Bill Clinton's three roles

CNN's Bill Schneider reports on the three roles Bill Clinton is playing.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - CNN's Bill Schneider reports that as a former president, party cheerleader, and husband of a current presidential candidate, Bill Clinton is playing three roles.

Filed under: Bill Clinton

soundoff (54 Responses)

Mike, Cleveland, OH

Bob New York

I agree with your statements about Hillary causing more gridlock in DC. I'm not voting for her either.

I am unaware of Clinton warning the target area in advance. Do you have
sources on this?

No one knows exactly which documents Sandy Berger took from the Archives.
Nevertheless, that does not negate the fact that Bush was warned 2 months prior to 9/11 by the CIA. In the 9/11 hearings that you are refering to, I think it was John Ashcroft who testified that there wasn't enough information for the Bush Administration. Considering the source, how do we know that Ashcroft wasn't lying to cover for Bush. I'm not making an accusation, but it is possible.

I can always count on conservatives to bring up the perjury/affair when trying to defend or excuse another conservative for doing the same thing.

Lastly, I wasn't the one who changed the dialog. Vince did when he spun this from facts about Clinton and politics as usual to attacking Bush. Which appears to be the favorite way that democrats answer for themselves, point a finger at someone else and say "but see what he did"

You've proven you are your own worst enemy with the above quote. You rail against people for pointing the finger at someone else but then in order to defend Patterson, you bring up Clinton's perjury/affair.

I disagree that Clinton had a "much better chance" to find OBL. Though I do believe that Clinton underestimated the threat that OBL posed in 1994, I think we all did, hindsight is 20/20. Bush however has had nearly his entire presidency to go after OBL but instead focused more on Iraq.

I agree that we need a new direction and electing Hillary is not the right choice. I don't agree that Clinton "failed so miserably" at national security or hunting down OBL. Lets not forget Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating, the highest end-of-presidency rating of any President that came into office after World War II. Will Bush have similar numbers? I think no.

The lying by Patterson, Clinton and other political pundits from both partys do nothing to solve the gridlock in the federal government.

November 2, 2007 02:17 pm at 2:17 pm |
Bob New York

Mike, Cleveland – fiorstly, the source was from the 9/11 report section 4, "Since the missiles headed for Afghanistan had had to cross Pakistan, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was sent to meet with Pakistan’s army chief of staff to assure him the missiles were not coming from India." but prior reading shows that they didn't trust all of that government to be stable against the targets and they suspected leaks. Why in the world would they then order the warning of them?
Perhaps when the missiles were in mid air, or just cutting into airspace, or weeks before as they knew it would take place that long in advance. But certainly not in a time frame that would prove able to give warning to make people leave. Put 2 and 2 together here Mike. This report was filed by politicians as well who didn't want to cut their own throats.

Secondly, I don't think that when it comes to credibility, I doubt Buzz Patterson's accounts far less than Clinton's which was the only point I was trying to make. If it comes between believing anyone and a Clinton, the Clinton's have already proved their ability to not just misconstrue but out right lie even in the face of violating the law. After seeing all I have, I don't take anyone anymore on their word, I look at their history then I triple check sources and make up my own mind.

Again as far as Clinton having a much better chance at finding Bin laden, well, he was offered to take Bin Laden from a foreign Government but he refused delivery, stating we didn't want him. That was after a bombing. It doesn't get much easier than that.

Although I most sincerely do appreciate your intelligent comments and our discussion (thank you sir), I still assert that Clinton failed miserably.

It brings me to when he first failed to see that when 18 Soldiers died in Mogadishu and I believe 73 were wounded we left. that was after Bin Ladens first fatwa and public statements that America couldn't stomach war. That we would leave if America's children were paraded in the streets dead. By leaving at any time he gave them the idea that by killing people he could have his way. This I firmly believe to be true.

It's not about political numbers to me. It is about doing what is right. Not about what people want to hear, but about doing what needs to be done as president. Clearly, in my mind we need a leader who will do what is right. Not one who will do what is politically convenient. Not one who has their own agenda. But one who really has the best interest of all of us at heart.

As Christen pointed out, we have troops there now. We need to protect them, help and support them, and most of all not let their daily tremendous sacrifices be for nothing. As we failed to do for those in Mogadishu.

This is our job and our legacy we will leave.

November 2, 2007 08:19 pm at 8:19 pm |
Mi

Bob New York

I doubt you'll read this but it is my hope that you do. Rather than debate back and forth on an expired blog, I will try to keep my comments short. I also appreciate your conservative insight and wisdom. Furthermore, I appreciate the civil debate minus the hateful rhetoric. Nothing irritates me more than petty name calling from both sides. Though we likely will fundamentally disagree on the political issues of our day, it is my hope that more people (from both sides) can stop the negative bully tactics and empty rhetoric.

It's not about political numbers to me. It is about doing what is right. Not about what people want to hear, but about doing what needs to be done as president. Clearly, in my mind we need a leader who will do what is right. Not one who will do what is politically convenient. Not one who has their own agenda. But one who really has the best interest of all of us at heart.

This was very well stated and the primary reason that Hillary is the wrong choice for president. I don't want her to be nominated, but I also will not vote republican in this election. If she is nominated, I'm not sure what I will do...

I agree supporting the troops is the best thing that we can do in order to keep their spirits high. Respectfully, I will not support the Commander-in-Chief in this failed foreign policy.

November 3, 2007 10:00 pm at 10:00 pm |
Ashley

Bill Clinton is one of the worst presidents the United States has ever seen. He ignored threats that warned us about 9/11 and we messed around with women behind his wife's back. And she should not be even given a chance to be President because she is untrustworthy too for doing the same thing he did.

November 7, 2007 05:52 pm at 5:52 pm |