otherwise.

TO Scott Williams:

Thanks for your reasonable and well-thought out response. It's nice to hear from someone on here who is not hysterical and ranting.

Hey C. Mass——Try educating yourself before shooting your mouth off. Anyone with an IQ above 5 can tell that the Bushes and Clintons are part of the one-party ruling elite. They have been power sharing for decades now–ever since down in Mena when Willie helped Poppy Bush, Bill Casey, and Ollie North with their little drug-dealing adventure known as Iran-Contra. When you throw in the BCCI connections, Jackson Stephens, and the Rose Law Firm, you have a nice and cozy little lockhold over both parties. And morons in this country still think we have (s)elections—20 straight years of Bush/Clinton rule—what a lovely banana republic we live in. Enjoy Hillary as your next pres—-it's already been decided.

This is generally a good thing. Even if Mrs. Clinton does not agree with the President's strategy, she should at the very least fully understand it before taking actions to stand against it. We have more than a year before a new candidate will be in office and the situation in Iraq is likely to change between now and then. The gap between the Republican view for this war and Democarat ciew is narrowing. Both parties want a military pull out with exception to those troops left to take on al-Qaeda, the difference is in the time in which it should be done.

My frustration is that congress is wasting so much time trying to bring home troops that it is neglecting domestic issues. Congress needs to stop acting commander in chief and start doing what we hired them to do. My advice to Mrs. Clinton and all other candidates is to make domestic issues the priority for the remainder of the campaign and your strategy for dealing with Iran and North Korea be known.

If you oppose the president's way of handling Iraq, how would you handle Iran differently? The President is doing a good thing in passing down his point of view to his potential successors.

Here we go again. Another reason CNN no longer has the respect it once had. Deliberate misleading headlines that (a) feed the Hillary Haters and (b) misrepresent the story. Bush IS NOT just giving Clinton advice (doesn't even say that it's asked for) his people are giving many candidates advice. NOT JUST CLINTON!!!!!!!! But that doesn't matter cause your goal is to have as many people respond as possible to show your boss you're doing such a great job. Anything that can be twisted into a Clinton bashing will be twisted regardless to whether it's true or not. The best thing that can happen to CNN is that Ted Turner buys it back and fires everybody including the blogger.

I think this article does Hillary a disservice because the title implies Bush's advice is tailored for her, however, the President is appealing to all Dem candidates. When CNN singles out Hillary, casual readers may mistake the message.

"According to the newspaper, Bolten said the president wants to see to it that his Iraq policy continues, at least in part, even if a Democrat moves into the White House in January of 2009."

And WHO CARES quite frankly what President Bush wants?? NAUSEATING at BEST. When his term is over hopefully the next President will steer as far away from Bush Strategies and Mindless Theories as they possibly can! What a Narcisstic Hopeless Individual! The sooner he leaves office the grater chance the World will have to heal.

And on another note:
"If you don't want us to liberate people from poverty and despair, what do think our nation should do in Darfur?"

Liberation and Devastation are two completely different concepts at opposite ends of the spectrum.

The Bush idea of liberation to date appears to has been to bomb nations into submission and kill civilians in the process. Darfur certainly doesn't need that form of Liberation they have had enough already from their own Dictators.

And how compassionate of President Bush to look now to liberating Darfur! Where was he for the last six years when women, children and helpless citizens in Darfur were dying at such fast rates they couldn't keep the statistics updated!

This is another last ditch attempt by Bush at trying to change the future History Books on his complete and utter failure as a President.

President Bush's greatest objection to giving the Iranian President a forum was most likely fear. There is still much debate on the attack by Saddam on Iran killing millions of Iranians. And there is still many who question why America after such an incidious attack would befriend the Iraqi Leader. And where is Saddam now? No wonder the Iranian President questions History.

It amazes me that there are still people out there naive enough to buy the White House lies. How can anyone with even a first grade education (and thus smarter than Bush) say something like: "why would anyone not want to bring freedom and democracy to a dictator-led country?" This person is either too limited to understand that the Iraqi people (not to mention the security of the United States) were BETTER OFF with Saddam in power than they are now. The present problems with Al Quaeda and other terror groups are the DIRECT result of Bush destabilizing the entire region. It is ridiculous to compare the situation in Darfur to the present problems in Iraq. Bush did not cause the Darfur problems; he has caused the Iraq problems. I guess if Darfur had oil he'd be invading there, too.

Hillary is Bush Lite. No matter how you define the word is..

Where's the green party? I'm looking for real change.

Hillary, take his advice and do the opposite.

Bush and his control issues.

why would anyone not want to bring freedom and democracy to a dictator-led country? Let me ask those who oppose being in Iraq – "If you don't want us to liberate people from poverty and despair, what do think our nation should do in Darfur?"

Posted By Laura – Tulsa, OK : September 25, 2007 10:12 am

Laura,
If you think our main reason for being in Iraq is to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people then I have some water front property in Arizona that I want to sell you. If that is truly our main goal then why don't we have 160,000 US troops in Darfur? We've clearly demonstrated that we don't need the permission of the UN before we invade another country and from what I've seen it looks like the people of Sudan can use some freedom and democracy.
According to you it looks like our military is going to be pretty busy for the next 100 or so years going around bring democracy and freedom the EVERY country that is currently under a dictatorship.

I am amused by the cynical & nonsensical comments.

Any candidate would be stupid not to want to know what Bush has to say. On the other hand, because of people who get their exercise jumping to conclusions, it would be political suicide to let the public know that you have talked to Bush.

Nominate Hillary and we will get 4 to 8 more years of the same stuff we've got now, whether she is elected or not!!! Time to realize this and support OBAMA!!! Vote for REAL CHANGE!
Bush…The Evangelical President? What a JOKE. A LIAR of his magnitude is the farthest thing we have ever had from a spiritual human being/President!

i dont think CNN will hold onto this post from me..(i predict a delete, maybe)..but i just read this:
______
why would anyone not want to bring freedom and democracy to a dictator-led country? Let me ask those who oppose being in Iraq – "If you don't want us to liberate people from poverty and despair, what do think our nation should do in Darfur?"
Posted By Laura – Tulsa, OK : September 25, 2007 10:12 am
____________
in short: a strong indication of just how ignorant people are and how easy it is to ram propaganda down the average republican's throat…the original reason for going into iraq was based on WMD and the perceived threat to america and its interests…
it was only later,AFTER not having a plan worth mentioning, that bush decided "why not stay" and destroy a country.

remember?

I think our nation should liberate people from poverty and despair in America before rushing into other countries and completely ignoring the situation here at home. As for political candidates taking advice of any kind from Bush…I should think not! Bush has no credibility. He had his chance and, obviously, blew it with all the lies and corruption that has come out of his administration. I agree with Donald Trump that Bush should go into hiding…and hopefully take the rest of the corrupt republicans with him.

Hillary would never listen to that feeble minded president. In one ear and out the other. Any advice he has to give is harmful to our country. He is a very disturbed man!!

The reality of the situation is that a President Hillary Clinton will have to deal with the mess that President Bush has created; his advice on that illegitimate war should be only one thing: don't lie to the American people in order to start a non-needed war.

As a candidate, it's easy to say things because your words don't have consequences for policy and governing. As President, you have a huge amount of responsibility. Bush is wise to advise the candidates through back channels. Once one of them is in office, their words and decisions will have weight and consequences. I'm sure that the world looks much different from the Oval Office.

The Clintons ARE very close with the bush family. Bill and 41 are very close friends. In fact Matt Lauer commented to Bush in an interview a while back that said that Bill Clinton spends more time at the bush family compound then Jr. does.

Im not surprised. We are just going to have a democratic version of the status quo.

This country is no longer the great democracy it once was.

This president's arrogance never ceases to shock and awe intelligent people. He actually thinks he can dictate a failed foreign policy for his successor to obey.

I suppose if you dig a grave big enough for the entire U.S., we won't have any choice but to fall in.

The next President will have to have the courage and intelligence to repair the damage done by Bush Junior.

"the president has been urging the New York senator and some of the other candidates not to "get yourself too locked in where you stand right now. If you end up sitting where I sit, things could change dramatically."

should I read here that He KNOWS something that the rest of us does not???? is He INTENTIONALLY creating an unsustainable situation???? is he purposely and deliberately creating CAOS!!!??????

The arrogance of this man in the white house is truly amazing. His past, which is the best predictor for future behavior shows that he has left a mess behind every job that he has undertaken. In this case, he makes a mess and makes committments that others have to keepl. The fool has never learned not to 'write checks on other people's time'. One nightmare thought is that he favors Hillary because he knows the Republicans can beat her in 2008. I think he genuinely fears Barrack Obama. Support the troops, stop feeding the contractors !

She should listen to him. Bush is a lot smarter than her and the rest of the Democrats

help me out here…i'm having trouble understanding how his "sharing thoughts" has anything to do with the basic fact that bush is INcompetent in the EXTREME, has not a shred of leadership ability, and has created more tax break millionaires than ever before while ignoring the middle class and has the rest of the world saying "we cant imagine how americans can vote twice for such a bozo"…."

at this point anything bush says is just part of his demented standup routine…who could possibly take him serious at this point…i think that was obvious in 2000.

Actually, and I can't believe I'm saying this, Bush is giving the candidates good advice. It's not the same thing being in the campaign trail as being in the Oval office. I think that it would be wise for the campaigns to accept the information offered by the administration and then make an informed decision.

This is just more evidence and further example of the secrecy and manipulation under which Bush operates. When his imperial reign is over, the best thing for this country will be a purge of his policies and full exposure to the damage he's caused this nation. That's what the candidates should keep in mind, not continuity with Bush.

And she should listen to him again???? Not a chance – nor should she.

Hillary Campaign will not make any comment. They know nothing about what is going on in Iraq & Afghanistan. If Hillary becomes president, it will be bigger disaster. Watch out before it is too late. God Bless America.

"The Evangelical President"?

Come on George, did you ever ask yourself, "what would Jesus do"?

why would anyone not want to bring freedom and democracy to a dictator-led country? Let me ask those who oppose being in Iraq – "If you don't want us to liberate people from poverty and despair, what do think our nation should do in Darfur?"

Maybe Hillary agreed for personal reasons – nothing would make Bill pay more attention than Hillary taking advice from Bush…
RJP, Virginia

Why Bush gives advice on Iraq only to Hillary? Has bush changed his postion yesterday that only a republican will win the next election?

I'm not a big fan of Hillary's, but I know that she's definately smart enough not to take advice from Bush on this topic, especially since Iraq is Bush's biggest failure (which, considering how many big failures he's had, is saying something).

I hope whoever the next president democrat or republican makes their own decisions and does not ask the current administration for any advice…start with a clean slate…the Bush administration has done enough damage not just to the US but to the world…what I hate most about this article is the tile of the book The Evangelical President…this president, his administration or most of the republicans that I know use "evangelical" as a front and are not sincere which is a disgrace…

If the data says that they should stay then they will, what Bush is saying is that he will CREATE a reason/way to obligate the next president staying in Iraq.

"He wants to create the conditions where a Democrat not only will have the leeway, but the obligation to see it out," <— this is maniacal

Yikes!!

Bush and Clinton??? It's a conspiracy I tell ya…who has been in power in this country since 1989?

extremist nut jobs and conspiracy theorists will have fun with this one…type away!

Hillary should listen carefully to Bush's advice so she will know for certain what not to do.