Hahahaha!!! She does have a certain Black Knight quality to her. You could hack off a limb and she'd keep fighting. Besides, anyone who grew up watching the Twilight Zone and Tales from the Crypt knows it's the quiet grandmotherly ones you gotta watch out for.
i'll retract the last sentence of "look what he left behind!" if it means we don't have to have a discussion/argument over the worth of the Clinton administration.
They left behind a mess in the White House. Didn't Hillary like take a big dump on the rug in the Oval Office? I seem to remember hearing something about a big steaming pile of feces left on the rug. Of course I heard that from FOXNews so take that for what you will.
washingtonpost.com At Crisis Time, A Motherlode Of Bush Traits President Shows Instinct To Act, Speak Bluntly By Dana Milbank Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, September 6, 2002; Page A01 Earlier this year, when British Prime Minister Tony Blair was visiting the Bush ranch in Crawford, Tex., President Bush did something presidents rarely do: He spoke his mind. "I explained to the prime minister that the policy of my government is the removal of Saddam," he said at a news conference. Catching himself, Bush added: "Maybe I should be a little less direct and be a little more nuanced, and say we support regime change." Longtime Bush family friends say the performance gave them a flashback, to Barbara Bush, 1984. It was then that the future president's mother described her husband's challenger for the vice presidency, Geraldine Ferraro, as a word that "rhymes with rich." To calm the uproar, she later said she meant "witch," and not the word everybody thought. In a score of interviews, friends and family of the president and political advisers to two Bush administrations say the last year has publicly demonstrated, as they knew privately, that George W. Bush is his mother's son. Coverage of Bush since the terrorist strikes of Sept. 11 has often compared the president to his presidential father. More to the point, Bush friends and aides say, is how the crisis has brought out in the younger Bush traits he learned from his mother: a sharp tongue, a stubborn will, a reliance on instinct, a black-and-white morality, impatience and a congenital inability to suffer fools. That helps to explain how Bush, after a tentative start in the presidency, discovered himself as a leader after Sept. 11. Like his mother, Bush favors broad-brush thinking and quick decision-making -- the traits that friends and family say are demanded in a multi-front, fast-moving war when the nation needs a clear spokesman more than a policy expert. By sweeping away all shades of gray, the terrorist attacks played to Bush's strengths. "There was no more tentativeness about him and what he had to do," a Bush adviser said. Had terrorists not struck the World Trade Center and Pentagon a year ago, such traits might not have surfaced publicly, more than one friend of Bush said. Bush struggled with middling approval ratings early in his presidency, when his good-versus-evil instincts did not fit matters such as environmental policy and budget negotiations. In these matters, Bush's reliance on platitudes gave the appearance he was out of touch on details. Even now, Bush startles some allies and even U.S. diplomats, who view him as a cowboy. But Bush feels more comfortable now. In his view, as a friend put it, fighting terrorists "is much easier than the shades of gray in the domestic world." For April Foley, a friend of Bush's since Harvard Business School, the moment Bush demonstrated himself to be his mother's son came when the president, in the trade center rubble, bellowed into a bullhorn that "the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon!" "That moment at Ground Zero was very much a Barbara Bush moment," she said. "From his mother I see that feistiness, that street-smart person who has a good nose for people, a good political nose." The younger Bush has always been that way, but "it's come out more" in the crisis of the past year. For Rich Bond, who ran George H.W. Bush's primary campaign in Iowa in 1980, the moment came when the younger Bush said shortly after Sept. 11, "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt." "That is classic, classic Barbara Bush," Bond said. "She cuts to the chase." Another political aide to the former president, Jim Pinkerton, saw a Barbara Bush moment in her son's "caustic" exchange with an American reporter who asked a question of the French president in French during a Paris news conference. Bush shot the reporter a withering glance and snapped, "The guy memorizes four words, and he plays like he's intercontinental." The president had a chance to watch his mother in action through his father's three presidential campaigns and four years in the White House. He may not be consciously reflecting his mother's style, but it no doubt has some basis in experience. During the first Bush presidency, for example, it was widely believed that Barbara Bush kept track of her husband's enemies. The current president, with his "with us or against us" rhetoric, has embraced that style. "Bush Senior didn't have an enemies list," Pinkerton said, but the younger Bush, he added, "has it in his head." The current president "lacks the sunny optimism that characterizes many presidents," including his father, Pinkerton said. "The common wisdom among those of us working with him [in the 1980s] then was he was more like his mother than his father." Bush is, of course, a blend of both parents; Craig Stapleton, a close Bush friend who is ambassador to the Czech Republic, points out that Bush has also demonstrated some of his father's qualities in the past year, including a new appreciation for history. And family and friends say the similarities to his mother seen in the last year are nothing new to them. The difference, many of them say, is the crisis atmosphere has demanded from Bush the personality traits typically identified with his quick-witted mother rather than his diplomatic father. "His mother came out over the past year," said one of the president's closest friends, who asked not to be named. "He probably has more of his mother's traits -- the sharp tongue, the wit, the combination of love and reproach. It's like a quality latent within you comes out." Barbara Bush declined through a spokeswoman to be interviewed for this article, and the president's press secretary, Ari Fleischer, said the White House would not cooperate. But the president often jokes publicly about his mother's influence, reminding those who mistake him for a well-mannered sort that he got half his genes from Barbara Bush. In his campaign memoir, "A Charge to Keep," Bush wrote about a supporter in Houston who told him: "You have your daddy's eyes and your momma's mouth." Added Bush: "[T]hat's a pretty accurate assessment. My mother and I are the quippers of the family, sharp-tongued and irreverent." Mother and son developed a close bond in Midland, Tex., after young George W.'s sister died of leukemia; the boy told jokes to make his mother smile. They have communicated with a mixture of candor and wisecracks ever since. When George W. Bush was contemplating a run for Texas governor in 1994, Barbara Bush publicly volunteered the opinion that her son should not run. This spring, she called her son to entertain him with an article in the Wichita Eagle newspaper, which misquoted her as saying she had had "three breast sizes" instead of "dress sizes." Since Sept. 11, the president has become noticeably more outspoken and blunt. In the campaign, for example, he repeatedly hemmed and hawed about whether South Carolina should display the Confederate flag, refusing to answer. Now, his "dead or alive" rhetoric directed at Osama bin Laden is emblematic. "She's never opaque or cryptic," said one senior White House official. Likewise, for the president, "on critical speeches, the operating force has been clarity. You never don't understand what he means." "I've seen something of an evolution to someone with a lot greater maturity, a clearer sense of purpose," said Ohio Gov. Robert Taft (R), who has become close to Bush. Privately, Bush has always been "very candid, direct," Taft said, but in the past year he has been more publicly direct -- similar to his mother, who "speaks more freely about her personal convictions." The last year has also induced Bush to rely more on intuition and his ability to make decisions on instinct -- traits he identifies with his mother. "She's got wonderful antennae, and good reaction, good instincts," Bush said in an interview with NBC during the presidential campaign. Bush identified with that trait. "It's important to be able to delegate to people whose instincts you trust," he continued. Friends, too, identify that trait in the president with his mother. Joe O'Neill, a Bush family friend from Midland who just visited the president at his ranch, views that as Bush's signature trait. "He's very much like his mother in that he reads people pretty fast," O'Neill said. And Robert Mosbacher, who has known the Bush family for 40 years and served as commerce secretary in George H.W. Bush's administration, said the president "understands politics viscerally better than his father." Confronting a decision, "the former president would want to hear it all out, chew on it and then come up with something," Mosbacher said. "Barbara will more quickly say, 'This is what I think.' " As president, of course, Bush can't be entirely seat-of-the-pants. Barbara Bush, in a Mother's Day interview with Newsweek magazine, expressed surprise that her son showed restraint in the days following Sept. 11, rather than launching an immediate attack. "I'm not sure I'd have been that good," she said. Now, as the administration contemplates an attack on Iraq, those who know both generations of the Bush family see Barbara Bush's "strong-willed, plain-spoken stubbornness" in her son, as Charlie Black, an adviser to George H.W. Bush, put it. The president has made clear that he aims to oust Saddam Hussein. "His father would be more likely to leave the impression he was arguable on it; he wouldn't say it so adamantly publicly," Black said. "He was always big on not showing his cards." Barbara Bush, by contrast, "didn't pull her punches." Neither, Black said, does her son. "Even pre-9/11, I told people they were going to learn he had much more of his mother's personality than his father's," Black said. "When you get into a time of crisis, it comes through even more." Obviously, there is no template in Bush family history for dealing with a national crisis such as Sept. 11 and the counterterrorism war. The closest comparison, friends and aides say, is 1992, when George H.W. Bush lost the presidency and his mother. The elder Bush blamed himself for his defeat and was generally morose, apologizing to aides for letting them down. Barbara Bush was having none of that, arguing that they'd done their best. George W. Bush, in fact, later recalled his mother's words in the Houstonian Hotel in Houston after her husband lost the presidency: "It's over, let's move on." That refusal to second-guess, and a professed lack of regrets, has characterized George W. Bush this past year. Asked for a personal precedent for Bush's response to the crisis of the past year, Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans, a longtime friend, recalled Bush's reaction to his own defeat in his 1978 congressional race. "I saw him stand up in front of the campaign team, thank them and say, 'Now it's time to move on,' " Evans recalled. Bush did not see "anything to apologize for." Evans said it's much the same for Bush now. "It's the decisive, determined and sure way he expresses himself," Evans said. "He's not afraid what other people might say about him." Critics might say that Bush's imperviousness to criticism over the past year indicates arrogance. And, with the country at war and upwards of 70 percent of Americans supporting him for most of the past year, Bush has been confronted with far less criticism. Whatever the cause, Bush friends say the willingness to alienate and offend is another trait he picked up from his mother rather than his father, who felt more of a need to be loved by all. "To this day George Sr. is the soft touch and I'm the enforcer," Barbara Bush told Newsweek on the topic of her grandchildren. "The first President Bush tried to please too many people," said one family friend. By saying yes to too many people, he inadvertently caused infighting among aides and associates. "The second President Bush . . . is more of an open fighter than his dad, more willing to endure criticism than his dad." In that, said Roger Williams, a friend of the president's from Texas, "you could say he's exhibiting some of her traits." When it comes to Barbara Bush, "she doesn't mind defending what she believes is right, even if it's not popular." Bond knows about being on the wrong end of an argument with Barbara Bush. He was frantically working the phones in Iowa on the night of the 1980 caucuses when an aide called, seeking a ride from the airport for the future first lady -- immediately. Bond, desperate to get callers to precincts to vote, told the aide to "cool your [expletive] jets." The next thing Bond heard was Barbara Bush's voice on the line, roaring, "Cool your [expletive] what?" For Bond, still a "huge fan" of Barbara Bush, the episode captured her style -- and her son's. "She is fierce and fearless, and those are two traits particularly good to have in a president," he said. "His dad can be much more patient, much more of a listener. Both Mrs. Bush and George have a slightly lower threshold of patience."
<blockQUOTE>Originally posted by grummett Carter was the worst president, after Nixon, in my lifetime. </blockQUOTE>So, you agree with Batman: Carter was not the worst president "ever," much less in your lifetime. <blockquote>He should be completely ignored, except when he's building houses.</blockquote> ..."building houses" and counting ballots..Just think if Carter's group would have been assigned to monitor Florida elections....hmmmm <font size="1">just an observation of an Hangout bystander who believes Carter would have made a great president of France.</font>
Nice dude, nice. Actually the college kid, from Emory University, but you know, whatever. As long as we're delving into personal attacks, where did you go to college? I need more background info to insult you with. I'm sorely lacking in that department. BTW I did read the article. I find it consistent with Carter's "human rights" a.k.a. "I am a big, wet, and willing p***y" rhetoric dealing with foreign affairs. Sorry, bro, but I for one don't advocate bending over and taking it in the ass from the rest of the world. If we are acting like bullies, well you know what? Thats just too ****ing bad for the rest of the world. They can't really do anything about it. Our military can crush the rest of the world three times over. And I'd like to see these "economic sanctions" EU is trying to put in place. I'd like to see how long those last when the US Air Force is flying non-stop routes from London to Paris. Ok, now to the article: Carter is b****ing about the treatment of Taliban troops. Let me repeat that. Carter is b****ing about the treatment of Taliban troops. I actually agree with him on this one. I think we should let the survivors and families of victims of 9/11 to decide the fate of these troops. Personally, I think we should put them all into a big hole, and fill the hole with boiling oil. But you get the point. Next: Iraq, and their plans of destruction. Carter is b****ing because we are talking about putting a stop to Hussein... and there hasn't been any overt nuclear testing. No evidence of existance he claims. He then says we should take the word of our great allies in Europe that Iraq poses no threat to the US. He then claims that although these weapons don't exist, they would likely be used against us only if we attacked first. Ahh... wait... so he does think they exist. Wait.. he just said... uh...yeah. He then says we cannot ignore the superweapons being developed by Iraq. But that its not worth going to unilateral war over. Well **** Jimmy, I guess you're right. We will just sit by and get burned/Antrax/nuked just so long as we don't piss off France. And then he goes on about the Isreal situation. Well, I actually don't have a stance on that. But the Jewish vote and money in America is huge, so I guess Bush is doing what EVERY PRESIDENT DOES and that is get that vote. We have been supporting Israel since its inception, yet Carter b****es about Bush's stance. Right.
All of these opinions as to whether or not he has these weapons...this can't be opinion...he either does or he does not. Tony Blair says they're about to release some information on it...Bush says he's getting ready to release some information on it. Argue if you will the crediblity of these reports...but to pretend you know more than the US or British intelligence agencies on the topic is silly.
It does seem unfair to blame the oil crises and interest rates on an only 4-year Carter admin, but then not credit an 8-year Clinton admin for an unprecedented economic growth run. Either blame/credit both of them, or neither, that seems only fair. Also, in war time Presidents can have high rating--and I am sure a lot of folks who didn't vote for him but now will say "he is doing a good job" reflect more the fact they want to country to be united from a foreign threat than an underlying positive evaluation of GW. Remember GHB looked unbeatable right after the Gulf War. That carryover doesn't necc. last long as we found out in 1992. As for BC’s popularity--there was 35% or so (substantial minority) of the voting population that was going to despise BC regardless of what he did (even we he signed moderate-right leaning bills). They all felt GHB was screwed out of a 2nd term and could never get over it. I would guess there was another 10-15% who were swayed by the Lewinsky matter (note: most moderates I talked to didn't care about Whitewater and all the other investigations which they perceived as a witch hunt--what they did care about was the Clinton waved his finger at the camera and lied to them publicly and was caught), but in the end most of these folks weighed the job he did over his personal failings. As for him being "impeached" and making such a big deal of it, that ignores the 2nd half of this story that the senate exonerated him and he completed his term—different from previous impeachment-related cases or threats where the Pres. steped down. Focusing on the “impeachment” and not the end result is like focusing on being accused of a crime and ignoring the final verdict. One thing is for sure, this upcoming election is critical and will be interesting. If the Demo’s gain control of Capital Hill Bush will 1) either have to move to the center as BC did after 1994 or 2) if he tries to stay far right it will be stalemate city--bad for all incumbents including Bush. The Republican party is being smart right now, trying to tie themselves to the Bush’s popularity and focus on war issues—the more they can keep the nation way from domestic issues and the economy the better for them politically in the upcoming months. We will see how it plays out.
I don't think even people like Cheney who don't take human rights into consideration when doing business consider supporting human rights equivalent of being a 'big, wet, willing....' Saying you don't take human rights seriously doesn't help your case. So your reaction to others voicing their opinions on international affairs and using sanctions to back it up, is to invade? Your ideas on world domination make Hitler look weak. Yes having humanity is a horrible thing. What Carter mentioned was that even if the people there were found 'INNOCENT' Rumsfeld wouldn't let them go. I suppose you are in favor of imprisoning innocent people? Actually he never said he had objections to stopping Hussein. He disagrees with the timing and methods the Bush administration appears to be using. In fact Carter talks about using the UN to ensure that Hussein is stopped and weapons inspectors are allowed in. Looking at it as if there are only two options is very simplistic. There are ways to stop Hussein without a Unilateral invasion. Not invading does not mean doing nothing. There is the idea of inspectors with armed escorts, containment, etc. With anything but the most simplistic way of looking at the situation new options open up all the time. Well Carter is the only U.S. president to broker a successful peace deal in that region, so I guess he does have some room to talk.
The thing is Carter told the people to conserve. They hated him for it. Look at the problems recently at what happened in California a year ago. Look at our dependence on foreign oil. Carter was honest with the people, and told it to them straight. There was a crisis, and he said that the people were going to have to suck it up. They hated him for it. It wasn't popular, but it was honest, and considering we are so worried about oil supplies that we have to use military force to keep the oil fields safe, it seems like a wise policy.
Funny thing, Iran-Contra fiasco was an impeachable offense imo. And Reagan and Bush both lied about it afterwards. Clinton can thank his Dem counterparts in the Senate and House who went after Reagan and his staff on Iran Contra. Their attack on the Reagan White House no doubt lead to the pointless 8 year White Water investigation.
That hated him for his lame handling and misshandling of the Hostage Crisis. I don't recall people being upset about wearing short-sleeve shirts to work. No one compalined about jacking-up the thermostats, in fact, they never returned (remember...they all used to be set at 68 in the summer!). Some may have complained that he should be more active looking for other solutions than just immediate conservation, but to be honest, I don't recall much criticism directed at Carter on this issue.
HE LIED UNDER OATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It was verifiable...about as verifiable as it could possibly ever be...so verifiable the only way to get out of it was to seek to redefine the words he used! You can argue that isn't an offense worthy of being removed from office for...but saying it's petty is to spit on the entire judicial system and, in particular, the whole concept of the grand jury. If you and I (or any elected official) can merely lie to get out of liability, then we might as well close up shop and live with anarchy. I really don't want to get into the whole impeachment thing here...because it's irrelevant to the topic at hand, ultimately. But geez....petty??? You wanna talk petty?? How about playing politics with our national security...how about supporting every time Clinton shipped troops anywhere without congressional approval (including some bombing raids in Iraq in 1998) but calling Bush on it here?? How about giving Congressional approval to take force against any nation that harbors terrorists when it was politically expedient to do so closer to 9/11, and then backing away from it?? How about Clinton screaming, "you really should get OBL first" when he readily admits his administration was offered a direct ticket to OBL but refused to take it???
Amen Max!!! I find it appalling that if ANY of us had lied under oath about sex we'd be in PRISON right now...but we're not going to hold the President to AT LEAST as high a standard as the rest of us. It is blatant blind loyalty to the man w**** turned President from Little Rock.
He did recieve huge criticism for it, and even refman brought up the gaslines in this very thread. I don't think Carter gets an A for the handling of the hostage situation, but Carter wasn't responsible for putting the Shah there to begin with. The policy of backing the shah which upset the IRanians wasn't Carters. Carter did try and send in a military rescue team to get the hostages out. Sadly there was the heliocopter crash and the plan didn't work. That crash wasn't Carter's fault either. That being said, I'll agree that he didn't do the best job, but in the end the hostages got out alive, so it wasn't the worst handling either.
