It's been widely reported that the WH managed every detail down to which side of his face would be in light and which in shadow. To suggest they were obsessed with the tiny details and oblivious to the centerpiece of a carefully orchestrated photo-op is an insult to the American intelligence. Your defense of it is proof it works and an encouragement to continue with the lying lies, be they big or small. As I said, as rimrocker said, as MacBeth said, it goes to pattern, your 'honor.'
I only defended Bush from responsibility for remembering the details of this sign among the many that have been trotted out for his appearances. I did not deny that White House handlers were involved in orchestrating. It was Bush that was called a liar by you and others. That is a "gross" generalization.
I say again, giddyup, it goes to pattern. Yes, you can take many of the Bush admin's lies and put the happiest parse on it and maybe continue your denial that we are being governed by deeply dishonest people, but the fact is that no modern administration (at least since Nixon) has played so cute with the truth. It is passing ironic you would cite The Boy Who Cried Wolf. That's a story we read our kids to teach them not to lie. Respect and continued benefit of the doubt for the Bush admistration -- contrary to all the evidence -- teaches the opposite.
There was no responsibility... he wasn't specifically asked about the sign... he volunteered the info... he did not have to even bring it up... he lied... it was stupid... and I agree, it is gross.
Whether he volunteered the information or not is unimportant. The sign was referred to in the context of the question about whether the pronouncement about victory was premature. So he mis-remembered. That is not lying. It is trivia; no it is beneath trivia.
He decalred "Victory" WAY too early. You may not want to call that lying but it is shifty to say the least.
Who says the administration isn't sensitive to Islam? This time the Lincoln sailors took the Official Font and were able to put in in a pious Muslim Green: Now, I'm not too keen on details of arabic script, but if there is an arabic analogue of 700-point Small Caps Official Font then I think that bottom part is in it.
Difference was Clinton was accused of serious crimes, such as lying under oath. And do I need remind you that his law license was suspended because he was in contempt of court! And among the things the cowardly GOP refused to call him to task on: a. illegally moving the control of the sale of sensitive technologies from the DOD to Commerce, thus compromising national security b. taking campaign contributions from fronts for the Chicoms and the Indonesians among others. c. pardoning the Macheretos terrorists who were not apologetic just so his wife could win the Puerto Rican vote d. weakening our military by slashing their budget and overextending them by deploying them on every goddamned, chicken****, useless "peacekeeping" detail he could. When it mattered to our national security, he did nothing but bluster and lob cruise missiles (Iraq, Al Qaeda), but when it didn't (the Balkans, Haiti) he was all over sending our troops to get shot at for no reason but intervene in civil wars that had no effect on our national interests. e. weakening our intel capabilities by slashing funds for humint (HUMan INTelligence) and making it nearly impossible to recruit agents from foreign entities by making it against the law to recruit a criminal as an informant. This conveniently forgets the fact that they are betraying their damned side, how good can they be!!!!!!!!! f. allowing the Twin Towers bombing, Khobar Towers and the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole to go unpunished, thus showing cowardice in the face of the enemy and inviting the 9/11 attacks. I could go on and on, but the guy was corrupt, self-serving, perverted, sociopath who cared not a wit about our national security. And for those who believe the Clinton backtracking about "we tried to tell Bush about the terrorists, we had a plan, but he wouldn't listen.....blah, blah, blah." Well, Bill, one question: why didn't you take care of that on your watch? Bill Clinton will be remembered by real historians as one of the worst presidents ever. No legacy-building by his little gargoyles and sychophants in the media will ever change that.
Bill Clinton will be remembered by real historians as one of the worst presidents ever. Funny thing, I have been saying the exact same thing about GWB for the last two years. BTW, deceiving the nation to start a war grossly dwarfs any of Clinton's missteps by a very wide margin. Leaders of smaller countries who acted similarly could very well get dragged into the World Court and convicted of international war crimes. For GWB, it is just another day at the office.
Really? C-SPAN conducted a survey of Historians and they tend to disagree... Historians Rank Presidential Leadership In New C-SPAN Survey Monday, February 21, 2000 Ten Leadership Qualities Assessed Across US History Historians have given Abraham Lincoln, FDR, George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman the top five honors for presidential leadership in a survey of historians conducted by C-SPAN in December and January. Fifty-eight historians from across the political spectrum who contributed to C-SPAN's year long series, American Presidents: Life Portraits participated in C-SPAN's survey. They rated the 41 men who have served in the White House on ten different qualities of presidential leadership. Results of this survey, overall rankings and each president's scores in individual categories, are being released by C-SPAN to coincide with the February 21 observance of President's Day. President Clinton rated 21st overall and in the center in most categories: 20th in Crisis Leadership; 21st in International Relations; 21st in Administrative Skills; 22nd in Vision/Agenda Setting; and 21st in Performance in the Context of the times. His high scores were in Pursuing Equal Justice (5th), Economic Management (5th) and Public Persuasion (11th); his low scores were in Relations with Congress (36th) and Moral Authority (41st). Rated worst overall as leaders by participating historians were William Henry Harrison (37), Warren G. Harding (38), Franklin Pierce (39), Andrew Johnson (40) and James Buchanan (41). This is C-SPAN's first effort at surveying presidential leadership. "We spent all of 1999 learning about these men through our American Presidents series. A formal survey of historians seemed like a natural conclusion to that effort," said C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb. "It also seemed like a useful project for an election year, when Americans are making the same kind of judgements about who they want to inherit the White House." The cable public affairs network was guided in the survey effort by a team of four historians and academics: Dr. Douglas Brinkley, Director of the Eisenhower Center at the University of New Orleans; Dr. Edna Greene Medford, Associate Professor of History, Howard University; Richard Norton Smith, Director of the Gerald R. Ford Museum and Library; and Dr. John Splaine, Education professor, University of Maryland. The four survey advisors devised a survey which asked participants to use a one ("not effective") to ten ("very effective") scale to rate each president on ten qualities of presidential leadership: "Public Persuasion," "Crisis Leadership," "Economic Management," "Moral Authority," "International Relations," "Administrative Skills," "Relations with Congress," "Vision/Agenda Setting," and "Pursuit of Equal Justice for All". And, to reflect the changing role of the presidency over the course of US history, the advisory team chose as the tenth category, "Performance Within the Context of His Times." The survey was sent by mail in December to 87 historians and other professional observers of the presidency whose work contributed to C-SPAN's 41 week biography series, American Presidents. Fifty-eight agreed to participate. Survey responses were tabulated by averaging all the responses in any given category for each president. Each of the ten categories were given equal weighting in the total scores. Overseeing the tabulation were Robert Kennedy, C-SPAN CFO and Dr. Robert Browning, a political scientist who serves as director of the C-SPAN archives. Interested C-SPAN viewers were also given the chance to participate in a separate tabulation. The complete survey was available online for a ten-day period at the end of December. The online program was designed for one-time participation from a computer address; 1145 people took part in the survey which its designers estimate took at least 45 minutes to complete. Full results of the public version of the presidential leadership survey are available on C-SPAN's web site at www.c-span.org. link
a. It wasn't illegal b. not really as bad as Bush and his military personel trades with them. c. agree d. agree somewhat with some of the peacekeeping part. The military budget slashes weren't the problem. The problem was not restructuring the military to fight terrorism. e. I agree with you f. The people responsible for the twin towers bombing are now in jail. The message sent was that if people do that to the U.S. they will be caught and punished. Since it wasn't much of a deterrent then perhaps sending messages like that isn't the only thing that needed to be done. That's probably why Clinton increased the budget to fight terrorism organized a group which proposed cracking down on OBL, using special forces to go after him, blocking funds from phony charities that fund them and pretty much everything else that Bush only implemented after 9/11. The guy isn't the greatest, but his lies and dishonesty didn't launch the country into a preemptive invasion of a sovereign nation.
Let's think about this for a minute: A. most historians are of the left end of the political spectrum B. most of those surveyed VOTED for him. Do you think they are going to want to pillory him when they were among those who put that liar into office? C. History's judgement will be rendered in the future, not so soon after his disasterous presidency ended.
Come on, bama. That's totally weak and rediculous. Check out the people who supervised the survey... The cable public affairs network was guided in the survey effort by a team of four historians and academics: Dr. Douglas Brinkley, Director of the Eisenhower Center at the University of New Orleans; Dr. Edna Greene Medford, Associate Professor of History, Howard University; Richard Norton Smith, Director of the Gerald R. Ford Museum and Library; and Dr. John Splaine, Education professor, University of Maryland. Sure, a bunch of raving leftist waclos.
Two points: 1) Do you have anything to back this up? 2) You do realize the flaw in this reasoning, no? If you exclude historians from the question of how history will judge something due to what you feel is bias, you are essentially giving yourself free license to advocate your position as sound sans reproach; a) The law currently favors corporations. The legal world knows this. b) really? Well a poll of lawyers and judges disagree. a) But that doesn't mean anything, because most lawuers are conservative. See what I mean? What is more likely, statistically? That an entire filed is subject to bias so great that it interferes with their ability to do their job, or that an individual, in this case yourself, is likely to have his bias affect his opinion?
I know plenty of historians, bunches......and they all come from the left end of the spectrum, like most in academia (except for most business faculty). That's not a slam on them, just a realization that you have look at the ideological prizm through which they view history. And of course they're going to give Slick Willie a pass. Most of 'em voted for them and still can't admit that they, like everyone who voted for him, voted for one of the most corrupt presidents ever to sit in the Oval Office.
Well, you have your answer now I presume, MacB. I can't actually see the answer, but I can imagine it. Are you surprised?
You obviously know nothing about American history and some of the loser presidents of the past. Taft, anyone? Hell, Carter was much worse than Clinton and he wasn't hat long ago...
Read your history books about Harding, Grant and others. Then spank yourself on the ass and feel duly chastized.
