Patterico's Pontifications

9/25/2007

Bush Advises Hillary Clinton

Filed under: Politics — DRJ @ 2:02 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

It’s been reported that George W. Bush is “quietly advising” Hillary Clinton to make sure his Iraq policies are carried forward in the event she is elected President. Honestly, could he be any more stupid politically tone-deaf? As if Hillary Clinton cares one whit about Bush’s decisions, goals, or legacy. Nevertheless, I declined to write about this because that’s all I have to say on the subject. In fact, I could have just linked the article, written “Duh” afterward, and be done with it.

Fortunately, Driver sees the bigger picture and notes a parallel between Bush/Clinton and Lincoln/McClellan. Take a look.

— DRJ

36 Responses to “Bush Advises Hillary Clinton”

  1. This ought to drive the KosKiddies, alphie, cleo, and vor right over the edge.

    JD (4c1b7c)

  2. Considering some of the commenters at this site and other right leaning sites were advocating the impeachment of bush for his immigration bill, why the shock?
    Seriously though, I’m glad he is doing this and am sure he will do the same with the Republican nominee. Making sure they understand the threat and getting them prepped for the highly classified stuff they will see may help them avoid making promises that tie their hands once elected.

    voiceofreason (13d185)

  3. In reality, I think this is a non-story.

    SPQR (6c18fd)

  4. If I say “Patterico-lanche” will Glenn sue me for a trademark violation? Thanks for the link, DRJ.

    I think it’s a pretty interesting story, although hard to see through the writer’s curious composition. I think all outgoing Presidents brief Presidents-elect in between the election and the inauguration, but doing it this early in the game, in the midst of a war, to help candidates not paint themselves into the corner with their own rhetoric seems unique.

    driver (faae10)

  5. “that tie their hands once elected.”

    That was the intended result from the beginning. It could be called the “Point of No Return-One percent solution”. Any military action with regard to Iran and Syria would be a bonus.

    John from Cincinati (4741c2)

  6. Actually, JD,

    Seeing Bush compared to Lincoln is the funniest thing I’ve seen since the 30 Rock season ended.

    alphie (99bc18)

  7. The question is why so early? I have to agree with Driver, this is unique. The ultimate intelligence that all presidential candidates may not know could indeed be crutial to the security of the nation. While others prefer to relate this event to a comedy, (which is standard proceedure for many that are too wrapped up in their own self indulgence), this early of a briefing may indicate how serious the threats (percieved and unpercieved) are realized.

    Of course to the conspiricy left, this could be the last set of instructions Karl Rove gave to GW to throw wrenches into the Clinton wheels.

    Rovin (7f64b8)

  8. There is another perspective on Lincoln. Every president who has sought to enlarge federal power past its legitimate limits, and presidential power past its legitimate limits, is merely following in his footsteps. He certainly saved the Union, but did so by ignoring the Constitution.

    So to pair Lincoln and Bush together is not that far off the mark. They’re the two most anti-liberty Republican presidents in history.

    kishnevi (8a131c)

  9. Seeing Bush compared to Lincoln is the funniest thing I’ve seen since the 30 Rock season ended.

    Sorta’ like calling the Red Army the liberators of Europe.

    Yep, folks go from one concentration camp into another. That’s if they survived.

    Some liberators.

    SMG

    SteveMG (30d2a3)

  10. He certainly saved the Union, but did so by ignoring the Constitution.

    So, by your logic kish, (in today’s world), we should preserve the constitution right up to the point when it burns in a bright light with eveything else? At what point are you willing to sacrifice your civil liberties for a limited period in a time of war to preserve out sovereignty?

    Rovin (7f64b8)

  11. Lincoln famously said something to the effect that he would not allow people to use the Constitution in order to destroy it (not an exact quote). But I think the analogy with Bush fails here. What has Bush done that is remotely comparable to what Lincoln did, in terms of violating the Constitution? How has he violated the Constitution at all?

    driver (faae10)

  12. Rovin,
    “The question is why so early?”

    While I don’t disagree that the threats are serious, I think the answer to the question is best explained by this election cycle. It started two years ahead of the ’08 election, thus the need for earlier briefings. A very astute move on the part of the prez, if I do say so. The kind of thing a leader might do, as opposed to, say, a partisan. I’m sure the significance is lost on the man’s critics, enveloped as they are in BDS.

    Chris (86f49a)

  13. I don’t have BDS and I think this is mystifying. I assume President Bush is concerned about success in Iraq and that his actions are intended to make that possible. I also assume Hillary Clinton realizes that, if she becomes President, she will need to deal with Iraq.

    But I think it’s futile and, frankly, foolish to think: (1). that Hillary Clinton will make any political decision based on advice from George Bush, or (2). that Hillary Clinton is so clueless that she doesn’t realize she needs to balance her political rhetoric to prevent hamstringing herself as President.

    I’m almost tempted to believe this is a leak by Bush intended to hurt Hillary, and I hate it when I go down those conspiracy rabbit trails.

    DRJ (ec59b5)

  14. DRJ,
    I wasn’t saying you had BDS. Hope you didn’t take it that way. These sorts of briefings are standard fare, at least in modern history. There are risks involved. Kennedy was briefed on US missile superiority yet he ran on closing the “missile gap”, for instance. I think Bush is pre-empting any opportunistic left turns Hillary may be entertaining wrt Iraq.

    Chris (86f49a)

  15. I don’t think it’s a conspiracy rabbit trail, DRJ. I think it’s an honest laying of cards on the table. I’m sure there’s some political strategery involved, as well, but the fact is, there is a whole lot of stuff going on all over the world related to the GWoT, while most of the public is focused on Iraq and A-stan.

    driver (faae10)

  16. Well, I have to say I fail to see the issue here. Certainly with respect to the focus on Hillary Clinton, as the other blogger points out. Evidently the administration is in some sort of contact with most of the Democratic candidates. As four of them are sitting Senators with various committee oversight duties, they would be in a position to be receiving sensitive information anyway, wouldn’t they?

    And I believe that once a candidate is nominated, he or she receives periodic intelligence briefings. Not the same as “position” briefings, I guess, but still more info than not.

    I also don’t see the Lincoln/McClellan connection. Every administration cooperates with the next administration. Not the same as being in contact with potential candidates.

    Itsme (1a8dff)

  17. It may be common to brief nominees but it isn’t as common to brief candidates, and it’s not common at all for the President to brief candidates – especially this early in the process.

    PS – Christoph: I didn’t take it that way at all. I was making clear that I’m not anti-Bush for those who may not come here often and wouldn’t realize that.

    DRJ (ec59b5)

  18. Maybe the President is trying a principled way to keep the spittle from flying in the Dem primary even more than it already has?

    JD (4c1b7c)

  19. I understand your point DRJ, but again, don’t forget that four of those candidates are sitting Senators.

    In addition, the article doesn’t make it very clear what sort of “advice” GWB is passing on. I’d be surprised if it amounted to a real “briefing.”

    Itsme (1a8dff)

  20. Itsme,

    If it’s not a briefing and it’s merely advice – which I think is the case – that makes it all the more strange. It’s not like Bush and Clinton are from the same Party, State, or share an otherwise strong pre-existing relationship. It reminds me of fraternity brothers. It would be great if the feeling of fraternity arose from their kinship as Americans, but I’m having a hard time believing that’s the case here.

    DRJ (ec59b5)

  21. Oh no…Yale…Skull and Bones… bring out the tasers !

    I actually was thinking of the stories about the Clintons and the GWBs being pretty palsy at times. Not to mention Bill and Pops.

    Itsme (1a8dff)

  22. Given their history, if the Bush family and the Clintons feel any kinship for one another then it proves that Ivy League educations and the bonds of the Presidency are thicker than blood. Maybe so, but gag me if that’s the case.

    DRJ (ec59b5)

  23. I know what you mean.

    Itsme (1a8dff)

  24. DRJ – How insignificant must Edwards, Osama, and the rest of the merry idiots feel since the President is feeding this to Hillary?

    JD (4c1b7c)

  25. I bet they are delighted that Bush is helping Hillary. That helps them on so many levels.

    DRJ (ec59b5)

  26. JD, I believe the article said GWB was giving advice to all or most of the Dem candidates.

    Itsme (1a8dff)

  27. What advice to you suppose Lt. Bush is passing along?

    alphie (99bc18)

  28. I think he told Hillary to keep her dick in her pants.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  29. The Examiner has a follow-up article:

    “President Bush’s chief of staff says White House officials misjudged how much the presidential campaign would radicalize the Democratic Party against the Iraq war.

    In an interview for the new book, “The Evangelical President,” White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten said he and other administration officials did not expect the Democratic presidential candidates to pull their party so sharply to the left.

    “A lot of us probably underestimated the potency of presidential politics in all of this,” Bolten told The Examiner in his West Wing office. “The need of every candidate to remain in good stead with the Democratic Party’s left wing has pretty dramatically dragged not just the candidates, but the whole party to the left.”

    DRJ (ec59b5)

  30. Here’s an interesting quote from the Examiner article linked in my last comment:

    “Speaker Pelosi has turned out to be a stronger figure than most people expected,” [Bolten] said, adding that she “is a tougher disciplinarian on her party than most people expected.”

    DRJ (ec59b5)

  31. haha, daley,

    I bet that isn’t where Bush keeps his…it might shoot something off.

    alphie (99bc18)

  32. Memories DRJ

    “Speaker Pelosi has turned out to be a stronger figure than most people expected,” [Bolten] said, adding that she “is a tougher disciplinarian on her party than most people expected.”

    PALOMINO!!!

    daleyrocks (906622)

  33. If Clinton has any sense, or any concern for the outcome of this presidential election.. she will stay FAR FAR AWAY from Pres. Bush. In my personal opinion, ( which I’m sure many will agree ) he is a failure as our leader. I don’t know if he quite understood his job description… or forgot the fact that WE as a people are his boss… not the other way around.

    FiKad (25d6a7)

  34. I would hope that Bush II is doing this because the islamic threat is serious & hopes the next administration takes it seriously unlike the prior administration. He is probably doing it early because it will take that long for the dems to understand the both the long term and short treat.

    joe - dallas (138e46)

  35. […] The same Rupert Murdoch who gives money to support Hillary Clinton. The same Hillary Clinton who is given advice by George W. Bush about running the White House 18 months before she would even take office if […]

    CNN Calls Out FoxNews on Ron Paul Bias « Daily Liberty Research (6f5c2b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0691 secs.