General discussion

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

It seemed to me fairly obvious

by neilb@uk In reply to In the video, Bill Clinto ...

that, in the context of the interview, Clinton was saying "I've never criticized President Bush over his failure to capture Osama Bin Laden./" - until then.

Of course he's criticised him over just about everything else but why wouldn't he?


Collapse -

Why wouldn't he?

by maxwell edison In reply to It seemed to me fairly ob ...

First of all, you may be right about his context being limited to catching bin Laden. But would you like to "wager" that I could find similar proof that he's criticized President Bush for that as well -- in the very least, in a round-about way? (No, I have nothing in my hip pocket!)

Why wouldn't he criticize President Bush, you ask?

Only until recently, former presidents rarely (or actually never) publicly criticized sitting presidents for anything -- and most especially, they were never critical over foreign policy matters. War is different, you might suggest? Well, Presidents Nixon or Ford (or any others) never criticized either Johnson or Kennedy for getting us into Vietnam. No former president was critical of Truman's Korea, or Reagan's Grenada or Bush 41's Gulf War I, or Clinton's eastern Europe (when he said troops would be there only one year!), or Carter's debacle in the Iranian desert in 1979, or..... Sure, they've all offered opinion on various issues, but they've always seemed to remain above the fray, if you know what I mean. It's almost as though they know what it's like to be in the hot seat, so to speak, so they simply exercise respectful restraint.

I can only think of two former presidents who've publicly criticized a sitting (or another former) president over just about anything, and that would be former Presidents Clinton and Carter. And it's interesting to note that in the case of President Clinton, problems in the middle east and with terrorism were indeed largely ignored throughout his two terms, and in many ways they were actually allowed to escalate (in my opinion), all starting with his decision to deny support to troops in Somalia, which was the event that led bin Laden to conclude America was a "paper tiger" and didn't have the fortitude for battle, especially a prolonged one, after which an unprecedented terrorist spree was launched against any number of American locations and interests. And it could be argued that such a stage was set by President Carter's embarrassing failure in the Iran hostage crisis, and his dismal failure in "negotiating" with terrorists.

Outgoing presidents and presidential administrations undoubtedly brief incoming ones on any number of issues, especially foreign policy matters. And one might certainly surmise that, based on years of prior statements, President Clinton briefed President Bush on any number of things, including the presence of WMDs in Iraq! There are a lot of things we'll never know about what went on behind closed doors in such cases, but it's quite obvious to me that there are a lot of people, including the two aforementioned former presidents, covering their *** on a lot of things. One such stage was set in 1979, and it's finally coming around to bite President Bush in the ***, and here we see President Carter covering his. President Clinton's doing the same thing.

Another interesting thing to note is this. There is one president who is not criticizing any other president for anything, and that's the current one. (You might say that "his people" are, but actually they're not. Only pundits are.) And I'd make another wager. After President Bush is out of office, unlike Carter and Clinton, he too will remain above the fray.

Presidential history is an interest of mine, and I've always been impressed with the way former presidents conducted themselves -- regardless of party. Clinton and Carter, however, have not only shown absolutely no class, but (in my opinion) they are both damaging America's reputation in an effort to save their own.

Collapse -

Sorry, I wasn't aware of

by neilb@uk In reply to Why wouldn't he?

your conventions. The interview looked fairly tame to me considering some of the stuff that happens over here during political interviews. As for what goes on at Prime Minister's Question Time.

I'm used to UK politics where the "why wouldn't he" is more than valid. I consider myself put straight - you must appreciate that US Presidential History (and Conventions) is not a study of mine. I'll try and get it right in the future...

Neil :)

Not for any particular relevance but just for fun, watch this interview of a UK Home Secretary by Jeremy Paxman.

Collapse -

It was just too much, I'm sure

by DelbertPGH In reply to Why wouldn't he?

If you love your country and you know up from down, you can't help being dismayed by the delusional incompetent yokel we have in charge of our common destiny now. He shortchanged the right war (Afghanistan) in favor of the wrong war (you can guess), puts our security at increasing risk with every new move he makes, and sells off our ideals and the honor of the Presidency like they were used furniture. He's a strategic and moral disaster, and may go down as the worst President ever. Probably that's why he draws criticism from his peers. They feel their country going over the edge.

Collapse -

And I am sure

by jdclyde In reply to It was just too much, I'm ...

that you can give a sound reason for everything you have posted as well as provide supporting documents, so people won't think your just some raging liberal nut, right?

Collapse -

Let's put it this way

by DelbertPGH In reply to And I am sure

Giving good supporting information may or may not be worth the trouble. Half the people who post politics on these blogs mistake opinion for information, and just about never do any critical evaluation of their source. So, I'll stick to opinion for now.

If you want to get the smell of my opinions, to judge for yourself whether it's just wacko liberalism, go figure:

We've got ourselves in a fix. We've brought another country to the edge of collapse in the most strategic corner of the world. Losing access to the biggest pool of oil is worth a big war; I'd say we may be on the road to that already. And I'd say that it's easily worth reinstating the draft, and spending the lives of a hundred thousand kids, to win that war. Liberal idiot? No, that's realism.

I don't see an easy way out of this, because the way Curious George has it set up, our foreign policy is indistinguishable from a war against Islam. It may not look like that to you, but if you fill your ears with sand and stick a Koran in your back pocket, you might get different ideas; you might even go shopping for an explosive vest. This guy (GWB) has taken a pretty clear case for self-defense and made it into a "martyrdom" magnet. 'Scuse me for seeing both sides of an issue. I must just be a liberal goose to do that.

Another big thing we're fighting is medievalism. That's the opposite of modernism, in case you're not up on your historical terms. The medieval ideal is to set God in charge of everything, and have armies of priests and holy vigilantes beating the rest of society into line and figuring out just what is right and wrong for everybody. Modernists say that you get to make up your own mind. Modernism gave us democracy and capitalism, the two most successful ideas to sweep the earth, and the medievals hate it all. The hard-edge Islamists want to turn back the clock, about 13 centuries worth. They'll keep the jet planes and x-ray machines, but for them, the rest of human progress is a big godless waste.

That, my friend, is something worth fighting for, and worth tens of thousands of dead soldiers. It's worth remembering that this is a land of ideals, and across the world, people have looked at us as the place where dreams happen. I don't know if you remember the movie "Mister Smith Goes to Washington", but a lot of foreigners have seen this simplistic show and fallen in love with the ideals of it. We're making a new movie now: "Mr. George Bravely Goes Where Liberals Fear to Tread, Opens Torture Camps, Suspends the Right to Trial, and Sends Dirty Raghead Muslims to Jail Forever".

There you go. Tell me it ain't true.

Collapse -

What planet are you living on?

by santulli In reply to Let's put it this way

A typical liberal response. All criticism, spin and no solutions. Boy isn?t hind sight great. When you come to earth next time try reading our American history instead of spouting empty headed shortsighted non facts. Then take a good look at the Democrats record going back to Roosevelt and tell me you can't find any fault. Roosevelt was told by the three Japanese diplomats that they would attack Pearl Harbor THREE DAYS before they did. They came to Washington to meet with him. Roosevelt knew this and decided to make the diplomats wait until after the attack so he could get into the war. HE NEVER TALKED TO THEM. Your glorious left wing liberal press has tried to suppress this fact for years but now that we have an alternative press it?s coming out. Get real.

Collapse -

santulli that was priceless!

by Oz_Media In reply to Let's put it this way

What a riot! First of all you accuse the poster of hindsight, and then you go and use hindsight to support your own veiws, well done, how republican of you!

If you actually had a grip on 'reality' (not teh republican head-in-the-sand reality) but REAL reality of what is going on, the story the rest of the world follows; you would know that it wasn't hindsight at all. IN fact even whiel GWB was makign his allegations, millions around teh world were askign him to follow allied intersts and let inspectors finish and confirm allegations. He didn't he removed inspectors and went ot war, which even goes against his OWN plans of using force to complete inspections.

Hindsight was not possible, he was asked to investigate the 'known' untrustworthy source, he was asked to complete inspections as there were lots of unanswered questions and great doubt cast over allegations.

But he didn't, he's a fool, and so are all his followers and blind believers who refused to address the questions raised and then called everyone names for not supporting your decision to enter a war prematurely, he's a deceiver, he is in it for his own benefit, not yours. You were duped, you have not a leg to stand on anymore, the world knows you were wrong, KNEW you were wrong but you claimed you were right and would be saving your lives.

You sir, are a complete joke, a laughing stock for turning your back on the truth so you could follow your beliefs in the liar at the helm.

THAT'S not hindsight, that is simply the reality you ignored in order to follow mein furor to war. What a tool!

The scary part is that even now, after all the undeniable proof and reality that has proven the 'nonsupporters' to have been right all along, you will STILL insist you were right and justified in your actions. THAT'S the insanity!

Republicans should have been thrown from The White House in the beginning when they decided to go back on their own word and invade anyway.

Collapse -

double posted

by Oz_Media In reply to Let's put it this way

Related Discussions

Related Forums