Clinton slammed President Bush's fiscal and tax policies in an interview
クリントン氏がテレビのインタビュー番組に久々に出て、ブッシュ政権の税制、財政を批判したそうです。インタビュワーはGeorge Stephanopoulos ジョージ・ステファノポロスさん、この人はクリントン政権時に大統領首席報道官だった人です。最後に2008年の大統領選について「 Not buy one, get one free?(ヒラリーが大統領になったら、クリントン氏もおまけで付いてくる?)」と質問され、「国を元に戻して前進させないといけない」「2008年大統領選のことより、まずヒラリーの2006年の上院議員選のことを考えるのが先、とか答えてます。でも2006年頃には、この国は事実に基づかないイデオロギーでのソリューションを拒否し、まともに機能する政権を求めて切羽詰まったムードになるだろうということです。この記事の横のAOL の投票ではクリントン時代が今より良かったという意見が圧倒的でした。以下がその内容の一部。---------------------------------Transcript of Former President Clinton's InterviewHe Calls Tax Cuts Combined with Deficit Spending 'Wrong'(Sept. 18) The interview follows:STEPHANOPOULOS: We're here on your initiative, and I want to talk about that, but let's begin with Katrina. President Bush has brought you into the recovery effort, but he's not taking all of your advice. You say roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy. He says no tax increase of any kind. We're spending $5 billion a month in Iraq, probably $200 billion on Katrina. Something's got to give.CLINTON: Well, that's what I think. I think this idea-- I think it's very important that Americans understand, you know, tax cuts are always popular, but about half of these tax cuts since 2001 have gone to people in my income group, the top 1 percent. I've gotten four tax cuts.They're responsible for this big structural deficit, and they're not going away, the deficits aren't. Now, what Americans need to understand is that that means every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, and our tax cuts. We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else.STEPHANOPOULOS: The president is not going to move. What do Democrats do?CLINTON: They should continue to oppose it, and they should make it an issue in the 2006 election, and they should make it an issue in the 2008 election. And they should hope, to goodness, for the sake of our country, that the cows don't come home before we have time to rectify it.I mean, sooner or later, just think what would happen if the Chinese-- We're pressing the Chinese now, a country not nearly rich as America per capita, to keep loaning us money with low interest to cover my tax cut, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Katrina and at the same time to raise the value of their currency so their imports into our country will become more expensive, and our exports to them will become less expensive. And by the way, we don't want to let them buy any oil companies or anything like that.So what if they just got tired of buying our debt? What if the Japanese got tired of doing it? Japan's economy is beginning to grow again. Suppose they decided they wanted to keep some of their money at home and invest it in Japan, because they're starting to grow?We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don't think it makes any sense. I think it's wrong.STEPHANOPOULOS: ILet's talk Iraq for a second. We just had one of the bloodiest weeks of the war. I know you've said that we have to have a strategy for victory and see this through to victory, but a lot of Democrats and also some Republicans like Chuck Hagel look at the situation now and say you know what? We don't have that strategy. We're not winning.CLINTON: We don't.STEPHANOPOULOS: We don't have a strategy for victory?CLINTON: Well, if we do, it's not working right now, at least. But I know what they say.Let me take a step back a little bit. I did not favor what was done. I did favor the Congress giving the president the power to use force, because when he asked for it in his speech in Cincinnati, he basically made the argument I've made many times, which is Saddam Hussein never did anything he wasn't forced to do, so he needed to know that there would be consequences if he didn't fully comply with the U.N. inspections.But the administration, then, decided to launch this invasion virtually alone and before the U.N. inspections were completed, with no real urgency, no evidence that there were any weapons of mass destruction there. So I thought that diverted our attention from Iraq and … al Qaeda and undermined the support that we might have had.Now, but what's done is done. Now, the question is, after 58 percent of those people voted, after there has been a heroic but so far unsuccessful effort to put together a constitution that everybody can buy off on, that the world would be better off if this enterprise did not fail and if the 58 percent of Iraqis who believed in it were given the chance to govern themselves in a stable and secure environment. I also think they will want us to leave as soon as they can defend themselves.So the stated strategy of trying to develop the security and police forces to the point where they can defend themselves I think is the correct strategy. The problem is we may not have, in the short run, enough troops to do that.STEPHANOPOULOS: Would you put more troops in now?CLINTON: I don't know if they can, and I think it's even more important not to let Afghanistan fail, even more important. You know, you've got civilian contractors moving out of Afghanistan. We had a record week of casualties there last week. Every time we put a soldier in Afghanistan, we get a soldier from NATO.STEPHANOPOULOS: So we're losing in Afghanistan, at risk of losing in Iraq. What do we do right now? What should the new strategy be?CLINTON: Well as I said, I don't know, because I'm not president, I don't know what his military options are. I don't know how many troops he's got where. But I know my view is if there is a reasonable chance that this constitutional process can be completed and that it will not be rejected under the terms that govern the vote, once that happens, I think that will give another boost to the civilian government. Then, I think that we will know how long it takes to train enough and equip enough forces that they ought to be able to defend themselves. When that happens, I think we can begin drawing down our presence.But my problem with setting a date certain for withdrawal now is I always assumed that whoever I was competing against was smart. And suppose you were running the Iraqi insurgency, and I know you, and I know how smart you are. If I told you I was going to leave in six months, 12 months, or 18 months, and you could survive that long, there's no way in the wide world you would join the political process.Now, let's look at the other thing: When the IRA says they're going to give up arms, and they want the international body to observe the blowup, and they want the representative of the Catholics and Church of England, the Protestants to observe the blowup, what does that say? They say they've decided they've got more to gain from the political process than from continuing the conflict.When 13,000 armed guerrillas and paramilitaries in Colombia give up their weapons and rejoin civil society, and President Uribe, who's been so tough on them, offers them a chance to reconcile, why are they doing that? Because they know they're not going to win anymore, and they want to be part of a political process. [In Rwanda,] when the Hutu soldiers came home in response to President Kigami's welcome and rejoined civil society and did their community atonement work, why did they do that? Because they knew they couldn't win anymore.So the reason I don't want to see an announcement made is I see no reasonable prospect that this insurgency can be transformed into a political process, and the Sunnis who are alienated will come back if they know all they have to do is wait. It may not work. I've never known whether it would work. All I know is a majority of the Iraqis would like it to work. We'd be better off, and the Middle East would be better off if it did work.A lot of good Americans have given their lives; thousands of others have been horribly wounded. So I have been in a position where I wanted the strategy to work. Whether it will or not, I don't know. But the only thing I would sacrifice it to is if I thought we were going to lose in Afghanistan. We cannot lose in Afghanistan. We cannot let the Taliban come back. We cannot let Karzai fail. We cannot relax our efforts to try to keep undermining al Qaeda, because that's still by far a bigger threat to our security.STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, we're just about out of time. What's the Democratic bumper sticker in 2008?CLINTON: Let's get the country back together, move the country forward again.STEPHANOPOULOS: Not buy one, get one free?CLINTON: No, get the country back together, move the country forward again. I have no idea what's going to happen. My family has an election in 2006, and I don't want to look past it. You know, I always say if you look past the next election, you may not get past the next election.The country in 2008, and I think in 2006, will be in a desperate mood to come together and move forward. I think they're going to reject ideological solutions that are not fact-based, and I think they're going to want a government that works.STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. President, thank you very much.CLINTON: Thanks.