The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Bill Clinton stumbles on stump for wife

chance1

JUB 10k Club
Banned
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Posts
21,347
Reaction score
16
Points
0
Location
NYC
yeah - that's what he did

and he's supposed to be helping her i thought?

Lance? what up with that?

seems like Hillary and Bill BOTH have trouble with their positions - before, during and AFTER

it's part of their DNA for sure

on balance, Bill was a good President - IMO - no debate about that BUT

he whined about the treatment of his wife (other dems beating up on her) recently - NOT A GOOD PLAY

the latest one is their "support" for the Iraq War

Bill is on record a lot with his support for the President and his fear of Saddam

don't take my word for it - ck out the below piece - sure u have seen it

even liberal bloggers say Bill is struggling to find the truth here ......... hmmm

but no one on JUB is talking about it

LIFE on JUB

where many things go ignored and others get overdone

that should be on the masthead for CE+P

"proof in advertising"

haha


Bill Clinton stumbles on stump for wife

By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY,
USA TODAY

Posted: 2007-11-29 07:14:21

It was a partial clause in a sentence uttered in Muscatine, Iowa. But Bill Clinton's assertion Monday that he'd opposed the Iraq war "from the beginning" triggered outbursts across the political spectrum.

From the left, the right and the media establishment, the judgment was the former president had committed a gaffe that could hurt his wife's presidential bid.

"Bill Clinton Rewrites History on Iraq?" wondered ABC News' Political Radar blog. "A political blunder of monumental proportions," Dan Spencer wrote at the conservative Redstate.com. At liberal DailyKos.com, the headline was "Bill Clinton's 'truthiness' problem."

Clinton's comment, reported by the Associated Press, came in a discussion of tax cuts for wealthy Americans during wartime. "Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers," he said.

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign posted quotes Tuesday from Bill Clinton in which he highlighted his reservations about using force. Before the war started in 2003, he said that "we don't invade everybody whose regime we want to change" and that if Saddam Hussein disarms, the United States should seek regime change by helping his rivals.

"As he said before the war and many times since, President Clinton disagreed with taking the country to war without allowing the weapons inspectors to finish their jobs," said campaign spokesman Jay Carson.

Clinton was more oblique in Little Rock and Iowa City less than a week after the invasion. "Whatever our politics" and "whatever your views," he said, it was time to support President Bush and the troops.

Bloggers, however, posted quotes that underscored Clinton's support for Bush and concern about Saddam. For instance:

--In April 2003 in New York, Clinton said "Saddam is gone and good riddance" and Bush shouldn't be criticized "for trying to act" on the belief that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

--In May 2003 at Tougaloo College in Jackson, Miss., he said that "I supported the president when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

The hubbub comes as polls show Hillary Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama neck and neck in the race to win Iowa's leadoff nomination contest. They were tied at 29% in a Strategic Vision poll of Iowa Democrats released today.

University of Iowa political scientist Peverill Squire said Clinton's remark may revive concern about his wife's vote to authorize war. "It's undoubtedly a distraction," he said.

Obama gave a strong anti-war speech in late 2002, while he was a state legislator. Asked Tuesday about Clinton saying he opposed the war from the start, Obama laughed and said: "If he did, I don't think most of us heard about it."


Copyright 2007 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. A





http://news.aol.com/story/_a/bill-clinton-stumbles-on-stump-for-wife/n20071129071409990017
 
Another media-invented "stumble" that's part of the onslaught against the Clintons.
 
Another media-invented "stumble" that's part of the onslaught against the Clintons.

If you think this is an onslaught against the Clintons - just imagine how relentless it would be from the Republicans if Hillary ever got the Democratic nomination. This is a teddy bears picnic compared to that. Hillary would be so covered in mud dug up from the past that she would drown in it.

Why would the Democratic party commit suicide by having to fight a campaign explaining away an unsavory and questionable past record? And argue it away all you want it is there by the shovel load. Not all Democrats are nuts and many understand what a huge liability she would be to all their candidates for office if her negatives become the Democratic Party's, which they would as the Party would have to defend her questionable past. It would drag the whole Party down. What is more they want change and not another Republican term in the White House, which a Clinton nomination would assure in my view.

That is why there is great uneasiness about her as a candidate, which is beginning to worry Democrats that I have been talking too who are yet undecided but are beginning to smell whiff of desperation and defeat about her.
 
Ever notice with Lance that everything is always someone else's fault?

It's never the Clinton's fault. They can absolutely do no wrong.

At this point, I think if Hillary gets the Nomination, the Republicans would likely crush her in the General Election. Especially if it comes down to Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee. I honestly think they want to run against her, because they know this. They've got enough dirt on her to play it over and over and over again in the Media.

Obama might be a better choice for the Democratic Nominee at this point. He seems to have a little more integrity that the American people can put faith in than Senator Clinton.
 
Even Lancelot is getting tired of trying to defend the indefensible.
 
As Gore Vidal says, "We live in the United States of Amnesia."

Bill and Hillary are just practicing what they've learned from the Rove/Cheney/Bush play book. Which is, tell the people anything you want, they're too busy trying to keep their house payments up to remember what you said for more than a day or two.

So don't blame the Clintons for using the same tactic Rove/Cheney/Bush invented and use to their own ends. Or is you guys don't like to see someone else playing your game?
 
Gee, I wonder why the Republicans and the Republican media never pick apart everything Obama says? You don't think it is because they would love to run against Obama, do you? You don't think it is because they are counting electoral votes in toss up states and KNOW that they're best shot is against Obama, do you?
 
Another media-invented "stumble" that's part of the onslaught against the Clintons.

yeah

media invented

it's on AOL.com

seems like dailykos had an issue too

haha

lance - u really have no shame - ur slant on all things hillary/clinton is getting increasingly titled - don't tip my friend

chalk this up to another hillary/the clintons r victims I guess

u really can't make this shit up

bill is not much as a historian - keeps getting his facts wrong
 
yeah

media invented

it's on AOL.com

seems like dailykos had an issue too

haha

lance - u really have no shame - ur slant on all things hillary/clinton is getting increasingly titled - don't tip my friend

chalk this up to another hillary/the clintons r victims I guess

u really can't make this shit up

bill is not much as a historian - keeps getting his facts wrong

^Nothing that the President said could even be remotely considered a "bombshell." It's media invented because we are seeing the same overblown hype that they used when she made the statement about driver licenses for undocumented workers. That, just like this, was nothing--especially compared to what they tried to paint it as. Also note that Obama said the exact same thing two weeks after the debate and the press hardly batted an eye. Also, Obama has been flying around the country continue to be against the war from the beginning when he said in 2004 that he was "unsure" how he would have voted on the resolution.

The fact that President Clinton was aiming for was the he, like Senator Clinton, did oppose a unilateral invasion from the beginning. And they both supported letting the weapons inspection process work.

And you claim that I "have no shame"? Just because I support a candidate and have reasons for doing so while others on this forum are filled with hatred against the Clintons for no logical reason, you say I have no shame? What's the shame in this politicals of personal destruction? Where's the shame in accusing the Senator of staging an elaborate plot to "prove her presidential ability"? Where's the shame in falsely accusing people of murder? Where's the shame in those you use a double standard against the Clintons on this forum?
 
The reaction of Bill, Hillary and many of us to the Iraq invasion was (at the time) based upon the fact that we were told by our President that Iraq did in fact have WMDs and supported al Qaeda, who had recently attacked us.
The President lied. We were all duped.
The opinions of many of us have changed radically from that period of time till now.
 
It is not over reaction by the media. She is getting the bulk of the attention on any issue that waivers from stated positions past, present and future because she has been seen an inevitable for a long time now by most people. With the mantle comes the responsibility to be straightforward and honest. Throw whatever rocks you want at the republican leadership about the same issue of integrity and in the end know that the Dems will be held just as accountable for their words.

Is it not possible that the Media and the public feel duped by the many transgressions of the republicans while they were in power and so therefore are more reluctant to let things slide?
 
Stumble? Nobody that woulda, coulda or was President would have done what George Bush did. Not Clinton, not Bush Sr.., not Gore and certainly not Reagan. Had virtually any other major political figure been President, we would not be in the mess we are today.

Clinton, Bush Sr. and the Senate "supported" the President, but none of them would have done what Bush did.
 
Is it not possible that the Media and the public feel duped by the many transgressions of the republicans while they were in power and so therefore are more reluctant to let things slide?

That would be tree if the media held everyone to the same standard. As we have seen, that is not the case.
 
^Nothing that the President said could even be remotely considered a "bombshell." It's media invented because we are seeing the same overblown hype that they used when she made the statement about driver licenses for undocumented workers. That, just like this, was nothing--especially compared to what they tried to paint it as. Also note that Obama said the exact same thing two weeks after the debate and the press hardly batted an eye. Also, Obama has been flying around the country continue to be against the war from the beginning when he said in 2004 that he was "unsure" how he would have voted on the resolution.

The fact that President Clinton was aiming for was the he, like Senator Clinton, did oppose a unilateral invasion from the beginning. And they both supported letting the weapons inspection process work.

And you claim that I "have no shame"? Just because I support a candidate and have reasons for doing so while others on this forum are filled with hatred against the Clintons for no logical reason, you say I have no shame? What's the shame in this politicals of personal destruction? Where's the shame in accusing the Senator of staging an elaborate plot to "prove her presidential ability"? Where's the shame in falsely accusing people of murder? Where's the shame in those you use a double standard against the Clintons on this forum?

hype?

it's a story

that had/has a very limited shelf life

why ? probably because the media actually kisses Bill's ass (more than his oh so many fillies while Pres) cuz they like him - he is likeable

there is no hype here

he made erroneous statements [-X

now many JUBBERs, 80% approximately, would call GWB or a Repub, a LIAR for such statements :(

I will not do that ;)

cuz reading them makes me laugh - not think of him as a "liar"

and dude - there is no double standard

this board reeks of pro Hillary sentiment - so please - take ur whining, complaints, false accusations, victimization pleas ........... elsewhere - where u will actually have to work at it - go on foxnews.com or something :rolleyes:

ur preaching to the choir here with ur pro Hillary drivel

and it is drivel

because ur a partisan - period - ur a mouthpiece - doesn't make u a bad person - ur a hired rep - u would say anything to get her elected and further her/your standing - and u have access to lots of goodies that get produced by the HCFP corporation - goodies as in info - 24/7 data collection - know what im saying? :p

i know u do

and u will continue to do ur JOB - very well I might add :-)

and that's ok

just don't expect me to buy what ur selling :wave:
 
That would be tree if the media held everyone to the same standard. As we have seen, that is not the case.

Please show me the transgressions against her hoiliness. Pretend I am from Missouri. Other than your average hard journalism tempered with OpEd from each side of the aisle that drip of partisanship, please show me some proof.

She gets the spotlight because she is the lead currently. It happens to every candidate who hits the apex so please dont get your panties in a knot simply because she is your candidate.
 
Please show me the transgressions against her hoiliness. Pretend I am from Missouri. Other than your average hard journalism tempered with OpEd from each side of the aisle that drip of partisanship, please show me some proof.

She gets the spotlight because she is the lead currently. It happens to every candidate who hits the apex so please dont get your panties in a knot simply because she is your candidate.

the computers r going full bore on ur answer mazda

u will get the print out shortly

with many examples of transgressions

and this will cost thousands of dollars

u happy?
 
Why can't everybody be as impartial and as objective as Chance? It's really very easy, just declare yourself objective and everybody else a partisan, ignore the facts and take your cues from the fair and balanced folks on FOX.
 
Why can't everybody be as impartial and as objective as Chance? It's really very easy, just declare yourself objective and everybody else a partisan, ignore the facts and take your cues from the fair and balanced folks on FOX.

it's really not that easy Iman

I think u got it wrong

it took me a lot of time and effort to do so

it doesn't just happen

but keep working it

u will get it

good luck
 
it's really not that easy Iman

I think u got it wrong

it took me a lot of time and effort to do so

it doesn't just happen

but keep working it

u will get it

good luck


Of course they forget, Chance. The official policy under the Clinton administration was "regime change" in 1998. Hillary's vote for the war was the culmination of that policy. They wanted Saddam removed. It's just more of the Clinton's double speak when BJ claims he didn't support the war from jump street. Clinton was working to get rid of him years earlier, they just forgot, I guess!
 
Of course they forget, Chance. The official policy under the Clinton administration was "regime change" in 1998. Hillary's vote for the war was the culmination of that policy. They wanted Saddam removed. It's just more of the Clinton's double speak when BJ claims he didn't support the war from jump street. Clinton was working to get rid of him years earlier, they just forgot, I guess!

that's my read jack

so much has gone on in their lives - how do u keep up with all of it ??

probably just forgot :rolleyes:

im sure the campaign has lawyers working on the explanation too
 
Back
Top