posted on July 28, 2002 10:13:09 PM new
WASHINGTON (AP) - Former President Clinton ( news - web sites) says the bull market of the 1990s bred corporate corruption but that President Bush ( news - web sites)'s laying blame on his predecessor twists the truth.
"There was corporate malfeasance both before he took office and after," Clinton told a Washington television reporter. "The difference is I actually tried to do something about it, and their party stopped it" in Congress.
"And one of the people who stopped our attempt to stop Enron accounting was made chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission ( news - web sites)," Clinton said. "That is a fact; an indisputable fact."
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel would not respond Sunday to Clinton's specific comments but said: "There is a long-held tradition of former presidents acting in the national interests, not their own partisan interests. That long-held tradition has served the nation well, and President Bush is looking forward, not backward."
Clinton's interview was aired Friday on WJLA-TV Channel 7.
Bush was asked at a July 8 news conference whether Clinton had contributed to corporate excesses of the 1990s that have shaken the stock markets and slowed the nation's economic recovery. "No," Bush said. Asked later about controversies surrounding his new SEC commissioner, Bush said: "I think Harvey Pitt was put in place to clean up a mess."
Other White House officials have criticized the Clinton administration for letting underhanded corporate practices flourish.
Clinton also noted that Bush had blamed his effort to push Israel and the Palestinians into an overall settlement for violence that began in September 2000 and has become steadily worse.
"These people ran on responsibility, but as soon as you scratch them they go straight to blame," Clinton said in the interview. "Now you know, I didn't blame his father for Somalia ... I didn't do that.
"And I think that's not a real mark of leadership, and it's the wrong thing to do. But in this case, it's factually wrong."
Clinton said he began warning in 1998 about a gathering problem with corporate accounting practices, and when his SEC "tried to stop the Enron accounting practice of accountants being the consultants, the other party stopped us. And their main lobbyist was Harvey Pitt."
On the Middle East, Clinton said: "We had seven years of progress toward peace in the Middle East, and they tried to blame me for trouble in the Middle East. That's just what they do. Republicans have always done that. But it's bad form, and it's bad for America, and they should stop it."
The interview was taped after Clinton attended an observance to commemorate the 10th anniversary of passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
posted on July 28, 2002 10:40:15 PM new
I miss Clinton more every day. Just think--an intelligent, literate President who could speak off the cuff without pausing every 4 words, who didn't say "Nu-kew-lar" and "Re-la-tor," etc. Who was truly educated. Miss him a lot.
posted on July 28, 2002 10:48:50 PM new
After living under 10 different presidents, I would have to say that Clinton was the brightest and the best.
In fact I think history may find him among the top 3 of the 20th century, and in the top 10 in the history of the office.
I am still amazed at his detractors, which are mainly insecure women spurred on by Republican zealots, that are lambasting him for things that were irrelevant to his office or his performance. The BJ thing was irrelevant. His "perjury" fiasco wasn't even perjury as a matter of law, but mere obstruction of the discovery process, which nearly always happens in a high stakes case, and is done by both sides.
Clinton was a working class kid who was extremely smart. He set his sites on being President of the United Sates as a teenager.
What Clinton accomplished was extradinary. Just getting into Yale and being a Rhodes Scholar with his backround would have been enough feathers in most peoples caps. He probably would have been a very wealthy attorney had be just practiced law. His personal life would have been kept private too.
But it seems that he had a sincere conviction to make a difference for our country by holding elected office. Clinton is a person who as a young man took the family name of Clinton so he and his step brother would have the same last name. The last name of a man who used to beat his mother, and Bill actually drew down on with a shotgun. Clinton could have been very wealthy, and looked upon the working class with the cynicism and contempt that the republicans do. But instead he put himself and his family through the wringer of public scruntiny in order for working class people to enjoy one of the best decades they have ever experienced.
If his "womanizing" and attempting to cover it up are the only faults that the right can find with him, then he is still a great president in my book.
He did more for working families than both Bushes and Reagan combined. But it's not hard to beat a record of doing nothing.
What we have now is a guy born with a silver spoon in his mouth and couldn't find his way home without the wealth and privelege that was handed to him.
posted on July 29, 2002 05:46:40 AM new
He set his sites on being President of the United Sates as a teenager.
This is what made republicans so mad. Clinton connected with America's youth and the right see this as a huge threat. If Al Gore is planning on running again he should also connect with the youth. Visit large schools, get on the teen shows, etc. If he can do this the office is his.
posted on July 29, 2002 07:44:31 AM new
Under the direction of the Clinton adminisistration we had peace, economic prosperity and security. In less than two years, the corporate directed Bush administration of greed and corruption has destroyed the extraordinary progress that Clinton - and even authors of the constitution worked so hard to achieve. Our government is now a dictatorship of corporate interests - oil and insurance industries rule.
No president in the history of our country has failed our country so miserably as George W. Bush.
I hope that Clinton will continue to "tell it like it is."
posted on July 29, 2002 10:08:49 AM new
I've got to ask this....What happened to
Waco in the
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OVERVIEW , Not there.
Should have shown up in April 94. It
never happened?
posted on July 29, 2002 10:50:57 AM new
re: The Free Republic Article.
Even "if" it could be shown that China had any undue influence on Clinton or the elections in the 1990s, it is benign compared to the influence of Saudi Arabia on the present administration. We should bomb Saudi Arabia before Iraq.
I also find that Bush and Co., can easily be manipulated by a foreign power, while it would be nearly impossible for it to be done to Clinton. If Clinton had anything going on with China, you can bet the US came out on top.
A robust inclusive economy is a necessary condition for freedom and democracy.
posted on July 29, 2002 10:58:46 AM new
junquemana - I don't know...maybe because he admitted to that one.
I remember Janet Reno being quoted [in regards to Waco] that most Americans didn't care about Waco. A reported statement she later adamantly denied.
In April, Clinton told federal investigators looking into campaign fund-raising activities that he was wrong to yield to Justice Department pleas to storm the Branch Davidian compound at Waco. ``I gave in to the people at the Justice Department who were pleading to go in early, and I felt personally responsible for what happened and I still do,´´ the president said in an interview with federal investigators that was released last week. ``I made a terrible mistake.´´ [taken from an AP article]
posted on July 29, 2002 09:29:25 PM new
Just think of the credibility that bush could gain if he admitted to the Japanese people and the American public that he was personally irresponsible for ordering that his daddie's cronies be given free reign over a US ship of war and that he felt personally responsible for the resultant sinking of a Japanese ship and for the deaths of several of it's crew, or that he felt a deep personal regret while apologizing to the people of Canada for the untimely deaths of several of their sons because of an idiotic intelligence failure by his forces in Afganistan.
posted on July 30, 2002 05:24:11 AM newEx-president Bill Clinton was flat-out wrong on Wednesday when he blamed Republicans for blocking his attempts to implement corporate reforms that might have prevented the recent stock market slide, his former top political adviser Dick Morris tells NewsMax.com exclusively.
So, then are you democrats saying it was okay for Clinton to bring in the militia during Waco, but it's not okay when Bush is trying to clarify if he could do so should terrorist attacks occur in our country? I'm just not sure I understand how it's okay under clinton, but would be a complete violation of liberties under Bush.
posted on July 30, 2002 08:27:26 AM new
Linda_K,I had the year of Waco wrong,It was
1993. I brought it up,Only because it was missing from that list.Ruby Ridge was 1992 and that was Bush.I believe this only shows
There are people with guns that need to be watched a lot closer,And the people at the top,can be fooled into doing stupid things.
posted on July 30, 2002 09:58:11 AM new
junquemama - I know. No problem on my end. Did you have the time to read under the 'hot topics' on a couple of those pages about Waco? If you do, you will read how clinton first denied then admitted to his involvement. [It's documented who he said what to and when.
posted on July 30, 2002 11:09:16 AM new
Linda_K, I am not the brightest bulb in the
world of politics. I still haven't gotten over Nixion being elected.
The only way I can view Clintons remark,
I felt personally responsible for what happened and I still do A man who was honest about his role in history, before he left office. Of course some other things
were not admitted to,They all have secrets.
Did notice however over the years,When a President is on the hot seat,Issues of
abortion,social security,mixed with civil
rights violations are thrown in the fore-front of all news,TV,radio,paper.
Co-inkydink?
posted on July 30, 2002 11:21:30 AM new
junquemama - Nixon - Doesn't matter how well versed one is, we each read and make decisions on how we see the issues.
And, yes, I agree it was good of him to admit he felt he'd made the wrong decision. I do give him credit for that.
But to me, it's that he only seems to own up to things once someone proves he did something differently than what he stated previously he did. I just can't/don't trust him. sorry...I understand you disagree.
Did you have the time to read under the 'hot topics' on a couple of those pages about Waco? If you do, you will read how clinton first denied then admitted to his involvement. [It's documented who he said what to and when.
Doesn't matter how well versed one is, we each read and make decisions on how we see the issues.
