I think the point is that the standard is pre-existing. The demands on any administration are monumental. Is that the reality you want to ignore? Especially for the sake of pilorying the Bush Administration? How quickly we forget...
I was really tough to see where you were going with that initial post. Those generalized comments could be said about any number of governments throughout the history of the world. The point? No point, just some weak softball of a toss to try to equivocate and be an apologist for the lies and misrepresentations from this administration which to date have resulted in thousands of dead and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted. Shame on you for trivializing the effects of this administration's policies and conduct with respect to Iraq and the "war" on terrorism.
Yes, they were generalized but they were unflattering. So let's stop all this hogwash about the Bush Administration being uniquely dishonest. It's all the hot air about that which trivializes the tragedy by trying to characterize it as a departure from the American way. It's always been like this. Yes, even in Camelot!
Huh? Are you really trying to justify lies and corruption in the Bush administration by saying it has happened before? It seems really odd support, given that the time you're referencing almost lead us to World War 3 except for a fact that people stood up to the corrupt military leaders. By this standard, its OK for a President to break the law - after all, Nixon and Clinton did it, so who really cares? I really have no idea what the argument of your post is.
Who was trying to manipulate the White House? You have to be kidding. In our current situation it's the WH leading the manipulation... coloring and twisting the facts. And in spite of his protests to the contrary, Bush ain't leading this administration. Kennedy was leading his. It's the job of the President to take all these views, weigh them, and make the right decision. Kennedy did, Bush didn't. Abramoff is not a bipartisan scandal and no matter how people try to spin the issue, the screwups of the Bush Aadministration belong to the Bush administration. Interesting how the "Party of Responsibility" looks for others to blame. Really, how sad is it that your defense is "Johnny did it too!" It's childish and most importantly, wrong.
So which is it: is Bush the stupid puppet or the neo-con mastermind? The point of the exerise is to point up self-centeredness and short-sightedness. Granted, this is but one man's opinion of the Kennedy administration, but no one seems to be contradicting his observation here. The iconic Kennedy administration is guilty of what you all chortle about the Bush administration being guilty of... I think it is hilarious.
Even if that were true what does that have to do with anything? Does it makes Bush's conduct any less offensive?
Could we say instead that it happens almost all the time? Jimmy Carter's administration might have been an exception but that is another thing altogether.... The point of the thread is to counter-punch the constant lambasting that the Bush administration is somehow uniquely crooked.
It doesn't go on to the extent that it has in this administration. But again even if it did, does that somehow make it ok for this administration to do it? Do you feel like Bush supporters can somehow win if they show that other administrations have been corrupt as well?
There is nothing unique about this. It's the way things are. We can equally hold all administrations, nay politicians, at arms-length. I just get tired of reading here that GWB is the first and the worst. Touche!
Other administrations in the past have done the same things Bush has. The point is that he should have learned from their mistakes. He apparently doesn't even see them as mistakes. That is part of the real problem. While several administrations each did one or two things that Bush is now doing, he managed to take the bad things and put them all together in his administration.
The brilliantly prescient observation that there are interest groups pursuing their own interests with and within the federal government at all points in time ad infinitum --- does absolutely nothing to excuse the misdeeds and f-ckups of the Bush administration. nice try though. Well, not that nice. Average try.
Soooo what the point of this thread appears to be is that giddy is offended that folks are saying that the Bush Admin is unique in its wrongdoings? Does this mean you are admitting that the Admin is quilty as charged, but thats ok since they aren't unique in their actions?
I guess you could - if you provide some evidence. All you did was provide evidence that one previous administration had problems - which almost led to WW3. How does that get to "it happens almost all the time"?
I don't believe Bush 43 is the worst Admin. but I believe it is among the bad. As for comparing it to Kennedy I have long felt that if Kennedy had lived his Admin. would've gone down as one of the worse. I certainly believe that there are many things that we now criticize about the current Admin that we would've also done in to Kennedy's if he had lived. Things like a confused foreign policy, lack of foresight on planning, rash planning and messianic thinking that mark this Admin. also plagued the Kennedy Admin but has largely been papered over by history.
I think that practically every administrations "cuts corners." However, the howling here would have us believe that GWB is the first and/or the worst. I think it is just political hacking.
