Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« We're Making Progress in Iraq | Mi Casa es Su Casa »

Monday, September 24, 2007

George W. Bush is Offering Advice to WHO about WHAT?

posted by on September 24 at 17:20 PM

President Bush is quietly providing back-channel advice to Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her rhetoric so she can effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected president. In an interview for the new book The Evangelical President, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten said Bush has “been urging candidates: ‘Don’t get yourself too locked in where you stand right now. If you end up sitting where I sit, things could change dramatically.’”

Where to start?

RSS icon Comments

1

Hillary is pro-Israel and pro-war. Of course she needs to keep her options open, what's the coming Israel-American invasion of Iran going to look like a year from now?

Most Democrats were pro-war when we invaded Iraq and most support the occupation of Iraq. It doesn't take much to stir up support for war as long as the press cooperates. Now the main issue is Iran, and we all need to keep demonizing Iran's leader to justify the coming attack on Iran.

Dan you can help a lot by pushing the "Iran is anti-gay" angle. We need to be careful since America's own military officially "has no gay service men". It might occur to someone that if you asked George Bush on television why gay men in the military are treated to poorly, our President would have to answer "we have no gay men in our armed service".

But most will be quite happy with the bombing Iran because Iran is anti-gay.

Posted by Issur | September 24, 2007 5:39 PM
2

correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't it to WHOM and not to who?

Posted by grammar police | September 24, 2007 6:52 PM
3

Hillary = G W Bush redux

Maybe it will not be Bush who will attack Iran, President Hillary Clinton will do it for him....

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | September 24, 2007 6:55 PM
4

Where to start? Gravel, Kucinich, or Paul.

Posted by Phil M | September 24, 2007 7:22 PM
5

Bush is a dick, but he has a point. I highly doubt a democratic president, especially hawkish Clinton, is going to be able to disengage from Iraq easily. Consider Nixon's "peace with honor." His rhetoric won him votes, and what did he do? He escalated the war, having convinced himself that he could execute it better than Johnson. I have no doubt that someone like Clinton secretly thinks they can manage the war better, and if you place her in the political hot seat of having to actually make concrete decisions about the war, it's quite likely that you're not going to see a major policy shift overnight. I can well imagine the anti-war left coming to hate the inheritor of this war as much as the instigators. Democrats would be wise to consider that advice with some qualifications. Three (four really), presidents failed to figure out the Vietnam conflict- different will not necessarily mean better when it comes to a mess like Iraq.

Posted by Jay | September 24, 2007 7:52 PM
6

hillary is the absolute best candidate for the fascists.

she'll have all the whimpy ass dem apologists who've been making excuses for the losing of our 'leaders', losing for the last 27 years,

she'll have all those apologists on her side. the fascists will continue to roll the congress AND the whimps will continue with their bullshit about needing 67 votes to do anything

AND

after 2 or 4 years the Dems will own EVERY fucking problem that was intentionally started and aggressively nurtured by the fascists.

the party fo dry powder, of lucy pulling of the foot ball, of 'what me worry', this party of ever educated fucking loser whimps will accomplish NOTHING for the progress of tens of millions of American peee-ons, and, by extension, for the progress of billions even less fortuate around the globe

AND they won't stop the fascists,

AND the fascists will keep winning.

to hell with hillary.

Posted by seabos84 | September 24, 2007 8:48 PM
7

I still think it's funny, uh, how Bush has completely given up on the idea of even remotely trying to salvage anything for his name. Nope. I'm just gonna let the next person deal with it.

Nice. Nice.

Nice.

This has to be the harshest slap in the face to all Americans. It simply has to be. We voted this motherfucker into office. This guy. Bush. Yeah, we did.

Posted by I hate everyone. | September 24, 2007 9:02 PM
8

@7 - Twice

Posted by Mahtli69 | September 24, 2007 9:35 PM
9

@8 - No, once. Although we shouldn't known better that time.

Posted by tsm | September 24, 2007 9:55 PM
10

"shouldn't" ==> "should've"

Posted by tsm | September 24, 2007 9:56 PM
11

The only solution to Iraq was not to have invaded in the first place. Anything we do now - stay, leave, impose the draft and send half a million troops in - is completely fucked.

This is a quagmire. Vietnam was not.

How's your brother doing, Frizelle?

Posted by Sean | September 24, 2007 10:06 PM
12

So if she wins that will make the progression of administrations go like this: Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton. And now they are giving each other advice?! We already have people of voting age who have ALWAYS had a Bush or a Clinton in The White House. I don't think this is good for America.

Posted by Tiffany | September 24, 2007 10:20 PM
13

I know it is worthless, but how does one get say Gravel, or Kucinich the Dem nomination? How does the Dem Primary work? Does Iowa decide for the whole country?

Posted by Trot | September 24, 2007 10:29 PM
14

Fact:

If Obama gets the nom, he will lose up against Fred or Mitt.

If Hillary gets the nom, she will hopefully beat Fred, and will most definitely beat Mitt.

51% people. 51%.

Posted by Mr. Poe | September 24, 2007 11:00 PM
15

Poe: 51% is meaningless if it buys you more of the same.

Posted by WenG | September 25, 2007 12:34 AM
16

@14 LOL. "FACT" How do you know this for sure? Also, please be cognizant of the fact that we are in this war(which is destroying our future, if it has not already) by no small means because the Democrats have been the chunky left foot of our “Boots on the Ground” stomp of Iraq. It is so grotesque to actually read somebody not in the Cooperate Media stumping not only for the Democrats, but Hillary to boot. Bra-fucking-vo, MR. Poe. Mr. Poe, please be aware of the Karmic ramifications of what you are doing, not only are your endangering your stands of DNA by stumping for Hillary(being reincarnated as a tapworm), you will also be complicit in the spatial realm of condemning your offspring to:
A: A third world peasant existence in a country bankrupt financially and morally by our forighn policy in the Middle East
B: A spineless liberal playacting like they actually live in a Democracy when they vote for a Democrat that will make it a point to vote with, or fail to defeat the bills written by Christine/Corprate/Zionist fascists designed to destroy or mutilate the: constitution, little kids in Palestine and Iraq, wetlands, the rights of gays, etc etc.
C. Idiot cops/soldiers/prison guards following the orders to a t.

Posted by Trot | September 25, 2007 12:38 AM
17

Waste of time. President Gore or Obama will deal with this.

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 25, 2007 12:44 AM
18

@15

Uh, yeah. Exactly.

@16

...

Posted by Mr. Poe | September 25, 2007 12:47 AM
19

Take a look at this:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html

Hillary has the respect of the archest of archconservatives. Isn't Washington full of surprises?

Posted by saxfanatic | September 25, 2007 3:58 AM
20

Maybe I've just become paranoid but doesn't this seem like perhaps a tactic to make Democratic canidates seem aligned with the Bush Administration?

Posted by kittenchops | September 25, 2007 7:16 AM
21

@7

Um... Bush has always intended to just "let the next person deal with it". That's why he behaves so irresponsibly in the first place. You're talking about someone who has run just about every company he's been in charge of into bankruptcy. Is it any surprise that he's doing his damnedest to bankrupt America?

Posted by Toby | September 25, 2007 7:20 AM
22

Somebody told me that President Bush was giving advice to Hillary, but all I see is a douche in a suit talking about shit he doesn't understand.

Posted by Greg | September 25, 2007 7:29 AM
23

Though I am generally an Obama supporter, the only Democrats so far who seem to have an informed and realistic position on Iraq are Clinton and Biden. We are NOT going to pull out of there in a few weeks or months, even if the new President wants to do so--it's impossible. What's more, it's irresponsible. We made the mess, and the Iraqi government is incapable of cleaning it up. Abandoning them to their own infighting is both immoral and unsafe. Our only option is to withdraw troops only as the U.N. and other countries fill the void with neutral peace-keeping troops of their own. That will take months if not years to accomplish. This isn't a partisan issue--it's a strategic one. Ranting on about "fascists" and "wimpy Democrats" and Clinton-Bush conspiracies and fantasies of a Gore presidency don't change the reality of the situation. Kucinich is a great lefty talking-head--I like the guy--but he would be a disastrous president. Richardson is a Republican and Edwards is all fluff and no substance. That leaves Clinton and Obama, who are both smart enough to know that Iraq isn't going away after their first 100 days in office.

Posted by jack | September 25, 2007 8:05 AM
24

Those who think Hillary = Bush are the same poor saps who now back Gore (or Kucinich or Gravel, or some other fantasy candidate). Of course, when Gore was actually running, they were too pure to support him, so instead they weakened his candidacy by supporting Bradley in the primaries and voting for Nader (remember the Naderites blaming Gore for losing?), and giving us our current anti-Midas, who turns everything he touches into shit. Does anyone really think now there would have been no difference between eight years of Gore and eight years of Dubya?? Does anyone really think in 2016 there will have been no difference if we elect Hillary instead of Thompson or Romney??

Put down the bong, people, grow up, take a deep breath and repeat after me: "Neither Kucinich nor Gravel (nor Gore, even if he wins the Nobel Peace Prize) is going to become President. Let's rally around someone better than Thompson or Romney that actually can win in this country in 2008."

And for those who are simply trying to move the agenda further leftward, remember that Newt, the "Contract With America" and 12 years of Republicans in Congress were a direct result of Clinton attempting to make good on his promises (1) to support gays in the military and (2) to provide universal health care. Those aren't bad things--they are great things--but--in this country, in 2008 (remember, we don't live in Denmark)--they have to be advanced with thought and finesse, not through loud stupid bleating about fascism.

Posted by kk | September 25, 2007 9:18 AM
25

amen @ 24! idealism is best served with healthy dose of reality and pragmatism.

Posted by chris | September 25, 2007 10:44 AM
26

Am I the ONLY one who thinks Bush's advice is sound? 'Cause I do. I think he's right about not taking too hard a stand before sitting in the hot seat. The winning candidate will have access to piles of information they don't now, and she'll have to make decisions she didn't contemplate making while running. Isn't that obvious?

Posted by josef | September 25, 2007 11:11 AM
27

I hate to break it to you people, but the "Fuck America, Fuck Capitalism, Fuck Israel" platform appeals to maybe 2% of the electorate. So, by all means, vent your fringe impotence with a vote for Nader or McKinney or whoever, it won't make a lick of difference. The next president most likely will be Hillary, for the simple reason Bush cites, she has more power and influence than anyone else running. I mean, seriously, is there anyone her husband can't get on the phone? She will raise more money and have a bigger, more powerful organization than anyone else. End 'o story.

Posted by A Normal American Voter | September 25, 2007 12:00 PM
28

I think Hillary is the most electable Democrat, but the idea that she's the only one who can get to 51% is ridiculous.

The way I look at it, one third of this country is quasi-fascist and loves Bush except on the few issues where he's reasonable (such as immigration). One third actually understands what this country is supposed to be about, and those people are voting against him. That leaves the middle third of the electorate up for grabs.

That third was scared shitless by 9/11. In 2004, enough of them were still scared (and in denial) to give Bush an edge. But since 2006, enough of those people have swung to give the Democrats, and pretty much any Democratic candidate for president except Gravel, a slim majority. We already have the 51%. The question is whether we can keep that, and possibly extend it.

For things to swing back toward the GOP, they need Bush to have a credible success on something and/or a new terrorist attack or war to scare the swing voters again. The Iraq war is lost, so they're not getting any success there. The economy is as good as it will get and teetering on the edge, so it's highly unlikely to help the Republicans. Bush has so alienated federal administrators and employees and the whole infrastructure of civil service that he's unlikely to accomplish anything domestically, and the Pentagon and State Department and most of the top brass aren't going to let him play games with the troops for another war.

That leaves exploiting a terrorist attack and/or demonizing the Democrats through attacks on liberals, secular Americans, and gay people. But I really think that most of the middle third is getting tired of the theocratic right and unlikely to listen to their bullshit.

So, absent a terrorist attack that Bush can exploit, I don't think the GOP can get to 51%. The question is whether they will lose narrowly or lose big. I don't think it's the Democratic nominee who will determine that. I think it's the quality of the GOP campaign. If they run on their current platform (as judged from the debates) of supporting torture, war, dictatorship, and hatred, I think they'll alienate almost all of the middle-third voters and lose in a huge landslide. If they run an empty image-based campaign that hides their extremism in the style of Reagan, they'll lose narrowly. But I don't think the Republican base will let their nominee avoid going on record as a right-wing extremist.

Posted by Cascadian | September 25, 2007 12:21 PM
29

I find the level of vitriol aimed at Hillary Clinton depressing. I *like* Obama. I *like* Edwards. If either of them are endorsed I will give them my time and money. (Gore less so- he botched '00, even if he won- but I would hold my nose and do the same.)

But I think Clinton would be the best candidate next fall. Cato, seabos84, and Trot you have NO sense of perspective if you would hound Clinton supporters out of the big tent (much less reincarnate us as tapeworms!)

I'll also point out that you rarely see people come on this sight and say "I support Hills- fuck all you people who don't" whereas the converse "I hate Hills- fuck all you people who do" is heard... daily? Hourly?

Posted by Big Sven | September 25, 2007 2:57 PM
30

Hey KK, how much you get paid stump for the Democrates?

Posted by gj | September 25, 2007 3:36 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).