Article

2003-04-25 Britain

Blairâs secret war meetings with Clinton

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-04-25 01:55 am|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Wonder how Hillary will explain this to her New York constituents: Did she know about Bill's dealings with a foreign power, and when did she know; and as she will invaiably deny knowledge, why didnt she know. She is married to the guy. Will we accept her explanation that her husbands affairs (pun intended) are his own business and she doesn't interfere?

Additionally, how about the press asking this question to the democratic presidential field: If you become president, when you are out of office, will you pledge that you will not interfere in the president's foreign policy even as you may hold different views?

Should we not hold the left now to a far higher standard than before?

Posted by badanov 2003-04-25 02:50:48|| [www.rkka.org] 2003-04-25 02:50:48|| Front Page Top

#2 Slick Willy. Go away. Stop trying to fuck up the country for ANOTHER four years.

Posted by g wiz 2003-04-25 03:43:26|| 2003-04-25 03:43:26|| Front Page Top

#3 Not to defend Clinton here, but this doesn't sound so bad to me. Whatever he told Blair, Blair eventually did the right thing. Clinton is deeply loved in Europe so I think he might have helped bring the British closer. Some of what Clinton has said in the past few months (attempted to) undermined Bush, which is disgraceful, though not surprising. But he wrote a letter in the Guardian supporting Blair which may have helped strengthen Blair within his own party. Remember, Blair had a real struggle just before the war. Clinton is a hero to the British Labour party. Overall, I don't think this ranks as Carter-level perfidity. In a way, both ex-Presidents play an important role. Carter discredits all opposition, turning it into a parody and unifying all decent Americans in support of Bush. Clinton is a bone (ahem) to toss to Old Europe to distract them from their anti-American hissy fits.

Posted by Tokyo Taro 2003-04-25 04:50:41|| 2003-04-25 04:50:41|| Front Page Top

#4 badanov -- Ok, assuming it is all true (which I believe would be a first for the Guardian), it's not like Clinton was hanging around Chirac telling him how to backstab the US. He was talking with an ally. They were pretty tight when Clinton was president (remember?), so I'd be more surprised if Blair didn't meet with him.

Hillary would have more 'splaining to do regarding the Drudge Report and Steven Brill saying that Charles Schumer did more for the victims of 9/11 than she did, even going to the point of making up contacts that never happened.

Posted by Baba Yaga 2003-04-25 05:59:14|| 2003-04-25 05:59:14|| Front Page Top

#5 My point is what is a private citizen, albeit a former president, doing dealing with a foreign government. The constitutional role of our government for foreign policy rests with the president not an ex-president.

I am pretty disgusted with leftists like Clinton, 'Baghdad' David Bonior, and Sean Penn, whose egos are so large they think they are so totally above the constitution; that no consequences should come from their dealings with a foreign government. Maybe an investigation is in order to look into the finances of these people to assure ourselves they were not in the pay of Saddam and his enablers in the United Nations.

We now know that some members of Blairs party are communists, real live honest to goodness bolsheviks whose goal is the destruction of capitalism and freedom of which the United States is the target, who have shown to have absolutely no compunction to selling out their own country to advance their socialist agenda. The Ba'athists were also communists and it is inconceivable to me that word of the substances of the meetings between Blair and Clinton did not get back to them. It is hard for me to believe that someone like Clinton would also not take cash to mug for the cameras for the UN's and Saddam's sake.

Paranoid? I would have been labeled paranoid had I suggested that anyone in Blair's party were in the pay of a foreign power, but now we know it is true; and it may well be only the tip of the iceberg. Were Clinton have been found to be in similar circumstances, can we not ask and receive answers to those questions?

Posted by badanov 2003-04-25 07:38:20|| [www.rkka.org] 2003-04-25 07:38:20|| Front Page Top

#6 No government on this planet has 100% sterling membership, including ours. Senator Robert Byrd (D-KKK) and Senator Strom Thurmond (not dead yet), come to mind. The important thing is that Britain has been there when we needed them, even if they aren't all angels.

Are there anti-Americans in the British government? Yup. You could say we have them in the State Department, too, by some of their actions.

There is no indication from this article that Clinton is getting paid by the UN or Saddam to undermine our government. If you have some evidence to support that, I'd love to see it. That's a pretty damn serious charge to make about anybody. I can't stand him either, but unless I had some proof I wouldn't make that statement.

The Ba'athists actually are an offshoot of European fascist parties from the 30's. While there was a lot of personality cult crap going on in Iraq, and a very strong police state, those aren't exclusive to communists.

I wish Clinton would shut up, but I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. Carter's still spouting off, and last time he was in office I was a tiny tot. Neither one of them had the class of Bush Sr when in office, so why does their current behavior shock you?

I still stand by my previous post. Most people aren't going to care that Clinton was talking with Blair. IF Blair would have pulled out of the coalition, and it could be traced back to Clinton, that would be another story. New Yorkers are going to care more about Hillary's lack of response to constituent needs after 9/11. That's far more personal to them.

Posted by Baba Yaga 2003-04-25 08:14:15|| 2003-04-25 08:14:15|| Front Page Top

#7 Clinton has always been a smart man and a good political tactician - i think even the Clinton haters can admit that. His weakness has been in the "steely resolve" department. Blair has plenty of "steely resolve" Clinton giving advice to Blair, which Blair decides how to implement, seems like getting the best of Clinton while avoiding the worst.

And by the way, US private citizens routinely give advice to foreign govts - its called consulting - why its usually on technical matters, i dont think theres any legal reason it cant be on political (hey didnt both sides in recent Israeli elections use US campaign consultants?) and even diplomatic matters. Blair is an ally, so theres no aid or comfort to any enemy. Good thing all around.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-04-25 08:21:48|| 2003-04-25 08:21:48|| Front Page Top

#8 This is another reason why Dimocrats should not be allowed to run the country. If Clinton had had another term or if Al Bore had won, we would still be negotiating with the Taliban and the lead negotiator would have probably been Jimmy Carter.

Posted by Denny 2003-04-25 08:54:32|| [www.grouchyoldcripple.com] 2003-04-25 08:54:32|| Front Page Top

#9 I don't see what the damn problem. Blair and Clinton and friends, Blair trusts Clinton and often talks to him on political. If Clinton was to force his opinion down blair throat it's one thing, but if Blair wants to discuss things with Clinton its his choice. He is the democratically elected head of Government. I don't think he needs to ask for permission from Rantburg before making a decision or consulting someone he trusts.

Posted by rg117 2003-04-25 09:19:05|| 2003-04-25 09:19:05|| Front Page Top

#10 There's a good side to everything. The more time Clinton spent talking to Blair, the less time he had to badmouth Bush and the goals of the Bush government. Tony may have been doing both himself and us a favor.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-04-25 11:14:50|| 2003-04-25 11:14:50|| Front Page Top

#11 All he was ever good at was talk. And once you learned you couldn't trust him, you could even tune that out. Let him talk. Who's listening other then some Dimbo true believers.

Posted by tu3031 2003-04-25 11:30:16|| 2003-04-25 11:30:16|| Front Page Top

#12 I do not know what the big deal is that Clinton talked to Blair. Blair ultimately makes the decisions. Someones trying to make a big issue out of a non-issue for headlines. Clinton makes the ideal "devil's advocate" ahem....hmmmm...ahrumm....

Posted by Alaska Paul 2003-04-25 11:37:48|| 2003-04-25 11:37:48|| Front Page Top

#13 As long as Clinton told Bush that he was going to be meeting with Blair and discussing policy, this seems like it's in line with past practice -- ex-Presidents have been involved with foreign policy before (notably Carter, but I do believe Nixon did some of this, too), but it's proper form to let the current President know that they're involved.

Of course, knowing how much stock Clinton puts in following the existing norms (not knocking his successors in public, etc), I don't expect him to do so here...

Posted by snellenr 2003-04-25 13:17:34|| 2003-04-25 13:17:34|| Front Page Top

#14 Blair's not afraid to cast the net wide with his brain-picking and consultations. Soon after taking office he had more than one head-to-head with Maggie, much to the horror of many Labourites. Don't read too much into this.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-04-26 07:30:00|| 2003-04-26 07:30:00|| Front Page Top

09:25 Anonymous
07:51 Bulldog
07:30 Bulldog
01:47 Bomb-a-rama
01:45 Bomb-a-rama
23:57 PD
23:55 tbn
22:00 Alaska Paul
21:40 Ned
21:26 mojo
21:21 tu3031
21:21 mojo
21:11 tu3031
21:07 tu3031
20:38 Alaska Paul
20:36 Alaska Paul
20:35 Ptah
20:14 Frank G
20:11 john
19:57 john
19:27 Porps
19:02 Tom
17:42 Querent
17:39 Baba Yaga