Ha! I have to laugh at the irony of allowing myself to be mislead by one of those I just described as lying whores.
Mea Culpa. It never happened.
Just my 2sense
My answer was intended to be superficial, in order to match the question.
If you want a serious answer, here it is. I think it’s appropriate to have a serious debate over military, diplomatic and strategic policy. At this point in time, it’s hard to disagree with Bush on substantive matters, because his policy is mostly not announced.
However, I see lots of people not unifying behind Bush in petty, non-productive, harmful ways. I see them here on this web site and I see it in the media. E.g., people criticize Bush’s smirk or point out that he’s not as good an orator as Clinton. Rep. Martin Meehan criticized Bush for not returning directly to Washington on Tuesday, and called Bush a liar when the White House reported that there had been specific threats against the President.
There’s a thread on this board asking whether Bush is really in charge and another thread questioning his leadership.
Some people criticized Bush for not visiting New York City soon enough. The NY Times has been a prime offender. In today’s lead editorial, they grudgingly admitted that Bush gave a good performance at the ATC, but pointed out that they expected to disagree with him in the future.
IMHO these sorts of criticims are harmful to unity and do not help produce effective policy.
december:
You argue that discussion is fine but carping is not because it is harmful to unity. Since the value of that very unity is the issue at hand this would be begging the question. It would be that is if your argument had anything to do with my question. Your superficial answer at least was some sort of answer. This latest is merely a red herring.
If my question is superficial then your inability to confront it squarely doesn’t say much for your ability to reason.
Just my 2sense
When I refer to my 2sense, I’m actually talking about my weird fifth sense.
Not sixth. By some tragic accident, I was born without taste buds. - sig courtesy of Surgoshan
Simpleton!
Clinton DID go after bin Laden!
See Source: Clinton approved action against bin Laden in 1998
Bill Clinton did indeed fire cruise missiles into Afghanistan in 1998. It can be argued as to whether this was an attempt to kill bin Laden, or an effort to “wag the dog”. Either way, it was unsuccessful. Where the bombings did manage to succeed was in pissing off the entire Islamic region by destroying a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that was supposedly making biological weapons. No evidence was ever offered by the US to prove these allegations. In fact, the only thing that the US did offer was–(and I paraphrase)–‘Trust us, the intelligence was there’. To this day, that intelligence has not been made public.
Now, back on point-- I don’t think that Clinton’s trip to “Ground Zero” was politically motivated. I found nothing in his comments that did anything at all to undermine the sitting president. In fact, his statements helped to build support for Bush within the ranks of the die-hard Democrats. He has no reason to grandstand, nor does he have reason to avoid such high profile events. He is not an aging former president that is seemingly out of touch with the current generation; He is a charismatic leader with many loyal supporters. The fact that he made his presence known by encouraging unity is a service to his country, not just to the current president.
Bill Clinton has done some very stupid things in his lifetime. In my opinion, this was not one of them.
December, my condolences, I am sorry.
SouthernStyle, this is GD. I would like for you to refute my points instead of walking away calling it drivel just because they aren’t conservative and not attcking Clinton.
Like it or not, Bush is our president, and as I said before, he better grow up quickly. It is nice to know that he does practice the tenents of “compassionate conservatism”. I have to hope that his lack of rhetorical skills is more than made up by excellent short-term and long-term planning skills when he is up against it. He has an excellent for that. We need this much more to handle this task.
There’s an interesting commentary about Bush by Dick Morris here: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/4338.htm
For those with short memories, Dick Morris was Clinton’s chief political strategist.
For Dick Morris to claim that being “simple” is a desirable characteristic in a wartime leader, doesn’t he do a disservice to Lincoln and F.D.R.; both of whom were anything but simple, yet were demonstrably effective leaders?
Wouldn’t it be better to characterize George W. Bush as “being a man of convictions”? I’d suggest that even most of his detractors would agree with that one.
In that way, he seemingly differs to some degree, from Clinton and Gore.
I’d personally hate to describe Bush as a ‘man of convictions’, since the essence of his domestic policies to date seems to be to help out rich people and big corporations, while doing his best to characterize it as aid to the common man.
His post-WTC proposal of a capital gains tax cut seems to fit right in with that, IMHO.
That said, I find nothing to criticize in his overall leadership in the current crisis. If he’s got a tin ear when it comes to speechifying, we’ll just have to deal with it. So far, he’s taking us in the right general direction, and that’s all that counts. Whether there will be reason to criticize particulars will become apparent as the particulars become known.
But back to the point, we should support his leadership in general, in a situation as extreme as this one, unless he’s clearly taking us in the wrong direction. He’s not the president I would have wanted, but he’s the only one that America has right now. I want him to do this nation proud in his efforts to respond to last Tuesday’s attack. We’re going to disagree on what the best way to do so is. But he’s the one who’s got to make the decisions, and he deserves a certain amount of latitude, of benefit of the doubt, in his approach to the task.
I doubt very much if the distinction between ‘sincere’ and ‘politically motivated’ means much of anything in the case of former President Clinton.
That having been said, I think he is acting much as President Bush is acting - doing what they should be doing, the best way they know how. Both deserve our support, but more for Bush because he has the more difficult role. Agreed?
While I am speaking out in support of people I vehemently disagree with, Dick Gephardt was being pushed in an interview with NPR to try to speak on topics on which he (and other Democrats in Congress) disagree with Republicans and the President. To give him full credit, he pushed back just as hard in stating and re-stating his support for the Administration during this time, that he was focused on what the country needed now and not what his party wanted. For a career politician, I thought that was pretty damn classy. Good for him.
Legitimate, constructive criticism based on a desire to do better, I think, should be as welcome now as ever. Reflexive, partisan carping? Shut the f**k up, we’re busy.
And I am sorry to say one of the places I see the most of it is the SDMB.
Regards,
Shodan
Firefly:
Point taken about Bush’s misrepresentation of his tax cut.
Nonetheless, I think he sincerely believes that helping rich people is good for America. A lot of conservatives really seem to believe this. Conservatives can have convictions, too, however misguided.
**ambushed
**
[Moderator Hat ON]
It is inappropriate to call people names in this forum. Please do not do so again.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Sorry, Demise, for the repeat, but…
You’re kidding, right?
Exactly RTFirefly. I know that I’m on your sh*t list since the election, but nevertheless, I wanted to publicly say I agree with you.
I think that Carter/Clinton would make an extremely effective team of ex-presidents. Carter is arguably the best humanitarian we’ve had in a long time. Combine that with the charisma of Clinton and you’ve got a winner.
Just make sure there are no young ladies in supporting roles. I can imagine that conversation:
Carter: I have lust in my heart.
Clinton: Heh, heh. I’ve got lust in my boxers.
I got my dander up for some reason and managed to misconstrue december’s posts. I need to apologise to him for impugning his understanding. I got busy complaining that he didn’t draw a pretty picture and I didn’t bother to connect the lines to see that he was talking sense. I’m sorry. I was equating support of Bush with support of his choices. I didn’t see unifying for Bush as beneficial though of course I stand against the perpetrators.
Maybe next time I’ll read the post before I reply.
2sense, I appreciate your gracious apology.
Gaudere: Got it. Won’t happen again.
[hijack]
In recent weeks (starting well before 9/11, actually), I’ve had to clean out a lot of shit lists. People I thought I disliked kept on surprising me with their decency and humanity.
My hat’s off to you for starting this thread, milroyj.
[/hijack]
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RTFirefly *
**
As mine is to you. Thank you, good Sir.