Besides: “Fore! … Oops”?
No one in this thread has made that argument. Ergo, it is a strawman.
Fuck you. I have not said Clinton is unAmerican.
That, **Biggirl **is worse than a strawman. It is a misrespresenting my position. Kindlly retract that statement.
Historically I’m not really sure ex-Presidents have ever followed this rule. However, in general ex-Presidents are pretty much out of the public scene. I think that’s because most Presidents, whether they serve for 4 years or 8 years (or some other number of years) are pretty damn happy to have their lives as private people back. The White House has often been called the best prison in the world
To look at history I can think of several Presidents that have been critical of their successors. Jefferson was never particularly quiet in the many years he lived after being President. Theodore Roosevelt was openly critical of Taft. Franklin Pierce was openly critical of the United States government and the Union in general.
On the actual issue of Kyoto…we’ve already tried it with a supportive President, and it was still overwhelmingly defeated by the Senate. It takes 2/3 of the Senate to ratify a treaty and I don’t think the composition of the United States Senate has changed near enough for that to happen anytime soon.
Actually, reading the story, it sounds like the conference organizers were trying to ambush Bush. This quote is telling:
So the President is going to a major policy conference and the organizers pull out a past President, who has vastly different ideas on the subject, as a speaker at the last minute? That sounds like BS to me. These things are planned in detail months in advance. It appears to me to be an obvious attempt to influence the negotiations.
If I were put in the same situation I’d be mad as hell.
Slee
Sorry, but to me it sounds like the sort of petty b.s. typical of this administration. George “I’ve never been wrong” Bush got his panties in a wad. Wah Wah Wah.
How so? I mean, surely the president is capable of giving well-reasoned support for his position in a public forum. There’s no reason why the presence of a notable individual who advocates a contrary opinion should render him incapable of following through on his intentions, is there?
Well if the notable individual is also more respected in the given public forum than the president in question, that might be a reason to get upset…
This confuses me. Is it the word “flat” that turns the remark from disagreement into criticism? If Clinton had just said that Bush was “wrong,” with no intensifiers, he wouldn’t have broken this unwritten law, or violated form, or whatever? Is Clinton allowed to say that Bush is “flat wrong” while Clinton is in the United States?
Since the “other side” is currently the sitting president, how is this “unwritten rule” supposed to work? If Clinton doesn’t ever criticize Bush now(while Clinton is outside the country, that is), then in return Bush is obligated not to travel outside the country and call Clinton “flat wrong” during Clinton’s next term as President?
Or by “both sides sticking to it,” do you mean that by the terms of this “unwritten rule,” a sitting President is not supposed to criticize his predecessor? That if Bush, while president, were to travel to another country and criticize Clinton, this would also violate the rule?
If I am wrong about any of this, please don’t be critical. There’s an unwritten rule against doing so, which may or may not involve either one of us being in a foreign country at the time.
Negotiation tactic or no, it still has to be treated as where the Bush Administration is willing to stand: in this case, they were willing to sacrifice an attempt to deal with global warming because they had Clinton-hating to do.
Even without his willingness to take his ball and go home, I’m gonna call this incredibly petty.
If I were President, I’d try to actually deal with real problems, instead of merely trying to convince the American people that I was doing so.
Shall we talk about the “unwritten rules” that these yahoos have broken?
[ul]
[li]Using national security as a partisan bludgeon.[/li][li]Making political speeches to the troops. (Actually, that’s a written rule - the troops aren’t supposed to participate in partisan political events.)[/li][li]Coming up with a judicial exception to the filibuster rule.[/li][li]The Senate leader of one party campaigning against the Senate leader of the other party.[/li][li]Keeping Congressional votes open indefinitely while arm-twisting on votes. (Another written rule, actually.)[/li][li]Doing major rewrites of legislation in conference committee, and forcing an immediate vote on it in violation of the (written) rule that says you’ve got to wait a few days for that vote so Congress can review any changes. [/li][/ul]
I’m sure there’s more, but that’s off the top of my head. They haven’t respected rules of the written or unwritten variety; they have no cause for complaint when others violate unwritten rules.
Saying “ergo” doesn’t make you right either. You are trying to make it seem as if Clinton is doing something Unamerican. That is a tried and true tactic by this administration, as bubba jr humorously pointed out. And you call this a strawman argument because. . . no body (besides you) is arguing that what Clinton did is Unamerican?
So, your point in bringing up the fact that Clinton is breaking an American Tradition not to criticize a sitting president is just how you show your love. Yeah, that’s the ticket. You’re not trying to say Clinton critizising a sitting president is unamerican, nope. You’re just, um, saying that what Clinton did is non-American Tradition. Completely different than unamerican.
And I will not fuck you. You continue to fuck all by yourself.
Well, there’s an easy test. If you think it’s not a strawman, just quote the poster who made that argument.
Look. I said I thought it was an unwritten rule, and I further stated that I could be wrong. No one else seems to have heard of this “unwritten rule”, so it looks like I am wrong. But there’s nothing “unAmerican” about breaking rules, either written or unwritten. Calling someone “unAmerican” is silly ad hominem, and I don’t believe I’ve **ever **called **anyone **that in **any **thread, and I’m offended that you would pretend that I have.
Terrifel: I don’t see what’s so hard to understand about it. When Bush is out of office, he doesn’t go abroad to criticize a sitting president, Republican or Democrat. It has nothing to do with Clinton (unless Hillary wins 
), but whoever happens to be the president at whatever time in the future.
You have a 2 week long conference to discuss the future of the Kyoto protocol.
You want the US to join the Kyoto protocol.
Maybe, just maybe, you should not have the last speaker of the conference (regardless of who it is) bash the US government.
I’m just sayin’
A little late because I thought that someone else had seconded this, but I have heard it also. It must’ve been long ago, but I think the host of a respectable news show (e.g., 60 Minutes or Face the Nation) said it.
Right, you tried to say that what Clinton did was Unamerican and you were proven wrong. Just because you tried the tactic and it didn’t work doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Whether you brought this up innocently or not does not negate the fact that you did it. And then got nasty with bubba for laughing at it. And then cursed me for stating what was already here for everyone to read.
There is not enough shelding and spin in the world to protect our sitting president. Especially when he makes such petty and transparent moves. And as long as the sitting president is such a shitty one, he should expect criticism. He and his sympathizers should not hope some “unwritten rule” will deflect it for him.
**Bolding mine.**I’d bet it would be gloves-off if Poppy wasn’t married to little Bush’s Mommie.
Yeah, because breaking protocol = being unAmerican. There aren’t enough :rolleyes: for that load of shit.
As for the Kyoto treaty, it never had a chance in hell of getting thru the Senate. This resolution, introduced by Robert Byrd (D-WV) passed 95-0, and is why Clinton never submited the treaty for vote.
OK, so what exactly was you point about Clinton breaking an unwritten rule for ex-presidents? Not that it would make any difference, since you were wrong-- as it seems you already half-knew when you brought it up in the first place? Why mention it?
Nice one! 
Okay, I’m incredibly slow. But I’ve only now seen that Kyoto is an anagram of Tokyo. :smack:
That’s true, the way they’re spelled in English. They’re spelled differently in Japanese: 東京 Tokyo and 京都市 Kyoto-shi. They only appear to share one kanji character in the original language.
Well, I admit to being easily confused. In this exchange:
–your response doesn’t directly challenge treis’ observation. *(“You’re wrong. Advocating for a contrary position is criticizing, which violates the unwritten rule.”) * Instead, by quoting Clinton, you seem to be suggesting that some specific quality of his remarks crossed the line between simple “disagreement” and unacceptable “criticism” (in the sense of “expressing harsh and severe disapproval”). It never occurred to me that the “unwritten rule” you refer to forbids ex-Presidents abroad from expressing disagreement with the sitting President on any matter or to any degree whatsoever.
I cannot extract meaning from the second phrase. Who are “both sides?” The rule only governs the conduct of ex-Presidents. Although I guess they do all have two sides, anatomically speaking. And now I have this image of Clinton considering whether to gainsay Bush’s environmental policies, with little cartoon Angel Clinton and Devil Clinton sitting on his shoulders.
I really feel that these unwritten rules ought to be written down somewhere. It would simplify things. Does anyone know if there’s an unwritten reason for this unwritten rule? At what earlier point in our history did wandering ex-Presidents pose more of a danger to a sitting President’s policies by talking to people in other countries than by talking to the voters in this one?