• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Heck of a job, Bushie

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Paul Krugman writes editorials in the New York Times. Yesterday, he wrote one where he talked about the status of issues one year ago and what we see now, i.e., how much things have changed since then. Here are my 3 favorites (which are consecutive in the article):


A year ago, Mr. Bush hadn't yet openly reneged on Scott McClellan's 2003 pledge that "if anyone in this administration was involved" in the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity, that person "would no longer be in this administration." Of course, some suspect that Mr. Bush has always known who was involved. (this is me, for verification of such statment, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html, where McClellan stated, "He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct." Yeah right!)

A year ago, we didn't know that Mr. Bush was lying, or at least being deceptive, when he said at an April 2004 event promoting the Patriot Act that "a wiretap requires a court order. ...When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

A year ago, most Americans thought Mr. Bush was honest.

A year ago, we didn't know for sure that almost all the politicians and pundits who thundered, during the Lewinsky affair, that even the president isn't above the law have changed their minds. But now we know when it comes to presidents who break the law, it's O.K. if you're a Republican.

http://select.nytimes.com/2005/12/3...rials and Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Paul Krugman
 
Last edited:

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I'd rather have Herbert Hoover as President than have to go through another Presidential schrub!
 

ANAV

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
aps said:
A year ago, we didn't know for sure that almost all the politicians and pundits who thundered, during the Lewinsky affair, that even the president isn't above the law have changed their minds. But now we know when it comes to presidents who break the law, it's O.K. if you're a Republican[/url]
Which law has GW been convicted of breaking?
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
ANAV said:
Which law has GW been convicted of breaking?
I am assuming its violating the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
 

ANAV

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
aps said:
I am assuming its violating the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
Has he been charged or convicted of such a crime?
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
ANAV said:
Has he been charged or convicted of such a crime?
I guess according to Paul Krugman, Bush has committed a crime. My point in highlighting that statement was that the only republican I have seen who has expressed concern over what Bush is doing is Arlen Specter.
 

ANAV

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
aps said:
I guess according to Paul Krugman, Bush has committed a crime. My point in highlighting that statement was that the only republican I have seen who has expressed concern over what Bush is doing is Arlen Specter.
I have concern, but I'm not ready to accuse of him of committing a crime until there is an official fact finding investigation. If it's lawfully proven GW has in fact broke the law then he must face the music. Paul Krugman's opinion (and everybody elses) is just that, an opinion.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
ANAV said:
I have concern, but I'm not ready to accuse of him of committing a crime until there is an official fact finding investigation. If it's lawfully proven GW has in fact broke the law then he must face the music. Paul Krugman's opinion (and everybody elses) is just that, an opinion.
That's correct--that's what op-ed pieces are all about--someone's opinion.
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ANAV said:
Has he been charged or convicted of such a crime?
It always seems to come to this.....Has he been charged. While those who feel Dissapointed/Disgusted/Disenfranchised by the current Administration push for investigation that might shed light on what is happening, those who support it fall back to the same tired line they have used for virtually every incident that comes to light. Did anyone ever stop to think that perhaps the intergity of our top government officials might....just might be important. And that integrity and honesty should be expected from the leaders of the free world.
I can remember Jan of 1998, and the accusation against then President Clinton. I at first felt a witch hunt was going on but still wanted to know if he was lying. As the inverstigation progressed it became clear to me he was dishonest, and I supported his removal from office as things came to light. The branches of our Government worked as they should, and the power of the President could not prevent an investigation, (though he tried). In todays climate things are different, the checks and balances we have had in place for hundreds of years are gone.....with one party in control of all houses and the Judiciary....for the first time in history the Ethics committee is impotent to do anything....and the congress has no control over the federal branch at all. In short....we are losing the ability to be Democratic.
There comes a time when dishonesty becomes so blatant as to be obvious....in my opinion we are there. We have been lied to as a people for much too long, and far too often. While some level of "Politics" is indeed expected at these levels of Government.....this has become insulting.


But then.....he hasnt been charged has he........................................
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,888
Reaction score
8,623
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't think he's done anything wrong. He's done what he's had to do. I suspect there is plenty not revealed, but take heart - the Democratic Party will continue to dig and damage.

Every President during war time is unpopular. It will always happen, because the general public is not privy to other information or realize that the shape of our world depends on "unpopular" decisions made now. This President hasn't done anything new. Many, in the political arena, don’t care either way. War is simply something they salivate over, because it presents to them a tool to boost votes. They simply dig and dig for any mundane detail they can use to usurp a rival politician - no matter what the cost. They will hide this devious behaviour under the guise of protecting "American freedoms" or "American civil liberties." All the while acting like wounded ducks that have been deeply hurt by such horrible deceptions, but what they are really doing is damaging bold attempts to protect those very things they use as tools for their party.

...and then there are the sheep. Slaves to their political masters that step in line to bash what they simply do not understand so they mire themselves in the mundane details their political party produces for them. Given the chance to run the country in today's reality...many of these same sheep would do the same things, because they are necessary to ensure securities.

My disgust with the Republican Party during the whole Lewinsky affair has definately been overshadowed by the Democratic Party who have used anything imaginable to undermine everything that is in their best interests. Do they care about American securities? Do they care about American futures? Do they care about the real threat behind terrorism? No. They care about 2008. Nothing from the President has become insulting. What makes it seem insulting is that it is celebrated and thrown in our faces at every turn.
 
Last edited:

ANAV

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
tecoyah said:
It always seems to come to this.....Has he been charged. While those who feel Dissapointed/Disgusted/Disenfranchised by the current Administration push for investigation that might shed light on what is happening, those who support it fall back to the same tired line they have used for virtually every incident that comes to light. Did anyone ever stop to think that perhaps the intergity of our top government officials might....just might be important. And that integrity and honesty should be expected from the leaders of the free world.
I can remember Jan of 1998, and the accusation against then President Clinton. I at first felt a witch hunt was going on but still wanted to know if he was lying. As the inverstigation progressed it became clear to me he was dishonest, and I supported his removal from office as things came to light. The branches of our Government worked as they should, and the power of the President could not prevent an investigation, (though he tried). In todays climate things are different, the checks and balances we have had in place for hundreds of years are gone.....with one party in control of all houses and the Judiciary....for the first time in history the Ethics committee is impotent to do anything....and the congress has no control over the federal branch at all. In short....we are losing the ability to be Democratic.
There comes a time when dishonesty becomes so blatant as to be obvious....in my opinion we are there. We have been lied to as a people for much too long, and far too often. While some level of "Politics" is indeed expected at these levels of Government.....this has become insulting.


But then.....he hasnt been charged has he........................................
If you read all my posts you will see that I agree with you that there should be a formal inquiry into the matter. But until then it is irresponsible of elected officials to accuse the president of a crime until the facts can be discovered and argued.

The will of the people who voted in the elections put the Republican party in power. The President, Senators, and Congressmen were not appointed, but won lawful Democratic elections. So I disagree with you, this is the Democratic process at work, the will of the people. Do you suggest we change the rules if on party is more overwhelmingly favorable than the others and go against what the people voted for?
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ANAV said:
If you read all my posts you will see that I agree with you that there should be a formal inquiry into the matter. But until then it is irresponsible of elected officials to accuse the president of a crime until the facts can be discovered and argued.

The will of the people who voted in the elections put the Republican party in power. The President, Senators, and Congressmen were not appointed, but won lawful Democratic elections. So I disagree with you, this is the Democratic process at work, the will of the people. Do you suggest we change the rules if on party is more overwhelmingly favorable than the others and go against what the people voted for?
My post was not directed at you....but at the phenomenon in general. As far as the people "Putting" republicans in power....you are correct. Though there is not sufficient information concerning redistricting, and voter fraud.....again because there is no one to pull in the reigns. As for changing the Rules....it seems the current power Divy has already begun to do so.....and not in a good way.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"Paul Krugman writes editorials in the New York Times."

Yep, he does. Before that he was an advisor to Enron. Good thing all he does for the NYT is write. Hope they never put him an advisory position.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
oldreliable67 said:
"Paul Krugman writes editorials in the New York Times."

Yep, he does. Before that he was an advisor to Enron. Good thing all he does for the NYT is write. Hope they never put him an advisory position.
Least not in charge of accounting.
 

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
ANAV said:
If you read all my posts you will see that I agree with you that there should be a formal inquiry into the matter. But until then it is irresponsible of elected officials to accuse the president of a crime until the facts can be discovered and argued.
Sounds about the same as when the GOP convicted Clinton over the Whitewater "scandal". Was he convicted of anything related to that? No. But it didn't make it any less than "fair game" for those on the conservative side of the aisle, even, sometimes to this day. When we on the liberal side made statements like yours at that time, we were frequently accused of "whining".
:2bigcry:
Like it or not, this is going to be debated publicly and people are going to have opinions that differ from yours. Our opinions, based on an extremely small amount of information regarding the program really don't matter, anyway. The hearings will, we can hope, provide the information Congress needs to come to some sort of conclusion as to the legality of the program.

The will of the people who voted in the elections put the Republican party in power. The President, Senators, and Congressmen were not appointed, but won lawful Democratic elections. So I disagree with you, this is the Democratic process at work, the will of the people. Do you suggest we change the rules if on party is more overwhelmingly favorable than the others and go against what the people voted for?
I wouldn't go calling on that "political capital" given recent events and polling data. There are a number of events yet to come down the line before election day, likely more indictments of GOP officials, the pending hearings regarding the NSA Wiretapping issue, and so on. If nothing else, it will certainly be interesting to see how this year unfolds. :smile:
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
JustMyPOV said:
Sounds about the same as when the GOP convicted Clinton over the Whitewater "scandal".
Let's all see if what you say is truthful...

On January 15, Starr obtained approval from Attorney General Janet Reno, who in turn sought and received an order from the United States Court of Appeals, to expand the scope of the Whitewater probe into the new allegations.

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm

Nah...The HoR was just going by the facts presented by the Janet Reno-approved investigation...No conspiracy here...move along, folks...get over it...

You don't wanna go that route...It's been shown repeatedly it's off by a mile...

Ironic that some members here cry that President "He Whom Shall Not Be Blamed" should not have his name brought up, but it's A-OK to bring it up when in "attack the current Administration" mode...:roll:
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
GySgt said:
I don't think he's done anything wrong. He's done what he's had to do. I suspect there is plenty not revealed, but take heart - the Democratic Party will continue to dig and damage.

Every President during war time is unpopular. It will always happen, because the general public is not privy to other information or realize that the shape of our world depends on "unpopular" decisions made now. This President hasn't done anything new. Many, in the political arena, don’t care either way. War is simply something they salivate over, because it presents to them a tool to boost votes. They simply dig and dig for any mundane detail they can use to usurp a rival politician - no matter what the cost. They will hide this devious behaviour under the guise of protecting "American freedoms" or "American civil liberties." All the while acting like wounded ducks that have been deeply hurt by such horrible deceptions, but what they are really doing is damaging bold attempts to protect those very things they use as tools for their party.

...and then there are the sheep. Slaves to their political masters that step in line to bash what they simply do not understand so they mire themselves in the mundane details their political party produces for them. Given the chance to run the country in today's reality...many of these same sheep would do the same things, because they are necessary to ensure securities.

My disgust with the Republican Party during the whole Lewinsky affair has definately been overshadowed by the Democratic Party who have used anything imaginable to undermine everything that is in their best interests. Do they care about American securities? Do they care about American futures? Do they care about the real threat behind terrorism? No. They care about 2008. Nothing from the President has become insulting. What makes it seem insulting is that it is celebrated and thrown in our faces at every turn.
Because the democrats care about people's constitutional rights, we don't care about the threat of terrorism? As E.J. Dionne said in his editorial last week:

And here is where I start worrying about our national mood. I don't mind being assailed myself -- even by a theologically minded reader who called me a "badly catechized Catholic." (Blame me, not the nuns and priests who taught me!) But when big chunks of the country begin to view their political adversaries as something close to traitors, we have arrived at a very dangerous time. For this badly catechized Catholic, it's a reason to pray hard for something better next year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122900795.html

The motto is, if we don't agree with everything the president is doing, we don't care about terrorism. It makes me sick; however, if it makes people feel better about themselves and what they stand for, then so be it. I feel sorry for this mentality.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,888
Reaction score
8,623
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
aps said:
Because the democrats care about people's constitutional rights, we don't care about the threat of terrorism? As E.J. Dionne said in his editorial last week:

And here is where I start worrying about our national mood. I don't mind being assailed myself -- even by a theologically minded reader who called me a "badly catechized Catholic." (Blame me, not the nuns and priests who taught me!) But when big chunks of the country begin to view their political adversaries as something close to traitors, we have arrived at a very dangerous time. For this badly catechized Catholic, it's a reason to pray hard for something better next year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122900795.html

The motto is, if we don't agree with everything the president is doing, we don't care about terrorism. It makes me sick; however, if it makes people feel better about themselves and what they stand for, then so be it. I feel sorry for this mentality.

If you wish to categorize yourself under a political party...so be it. :roll: The Democratic Party care more about the election than your securities. "Constitutional Rights" is merely a tool used by the weaker political Party for the weaker minded Americans that need something to cling to because they do not understand the reality of the Middle East. It is a diversion and you are falling for it just like you probably fell for everything in the beginning. If they win the election in 2008, this "war on terror" will go on, because they know what the threat is too and they are not stupid (though, they pretend to be.) The new President will be introduced to all of the information gathered up since the Reagen era and he will have an option - use it or ignore it like three Presidents before him did. Their current tactics and despicable behaviour is wreckless. If they do not continue this "war on terror," we will pay for it, because this failing civilizations threats are determined and will not simply go away. In the mean time...the Democratic Party is crying about a phantom loss of civil rights. My civil rights are the same as they were in 2000. How are yours...or have you been wire tapped and sent to a prison camp lately?

This "traitorous" and "if you don't agree with Bush you don't care about terrorism" grandstanding is your issue. It smacks of simplicity. Try not to be a slave to political masters.

...and let's be honest here...we've already determined that you are lead by your emotions and not by your experience in Middle Eastern study. You see the wounded and you want the problem to go away, but you do not think about what it takes to do it nor do you care. You just want it to go away. Never mind that an unchecked and oppressive Middle East will only produce worse violence in the future. "Secure the present for the sake of the future." That is the "motto." I do not agree with everything the President has done and has not done....so much for your "motto."
 
Last edited:

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
cnredd said:
Let's all see if what you say is truthful...

On January 15, Starr obtained approval from Attorney General Janet Reno, who in turn sought and received an order from the United States Court of Appeals, to expand the scope of the Whitewater probe into the new allegations.

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm

Nah...The HoR was just going by the facts presented by the Janet Reno-approved investigation...No conspiracy here...move along, folks...get over it...
I wasn't referring to the investigation itself, but the way the public, particularly those on the conservative side reacted to it. I was drawing a parallel, though it seems obvious that you missed my point, which was that the NSA scandal is going to be debated in the media and by the public for the duratation of the investigation, just as whitewater was.

You don't wanna go that route...It's been shown repeatedly it's off by a mile...

Ironic that some members here cry that President "He Whom Shall Not Be Blamed" should not have his name brought up, but it's A-OK to bring it up when in "attack the current Administration" mode...:roll:
That depends on your perspective, I suppose. I see many members here and GOPers elsewhere referring to him as President "He Who Shall Be Blamed for Everything, Even Though He's Been Out of Office for Five Years."

I'm simply pointing out the double standard of the GOP. It's fine for them to say anything they want about a Democratic president at any time, but if a Democrat says anything about a GOP president, they're a traitor, undermining the troops, they want to see us lose the war on terror for political gain, etc, etc... I just find it amusing that now there's a GOP president (and Congress) being scandalized, the rules of debate have suddenly changed and it's "irresponsible" to say anything about it because he hasn't been convicted.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
JustMyPOV said:
I wasn't referring to the investigation itself, but the way the public, particularly those on the conservative side reacted to it. I was drawing a parallel, though it seems obvious that you missed my point, which was that the NSA scandal is going to be debated in the media and by the public for the duratation of the investigation, just as whitewater was.



That depends on your perspective, I suppose. I see many members here and GOPers elsewhere referring to him as President "He Who Shall Be Blamed for Everything, Even Though He's Been Out of Office for Five Years."

I'm simply pointing out the double standard of the GOP. It's fine for them to say anything they want about a Democratic president at any time, but if a Democrat says anything about a GOP president, they're a traitor, undermining the troops, they want to see us lose the war on terror for political gain, etc, etc... I just find it amusing that now there's a GOP president (and Congress) being scandalized, the rules of debate have suddenly changed and it's "irresponsible" to say anything about it because he hasn't been convicted.
It's nice that when I say some members, I am not generalizing the whole of Left, but certain people within, yet you immediately assert that it's everyone on the Right who changes the "rules of debate" and cry "traitor"...I have not done so, yet you place me in the same boat with those equally stubborn right wingers, making me out to be in the same vein...

Thanks...:roll:


To use past Presidents as a measuring stick is more than appropriate...

If you talk about Social Security in 2006, FDR's name will eventually come up...Will you say, "How dare you bring up someone who's been dead for the 60 years?"...Of course not...The relevancy is clear...

Mention welfare in 2006 and LBJ becomes relevant....Mention Vietnam Veterans in 2006 and you have a few Presidents to call upon...

Hell!...If a new telescope is invented, do you think no one should mention Galileo?...:roll:

The current issue of terrorism is DIRECTLY related to the actions(and inactions) of the last four Presidents. The last President had the best opportunity to shut it down, seeing as how OBL was not in anyone's radar before him...That gives him the most culpability for the attacks on US citizens around the world from people that publicly announced their intentions, but were ignored...You can speculate what would've happened if a fatwa was announced and a "base" was established during the two previous administrations, but it would still be just speculation... It actually happened in reality during the last administration...

The relevance is more than acceptable...
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
cnredd and JustMyPOV,

If I understand you're posts, you are both right in your own ways. POV is absolutely correct in his observations, as I understood them, anyway, about how there are rabid partisans in both parties who care little for facts as long as they can 'get theirs'. To paraphrase something I wrote on another thread, where the rubber meets the road is where opinions and interpretations are held out as the one and only truth. The inability to say "This is what I've read/seen/heard and it leads me to believe that it is highly likely that he is innocent/guilty of blah blah blah" instead of declaring with unwavering certainty that "He's innocent/guilty! I don't care what anyone says, he is guilty!" is a sign of a mind that is closed to consideration of evidence of the worthiness of other points of view. This is evident now with the Dems against Bush; it was evident with the Repubs vs Clinton; and likewise going on further back in the time machine.

cnredd is entirely correct in that the choices and decisions made by past Presidents are fair game for discussion today. "The current issue of terrorism is DIRECTLY related to the actions(and inactions) of the last four Presidents. The last President had the best opportunity to shut it down,..." is an indisputably accurate statement.

Pragmatism and objectivity are too often the first casualties in politics.
 

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
cnredd said:
It's nice that when I say some members, I am not generalizing the whole of Left, but certain people within, yet you immediately assert that it's everyone on the Right who changes the "rules of debate" and cry "traitor"...I have not done so, yet you place me in the same boat with those equally stubborn right wingers, making me out to be in the same vein...

Thanks...:roll:
You're right, I shouldn't generalize like that, but when I see the sort of attacks I described, even coming from the highest levels of the Republican Party, surely you can understand how it's difficult not to do so. I must admit that my passions run high sometimes, particularly when my own, and my party's very core values, most very similar to the core values of you and your own party, I'm sure, are unjustly attacked by so many. We're literally bombarded with the message that if we disagree with the president on how things should be done we're un-American, we're traitors, we want to surrender, we want to cut and run, we want failure for political gain, we want to be attacked again for political gain, etc... I'm certain you MUST be able to see how absolutely aggravating it is to hear these things, and if you can't, just imagine how you'd feel if the tables were turned, if for just one moment. I'll admit it's sometimes easy to lose sight of the fact that there are at least some of us in both parties that are capable of listening to reason and for that I apologize.

To use past Presidents as a measuring stick is more than appropriate...

If you talk about Social Security in 2006, FDR's name will eventually come up...Will you say, "How dare you bring up someone who's been dead for the 60 years?"...Of course not...The relevancy is clear...

Mention welfare in 2006 and LBJ becomes relevant....Mention Vietnam Veterans in 2006 and you have a few Presidents to call upon...

Hell!...If a new telescope is invented, do you think no one should mention Galileo?...:roll:
I agree. I draw from knowlege of past presidents and make comparisons between them on a frequent basis. How else to judge the present but to look into the past? In this instance though, I was merely discussing the response to the scandal, not the scandal itself, and drawing a comparison since some suggest that we should just keep quiet about the current scandal since he hasn't been convicted of any crime. Further, I didn't suggest that Clinton couldn't be blamed for anything, just that it's rather unreasonable when it seems that by some, he's blamed for nearly everything.

The current issue of terrorism is DIRECTLY related to the actions(and inactions) of the last four Presidents. The last President had the best opportunity to shut it down, seeing as how OBL was not in anyone's radar before him...That gives him the most culpability for the attacks on US citizens around the world from people that publicly announced their intentions, but were ignored...You can speculate what would've happened if a fatwa was announced and a "base" was established during the two previous administrations, but it would still be just speculation... It actually happened in reality during the last administration...

The relevance is more than acceptable...
I would consider it only fair to say that up until 9/11/01, it was the actions/inactions of five presidents, as until that point, the current administration with a like-party majority in the congress didn't seem particularly motivated to move on the issue, either. I acknowledge as I have in the past that Clinton didn't seem to do much about it (that we know of), but neither did the current president until his hand was forced by an attack on our own soil.

President Bush could just as easily have ordered military action based on the USS Cole attack and the very same intelligence on which Clinton based his decision to treat it as a law-enforcement issue, but instead he chose to do the same thing Clinton did. Perhaps because it seemed to everyone the right thing to do at the time. 9/11 changed that, of course, and that's, perhaps, the one positive thing that came out of the tragedy. It woke us up and made us realize that the terrorists are serious and we need to be serious, too.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
JustMyPOV said:
President Bush could just as easily have ordered military action based on the USS Cole attack and the very same intelligence on which Clinton based his decision to treat it as a law-enforcement issue, but instead he chose to do the same thing Clinton did. Perhaps because it seemed to everyone the right thing to do at the time.
There is something of an unwritten rule or 'gentlemen's agreement' about Presidents not reversing the major policies of the previous President without some incident, provocation or status-changing public justification, unless such has been made a part of one's campaign. After having been largely silent on what the appropriate response to the Cole should have been, it would have been quite unseemly for Bush have ordered a military response absent some additional provocation.
 
Top Bottom