Community

General discussion

Locked

Bill Clinton

By jardinier ·
If President Bush can say nice things about Bill Clinton, how come no one at this website can ever say anything good about the man?

November 19, 2004
US President George W Bush paid tribute to predecessor Bill Clinton today as "not the kind to give up a fight", putting aside partisan divisions at a ceremony to open the Democrat's presidential library.

"He was an innovator, a serious student of policy and a man of great compassion. In the White House, the whole nation witnessed his brilliance and mastery of detail, his persuasive power and his persistence," Bush said.

Under pouring rain, Bush noted that Clinton had fought to reform social policy, expand free trade, "was a tireless champion of peace in the Middle East" and acted to stop ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.

"The president is not the kind to give up a fight. His staffers were known to say 'if Clinton were the Titanic, the iceberg would sink,'" the president quipped.

Bush stopped here on his way first tohis Texas ranch and then to an Asia-Pacific summit in Santiago, Chile, before heading to Colombia and then back to Texas for the Thanksgiving holiday.

The kind words came roughly four years after Bush won the presidency, vowing to "restore honour and dignity" to the White House, a veiled reference to the sex-and-lies scandal that bedevilled the Democrat's last two years in office.
Clinton observed a similar truce in November 1997, when he spoke at the dedication of the official library of former president George Bush, the current president's father.

On that occasion, Clinton praised "the vigilance president Bush displayed in dealing with Iraq".

"And I believe the American people support that vigilance, thanks in no small measure to your example not so long ago. And I thank you for that, Mr President," Clinton said.

AFP

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

hating the U.S.

by john.a.wills In reply to

People hate the U.S. for the same reason they used to hate Britain and before that Spain: it's the greatest world power economically, culturally and militarily; and its influence permeates and is resented. Even if the U.S. did nothing wrong it would be hated. Whatever it does do wrong is used as a justification for the resentment felt for other reasons. Suppporting the Israelis against the Palestinians is, of course, wrong, but Osama bin Laden is not really ocncerned with that, it's just a bandwagon he's jumping on. His real beef is the non-Muslim influence the U.S. has in Dar ul Islam.

Collapse -

hating the U.S.

by john.a.wills In reply to

People hate the U.S. for the same reason they used to hate Britain and before that Spain: it's the greatest world power economically, culturally and militarily; and its influence permeates and is resented. Even if the U.S. did nothing wrong it would be hated. Whatever it does do wrong is used as a justification for the resentment felt for other reasons. Suppporting the Israelis against the Palestinians is, of course, wrong, but Osama bin Laden is not really ocncerned with that, it's just a bandwagon he's jumping on. His real beef is the non-Muslim influence the U.S. has in Dar ul Islam.

Collapse -

Suppporting the Israelis against the Palestinians is, of course, wrong

by ProtiusX In reply to hating the U.S.

Why is US support for Israel wrong?

Collapse -

wrongness

by john.a.wills In reply to Suppporting the Israelis ...

Because the Palestinians have done nothing to deserve national or personal dispossession. Because thousands of people are being kept away from their homes, their fields, their orchards, their history. Because there are a lot of people suffering from Israeli refusal to start the process of atonement, which could fairly easily be done by beginning the restitution of freeholders' property. Because the Israelis have nukes and are liable to use them. Because the Israelis have started several full-scale wars, besides having a constant policy of terrorism against the exiles and others in the 1967 territories. Because a state should not attempt to guarantee any church a majority in the state (this is also a reason to stop arming Sa'udi Arabia). Enough?

Collapse -

Rightness

by ProtiusX In reply to wrongness

?Because the Palestinians have done nothing to deserve national or personal dispossession.?

Let us first discuss what a Palestinian is and then whether or not they had something to be dispossessed from. The Arab version of history which is so important to the current claim of Palestinian rights to Arab Palestine omits several relevant, situation-altering facts.
History did not begin with the Arab conquest in the seventh century. The people whose nation was destroyed by the Romans were the Jews. There were no Arab Palestinians then -- not until seven hundred years later would an Arab rule prevail, and then briefly. The short Arab rule reigned over Christians and Jews, who had been there to languish under various other foreign conquerors (i.e. Roman, Byzantine, Persian, to name just three in the centuries between the Roman and Arab conquests). The people who conquered under the banner of the invading Arabians from the desert were often hired mercenaries who remained on the land as soldiers -- not Arabians, but others who were enticed by the promise of the booty of conquest.
From the time the Arabians (and their non-Arabian mercenaries) entered Palestine and Syria, they found and themselves added to what was ethnologically a chaos of all the possible human combinations. Among the peoples who have been counted as "indigenous Palestinian Arabs" are Balkans, Greeks, Syrians, Latins, Egyptians, Turks, Armenians, Italians, Persians, Kurds, Germans, Afghans, Circassians, Bosnians, Sudanese, Samaritans, Algerians, Motawila, and Tartars.

?Because thousands of people are being kept away from their homes, their fields, their orchards, their history.?

The abuse of the refugees, their deprivation of real "human rights" from 1948 onward, and the true motive behind their rejection by the Arab world have all been buried by propaganda slogans and omissions. Humanitarian voices of concern for "human need" and dignity are now muted by the louder and increasingly prevalent trumpeting of the "rights" of the "Palestinians" to "return."

?Because there are a lot of people suffering from Israeli refusal to start the process of atonement, which could fairly easily be done by beginning the restitution of freeholders' property.?

The land belongs to Israel not the Arab Palestinians.

?Because the Israelis have nukes and are liable to use them.?

Israel is a strong and determined country that has been repeatedly attacked by their Arab neighbors. Although they profess neither to possess or not to possess nuclear weapons it is assumed by the International community that they have them and they would not hesitate to use them if threatened in like manor.

?Because the Israelis have started several full-scale wars, besides having a constant policy of terrorism against the exiles and others in the 1967 territories. ?

Having lost in battle what they could have had in the peace envisioned by the 1947 Partition Plan, Palestinian Arab terrorist groups, called "Fedayeen", began systematic raids against the Israeli civilian population. 1,300 Israelis were killed and wounded by Arab terrorists between 1949 and 1956.(1) The "Fedayeen" operated from bases located in and controlled by Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan.
In September 1955, in violation of international agreements and in what amounted to an act of war, Egypt sealed off access to the Israeli port of Eilat, effectively stopping Israel's sea trade with much of Africa and the Far East. Then, on July 26, 1956 Nasser announced Egypt?s nationalization of the Suez Canal, most of whose shares were held by Britain and France. With diplomacy failing to reverse Nassers?s decision, Britain and France embarked on preparations to regain control of the Canal, and on October 29, 1956 together with Israel, launched a military operation in the Sinai Peninsula. Four and a half months later, on March 16, 1957, Israel withdrew her troops from the Sinai and Gaza strip after receiving international reassurances that Israel's vital waterways would remain open. Three thousand three hundred United Nations troops replaced them. Despite Israel's withdrawal, the Egyptians refused to open the Suez canal to Israeli shipping.

With tensions mounting, the Straits of Tiran blocked, and Arab armies poised to strike, Israel decided (on June 5th 1967) to launch a pre-emptive attack on the massive Egyptian forces aimed at her. Within 190 minutes the backbone of the Egyptian air force was broken, and by the end of the first day of war 298 Egyptian airplanes were destroyed. Backed by complete air superiority, Israeli army divisions then thrust into the Sinai desert approaching the bank of the Suez Canal. At the same time, Israel issued an appeal to Jordan to stay out of the war. (1) Jordan refused and opened a heavy artillery barrage on both west Jerusalem and the Tel-Aviv area which forced Israel to counterattack. By June 8th the Israel Defense Forces defeated the Jordanian forces and captured the whole of Judea and Samaria. On the morning of June 9th, Israel attacked the Syrians and captured the Golan Heights. From these heights, Syria had shelled and destroyed 205 houses, 175 acres of orchards and 75 acres of grain.
The six days of fierce fighting ended in Israel?s occupation of the Sinai desert and the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and the West Bank, providing Israel?s cities with a much needed buffer zone and dramatically reducing the danger of extinction by a surprise Arab attack. Furthermore, victory had a special religious meaning because of the unification of Jerusalem and the return of Jews to Judea and Samaria which was part of biblical Israel.

Just before 2 p.m. on Saurday, Oct. 6,1973 222 warplanes took off from seven airfields and flew low on bombing missions against Israeli military targets in the Sinai. In the meantime , 60 warplanes took off from several air bases in Syria to bomb Israeli targets on the Golan Heights and guns opened a fierce and intense barrage.


?Because a state should not attempt to guarantee any church a majority in the state (this is also a reason to stop arming Sa'udi Arabia). Enough??

I would say yes. How about you?

Collapse -

varous points

by john.a.wills In reply to Rightness

The Palestinians are referred to as a nation (ethnos) in the Gospel of John (11:47-52), written towards the end of the first Century. The question of states is distinct. The fact that the Palestinians, the first Jewish nation, became the first Christian nation, does not entitle Rabbinical Jews of other nations to dispossess them.
As for property rights, I was thinking mainly of private property rights, not communal ones.
But ProtiusX' entry is too long to discuss further in this forum. Perhaps over tea and cookies somewhere - ProtiusX does have several facts wrong.

Collapse -

I don?t follow you

by ProtiusX In reply to Rightness

John 11:47 -52 speaks of the Pharisees and the chief priests discussing what to do about Jesus. The Pharisees were a sect of Rabbinical Jews. In fact I don?t find any reference to any other race, clan or people in these verses.
I admit that I was a bit over zealous in providing a response to your last post but I feel very passionate about the topic and towards the Jewish people. I would be honored to meet with you some day to discuss this further. I am curious though to see what facts I wrote that were incorrect.

Collapse -

ethnos

by john.a.wills In reply to Rightness

I was not using the gospel as doctrine but as relevant documentation. In the gospel reference I gave the word "ethnos" occurs several times. The high priest would not call Israel a nation (Nm 23:9), and John would not make the mistake of putting that mistake in the high priest's mouth. So it must be the local nation, the nation we now call Palestinian, of which John is thinking. As for the special status of "the Jewish people" that is a semantic confusion, but we can go into that some other time. I live in the SF Bay Area, by the way, not Seattle.

Collapse -

Because there are not that many...

by Aldanatech In reply to Bill Clinton

Because there are not that many positive things you can say about Bush. One of his major down sides is the Iraq war. In fact, former president Bill Clinton slammed the handling of the war in Iraq by his successor George W. Bush, saying the conflict alienated the United States from the world.

He told ABC television at the inauguration of his presidential library: "I supported giving the president the authority to take action against Saddam Hussein if he did not cooperate with the UN inspectors or if he was found to have had weapons of mass destruction he wouldn't give up"

Clinton also said: "I did believe that the administration made a mistake going to war when they did, and that's what alienated the world. And most Americans still haven't focused on this."

Collapse -

Not the point of the day

by ND_IT In reply to Because there are not tha ...

Discussing the current affairs of the US was not the topic for the former presidents yesterday. It was to dedicate a landmark to a former president. And even though each former president might have different views on the way things are being handled now, I think it is very dignified that they can at least sit down in the same place, putting the difference aside and be civil, that should set an example for the rest of the people that we need to be united. But there are some that are filled with such hate, they can't even be civil, which is very unfortunate. I think we should follow the example that was set yesterday. But some people can't get past the negativity and see things as half empty.

Related Discussions

Related Forums