Barack Obama will be furious when he sees this. PUMA!

On top of that, he’s blaming the current financial crisis on the Democrats!

Going very much against the media meme that the current financial crisis is all George W. Bush and the Republicans’ fault, Bill Clinton on Thursday told ABC’s Chris Cuomo that Democrats for years have been “resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac”

Of course, John McCain tried to put through a reform bill in 2005 that was — shockah! — blocked by Dems. President Bush issued multiple warnings this year — 17, actually.

But of course, Dems are blaming it all on President Bush and trying to push the tab on the taxpayers. At least Bill Clinton has the guts to speak the truth. If Democrats had any guts or integrity at all, they’d own up and work to actually fix the problem without sticking the taxpayers with the bill.

I wonder if he realizes the wonderful irony of this statement:

Bill Clinton made a plea yesterday for a new emphasis on monogamy as a key element in the battle against Aids.

The former US president, not noted for his ability to keep his own marriage vows, said it was very important to change people’s attitudes to sex.

In an interview with the BBC recorded in Africa, Mr Clinton said that increasing support for monogamy was not just a problem for the continent worst hit by Aids but for the world.

“To pretend we can ever get hold of this without dealing with that – the idea of unprotected sexual relations with unlimited numbers of partners – I think would be naïve,” he said.

Experts believe that the nature of Africans’ relationships may help explain the continent’s high rate of Aids. Research suggests a higher frequency of overlapping sexual partnerships.

Well, that’s rich. I never thought I’d hear Bill Clinton, of all people, advising monogamy. It isn’t like he’s a fan.

Aside from the obvious dig at Bill Clinton, there’s more fun we can have with this article. It’s somehow shocking news that if you don’t want to get AIDS, it’d probably be a good idea to not sleep around. This, of course, goes against all that is held sacred in the hearts of liberals and modern-day feminists. We’re told today to embrace casual sex, that there will never be any consequences as long as you take birth control and remember to slap on a condom. Then there’s no risk whatsoever. It’s all fun and games, it isn’t the least bit harmful to anyone (physically or emotionally, of course), and as long as you’re both consenting adults, then it doesn’t matter. The obvious possible repercussions are brushed off or ignored.

It’s always seemed somehow contradictory to me how modern feminists so often advocate women slutting around. “Men do it!”, they shriek. “If men can sleep around, so can women!” They seem to ignore the fact that sleeping around is not a positive. Sure, men may be more promiscuous than women. That doesn’t mean women should jump right on that bandwagon. But jump on, women have. Feminists are leading us to the promised land, you see, of sex without consequences. You’ll never feel used or abandoned or cheap. As long as you use a condom, you won’t get an STD and if you get pregnant, well, you can just have an abortion. Sex is fun fun fun, all the time, and screw the consequences!

The thing is, abandoning morals and values does not necessarily only mean that, well, you’ve abandoned your morals and values. When doing so means you’re having countless casual sexual relationships with someone you’ve known for approximately 87 minutes at a bar, you can have a lot bigger issues. Condoms are not exactly foolproof. You can wear a condom and still get an STD. This “promised land” modern-day feminists and liberals have been preaching about does not exist. Nothing good comes from sleeping around. Cheapening sex can have a lot of repercussions, including some emotional doozies, and it isn’t a good idea to do so if for no other reason than to keep yourself healthy and safe.

Bill Clinton may not be practicing what he preaches, but it’s still good advice. Keep it in your pants, folks, unless it’s someone you’re in an exclusive relationship with. Sleeping around recklessly may feel good in the moment, but instant gratification usually comes with a price. And sleeping with strangers is the ultimate in instant gratification. Is that hour of fun really worth the lifetime of pain from AIDS? Not likely. Sex is great. It isn’t something to be feared and diminished. But it is something to be shared with one person, and one person only, no matter what Bill Clinton does or Eve Ensler & Co. try to tell you.

Hat Tip: My colleague Bill Jempty at Wizbang

This just floors me. Bill Clinton’s involvement with his wife’s presidential campaign is what has tarnished his image? Now people don’t like him? Oh, jeez.

Bill Clinton’s reentry into the political arena appears to have come at some cost to his legacy. New polling now suggests that Clinton’s involvement in the Democratic nomination battle between his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Barack Obama, has significantly tarnished the former president’s image.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released Thursday found that more Americans view Bill Clinton negatively than positively, 45 to 42 percent. It marked the first time since January 2002 that a plurality of Americans disapproved of the former president. One month earlier, The Gallup Poll found that nearly as many Americans had an unfavorable as favorable view of Bill Clinton—for the first time in nearly five years.

Presidential historians said Clinton’s return to partisan politics made it likely that public perception of the former president would suffer.

It’s like ‘ole Slick Willie was a freakin’ saint before he got involved with that devil woman’s campaign.

I won’t even go into the Monica thing (whoops, think I just did!). How about the illegal campaign contributions from China, compromising U.S. security? How about the ignoring of all threats to our national security over and over and over again, including turning down Osama bin Laden’s head on a silver platter? How about selling presidential pardons, plots in Arlington National Cemetery, and stays in the Lincoln Bedroom? How about trashing the White House when he left, causing thousands of dollars of damage? How about stealing everything that wasn’t nailed down before leaving, namely furniture? How about the alleged drug smuggling on Arkansas? How about the political favors for campaign contributors? How about Sandy Berger? How about using the IRS to harass and intimidate political enemies? How about the many sex scandals, including rape and sexual harassment?

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg! There isn’t room on this blog to list the many scandals, lies, obstructions of justice, and treasonous activities that Bill Clinton took part in as President.

All of this apparently doesn’t matter, I guess. Everyone loved him, until he got involved with that gosh-darned Hillary woman’s presidential campaign. And now, now, people don’t like him.

Good grief.

Yesterday, Bill Clinton spoke in Iowa about how he was against the war in Iraq from the beginning:

We need to “go back to fiscal responsibility and reclaim our economic sovereignty. That’ll require people like me, who got five tax cuts that I should not have gotten, in my income group, when we had soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. 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.”

Apparently, we should be asking for Bill Clinton’s OK on everything before we proceed. He’ll resent us otherwise, and then whatever will we do?

Unfortunately for Slick Willie, people pay attention when he talks. And he can’t have press records locked up indefinitely in the Clinton Library. And Allah at Hot Air has been doing some digging.

First, some notable quotables from 2003:

May 19, 2003- (Associated Press): “Former President Bill Clinton accused President Bush of spending more time fighting the war on terrorism than on domestic issues during a commencement speech at Tougaloo College. ‘I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but we can’t be forever strong abroad if we don’t keep getting better at home,” Clinton said Sunday to a crowd of about 8,000. […] The Bush administration, Clinton said, ‘is still focused on defeating terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and that’s good, but not good enough. The power of our example is just as important as our military might.’”

April 14, 2003 (Minneapolis Star Tribune): “In his first speech in Minnesota since leaving office, former President Bill Clinton on Sunday praised President Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq. But he criticized Bush’s domestic priorities and urged the administration to offer North Korea aid and a pledge of nonaggression in exchange for an end to that country’s missile and nuclear weapons programs.” [Minneapolis Star Tribune, 4/14/03]

So… I guess he means we should go to war with Iraq, but just not make it our number one priority?

Allah then points us to this:

In the crucial weekend before to the final breakdown of diplomacy in March, Mr Clinton was a guest of Mr Blair’s at Chequers where the pair discussed the crisis…
Three days after his Chequers meeting, Mr Clinton made a rare public appeal to his successor, George Bush, to give the UN weapons inspectors more time.

That story was posted April 25, 2003. This brings us to Slick Willie being for the war on April 19th, against it April 25th, and come May, for it again.

I think my head’s starting to hurt. But fasten your seatbelts, folks, because we’re just getting started.

In March of 2003, he wrote a piece for The Guardian telling us to trust Tony Blair:

Last October, when I spoke at the Labour conference in Blackpool, I supported the efforts of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair to renew efforts to eliminate Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, and to try to accomplish this through the UN.
In November, the UN security council adopted unanimously resolution 1441, giving Saddam a “final opportunity” to disarm, after 12 years of defying UN resolutions requiring him to do so. The resolution made it clear that continued sanctions were not sufficient and that continued defiance would lead to serious consequences.

…

In the post-cold war world, America and Britain have been in tough positions before: in 1998, when others wanted to lift sanctions on Iraq and we said no; in 1999 when we went into Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing. In each case, there were voices of dissent. But the British-American partnership and the progress of the world were preserved. Now in another difficult spot, Prime Minister Blair will have to do what he believes to be right. I trust him to do that and hope that Labor MPs and the British people will too.

So in March, he had no opinion except to trust Tony Blair’s decision (no mention of trusting President Bush, of course). Then, he was for the war, then against it, and then for it again.

Finally, Hot Air readers give us the results, from June of 2004:

Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

“I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over,” Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book “My Life.”…
Pressed on whether the Iraq war was worth the cost to the United States, Clinton said he would not have undertaken the war until after U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix “finished his job.”…

“I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn’t agree with the timing of the attack,” Clinton said.

So, come 2004, he was for the war, but against the timing.

So, let’s recap. In March of 2003, he offered no opinion except “trust Tony Blair.” In April 2003, he was for the war, and then against the war. Come May of 2003, he was for the war again. Then, in June of 2004, he was for the war, but just didn’t like the timing. Now, in November of 2007, he’s been against the war from the very beginning. Whew!

Surprisingly, the DU is calling BS on his new line, which means that us conservatives are thinking the same way as the far-left loonies at the Democratic Underground.

You’re not so slick, Willie. Not this time.

Hat Tip: AllahPundit at Hot Air