Thanks for the article, No Worries. I guess Bush Sr. is a low class piece of white trash just like Clinton.
All of a sudden George Herbert Walker Bush is seen as walking in the footsteps of Woodrow Wilson to the Democrats.
Jake Tapper's thesis for the Michael Moore University graduate school of Spin deserves critical acclaim. Can I get the cliff notes version so that whomever's trying to make a point here can further their stance on this ever critical issue.
Looks to me like GHWB is just being consistent. I don't see how that could be considered a non-Republican thing to do
I skimmed through the article. A lot of it looks like a bunch of inferences thrown together by what most likely is a liberal source (BTW, why did you leave the source out?) . For instance, Bush Sr, wasn't animated enough when answering a question about the current policy, so he must be against the actions. That kind of stuff is for the birds, in my opinion. I didn't really see any direct quotes of Bush Sr. bashing the current policy like Clinton did. So NO...Bush Sr. is not a low class piece of white trash just like Clinton.
I believe that the article tries to show that Bush disagreed with his son's unilateral approach. At least you admit that you didn't read the article. I mean, look at it, so long, so very damn long. It's from Salon.com, so you don't even have to acknowledge that it exists. This, I believe, isn't the article that started a thread though. That article was shorter and by the AP I believe.
This thread is just plain SILLY. Clinton talked a tough game, and articulated G.W.'s exact stance in 1998- he just didn't have the balls to dare to be great. Now that Clinton is out of office, he has either completely changed his mind about Iraq, or he is using his infamy to attack a war-time President for cheap political gains. I think the answer is obvious to those who are truthful.
Exactly. There's a difference between an article written to try and prove something (i.e.full of conjecture, inferences, opinions, biases,etc...), and an article that prints directs quotes that were actually spoken (i.e. facts). I started reading the article thinking it was going to state that Sr. was against the war, I quickly found out that the point of the article was to show a couple reasons why we might be able to deduce that Bush Sr. might be against the war. Sorry, I didn't want to waste my time reading that all the way through.
First, I'm not here to defend Clinton. I thought his politically motivated bombing of Iraq was as cynical as Bush's politically motivated war. But his positions have not changed. He, like Kerry and like many Republicans and veterans, has not challenged the proposition that it would be a good thing to rid the world of Saddam -- he, like those others, has criticized the way it was done and the costs to our various, valuable alliances it incurred. There are, by the way, a great many people who wouldn't call alienating virtually all of our allies by indulging a previously unprecedented preemptive doctrine "being great." If you'd read the article from the Salon "hack" (so incredibly boring how every time you guys don't have an argument you dismiss both opinion and fact as irrelevant even while you post equal and greater articles of bias all the frigging time), you'd have noticed it was populated by many of GHWB's (and former members of his admin's) words as well as many of GWB's. Are you suggesting this "hack" made up those quotes? Or are you saying that since they're quoted by a "hack," they're rendered irrelevant? Either way, it's weak. And how very, very convenient for you to once again infer outrage at criticism of a "wartime" president. The strategy is working. Make sure he's a wartime president for his entire term, so it will be unseemly to criticize anything he does for the length of the term. Karl Rove truly is a genius.
How can you say this war is politcially motivated in one sentence, but in the next stat that you agree that getting rid of Saddam is a good thing? It sounds like that's the exact reason Bush is waging this war, so what is the political motivation? You can disagree with how he went about it, but that doesn't mean he had other motives.
Which alliances? Which allies? We have known for more than a week that Russia, France, Jordan, Syria, and Germany have been violating UN sanctions and aiding Iraq with everything from intelligence to military hardware. Both you and Clinton are aware of these facts if you read the newspaper, so how does it benefit us to allow our enemies' allies to decide if we can defend ourselves? That is sheer madness, and complete duplicity on Clinton's part. At least I read the article. Earth to Batman- G.H.W. Bush fully supports his son, and has not publicly criticized G.W. one time during the last six months. World politics are extremely fluid, and using old quotes won't make anybody's case. Traditions are really pragmatic practices that have proven to be beneficial over time. Liberals like Clinton think they are smarter than everyone who has served as President in our history, but he is wrong. We have a tradition that ex-Presidents keep a low profile, and Clinton needs to keep his mouth shut right now. We need leadership in this country badly now, and Clinton is not helping our nation with his cheap politically motivated attacks.
Mr. Clutch: I'm being sincere when I say I don't understand your confusion. My last graf in that post clearly illustrates how I think the war was politically motivated. There were a couple of long threads on the cynicism of using war and/or 9/11 for political gain, back around the 9/11 anniversary. Look them up for further clarification if you want. heath: Oh, heath. (Insert heavy sigh.) Why do I bother? I don't know. I guess I'm just a sucker for low debates with low debaters. Not my most attractive feature. Anyway. Here goes... Which allies? Virtually all of them. The fact that troubling things were later found out about some of them doesn't change the facts -- especially when most of those things weren't known in any way when we were busy alienating them. Nice try, justifying our failed diplomacy with information that wasn't even known at the time. But, come on, if you're going to insinuate that Russia, Germany or France are greater allies to Iraq than they have been to us, well, I repeat, why do I bother... I'm not aware of any Iraqi troops fighting alongside Americans in Afghanistan. Earth to heathie: Duh. Of course a father supports his son. He has done so in less than ringing terms though and you can draw your own conclusions like most observers (hacks and not-hacks) have orr you can plug your ears and sing la, la, la every time you hear something you wish you hadn't. I think we all know which option you prefer. As for your last insipid point, you have a lot of damn nerve instructing Clinton to observe "traditions" while supporting a president who's just waged a war based on tossing enormous chunks of historic American foreign policy out the window -- even drafting a new doctrine to support this outrageous shift -- in the interest of expediency. The "tradition" of using our might ONLY when attacked, ONLY in defense, has also been proven to be "beneficial over time." But then of course, if we hadn't managed to get into a war, your side wouldn't be able to get so puffed up about criticism of a (insert hushed awe) "wartime president." Someone here (TheFreak, maybe?) recently observed that the strategy was working. It is. It is working like a freaking charm. Thank goodness not every single person's falling for it. We need to have real debates about important issues in this country. If one of the few people willing to do that is an ex-president, I'll forgive him forgoing niceties.
Wartime president would be a bit more sacred if it wasn't the president starting the wars. johnheath you are one of the most bullheaded. arrogant, and presumptious morons that I've ever had the pleasure of reading on a message board. Your ability to sincerely believe in the fount of trash spewing from your mouth amazes me. No pity for the majority. Blind lead the blind, line after line, in a world too shallow to divide. "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." -Winston Churchill You may have heard of him, and probaly even venerate him.
Okay, I'm just kind of confused, because on the one hand you say getting rid of Saddam is a good thing, but on the other you say that Bush is doing this to protect himself politically. I'm just wondering if you don't think Bush truly believed in this war, because if he was politically motivated then he was just using the war for other purposes.
Mr. C: Bush not only CAN engage in a war for multiple reasons, he himself says he IS doing so. It is my strongly held opinion that chief among those reasons is the unspoken reason -- the political one. I also think AIDS money to Africa is a good thing and I think that's politically motivated too. And I don't mind if it IS politically motivated because it will have a good effect and doesn't threaten innocent lives. The war does. An act which accomplishes a good result can be, and often is, politically motivated. Am I making sense yet?
