stevo

That is true. But I believe in supporting the president, no matter what party he is affiliated with. I was less enthusiastic toward politics during the clinton era but I wasn't calling for his impeachment. Bush has made some decisions I question, but I also feel that I voted for him to make those decisions for me.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Charlatan

I just have a problem with this... all leaders must be held accountable for their actions. Carte blanche is a non-starter for me.

I'd like to think that this would be exclusive of their political affiliation.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

stevo

support for a president and holding a president accountable are not mutually exclusive.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

aswo

When nixon lied none died either, but no democrat will ever mention that so why would a conservative say the same about clinton

__________________
People who love people

shakran

Well now that depends. You can't be supporting a president AND wanting to see them brought up on charges of wrongdoing. Those who wanted to impeach Clinton were NOT supporting him. Those investigating Reagan during Iran Contra were NOT supporting him.

Blindly saying that you support someone simply because of the office they hold and not because of their actions in that office is setting a dangerous mindset for democracy. I support the president when he has EARNED that support. Sending troops to Iraq to die in droves for a lie does not earn that support. Appointing an incompetent to the head of the agency responsible for keeping his citizens safe in an emergency does not earn that support. Continuing to vacation while his citizens suffer in the aftermath of one of the worst storms ever to hit the country does not earn that support.

That's not to say I don't support some of his decisions. I supported his decision to invade Afghanistan because Afghanistan was harboring the terrorist who hurt us. That was a good decision. Had he actually followed through and finished business in Afghanistan I would have supported that. I did not, however, support the decision to get distracted by Iraq, which had not attacked us, and in consequence ignoring Al Qaeda, which had.

I didn't support Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal - although I must say that was a rather silly thing to go after him on. So he cheated on his wife? So the hell what? That's between him and his wife. Frankly, I'd have supported him much more if, in answer to the "did you sleep with Lewinsky" question he'd quoted LBJ and told his interrogators it was "none of your goddamn business".

I also did not support Clinton in his response to the first bombing of the WTC, also by bin Laden. I thought we should have gone after him then. Lobbing a few dozen cruise missles at a pharmaceutical factory was not an effective response. I did not, nor do I to this day, support his "close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears and hope the bad people go away" strategy to dealing with terrorism.

That said, I did not support the Clinton persecutors who wanted to find out what he did to women with his cigars while helping to bury the growing terrorism problem. Frankly I think a situation that puts the lives of our country's citizens at risk is far more important than phallic smokes. Had we worried less about Clinton's personal life, however titillating, and more about catching those who had already hurt us and obviously were out to hurt us again, we might have averted 9/11.





I think I've sufficiently demonstrated that I am not one of those who thinks President X is always wrong while President Y can do no wrong. I also agree with AVoiceOfReason that justifying Bush's actions because "well gee Clinton screwed up too!" is bullshit. What Clinton did is history. It's irrelevant when considering the ramifications of what Bush did. Frankly, if your best defense is "clinton sucked, so there!" then you must know you are supporting a sinking president and that you have no real argument left with which to prop him up.

Gatorade Frost

How about you support the office of President, but don't necessarily have an all resounding support for the current administration that extends further then your support for the government office.

__________________
I got in a fight one time with a really big guy, and he said, "I'm going to mop the floor with your face." I said, "You'll be sorry." He said, "Oh, yeah? Why?" I said, "Well, you won't be able to get into the corners very well."
Emo Philips

AVoiceOfReason

I agreed with much of what you wrote, but this point caught my attention as something that should be addressed. Clinton's affair with Lewinsky was not just between him and his wife--it is that, but so much more is riding on it than that. Clinton was in a spot to be blackmailed, and would do anything to keep himself out of hot water. How do I know that? Go back to Gennifer Flowers getting a job in state goverment after becoming his girlfriend. Add to that what Paula Jones said about her getting work, and how Vernon Jordan was trying to get Lewinsky a job in New York. He also threw a bunch of supporters under the bus, including his own wife. He was a desparate man, and was taking desparate measures.

Now, suppose instead of talking to a patriot in Linda Tripp, Monica's buddy was in tight with the ChiComs or the Russians. Word gets to Clinton what they know and what they want to keep it secret. Then what?

I know, there's some supposition there, but it's only to illustrate the point that the private lives of the President (and many others in national security positions) is not merely a matter between him and his family and his God. A guy putting himself in the position to be bribed or blackmailed puts a lot more folks at risk. One red herring in the whole defense of Clinton was "it's a private sexual matter." The background was sex, but it could have been corruption of another sort, and the result would be the same. (Another, not germane to our discussion, but I just thought of it, was that a removal from office would be like undoing the election of 1996--it would do nothing of the sort, since Dole wouldn't be taking office, Gore would.)

Bottomline: Character DOES count, and America had better never forget it.

__________________
AVOR

A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.

stevo

Before he holds the office he has support. Before he makes any presidential decisions he has support. That is what elections are, no? I can support the office, and seperatly I can support the man. He is held accountable after 4 years. He can also be held accountable by the other officials we elected into office to do that job for us. Now when it becomes obviouls the president is not doing the job we've elected him to do - it is time for our senate to hold him accountable. But that time is different for everyone. We are not all going to agree at the same time that the president is an "incompetent hack." for some, he just has to be elected to be labeled as such, for others it takes much more.

I'm not sure if your last paragraph is directed at me, but if it is, go back and read all my posts in this thread and tell me if you still think thats what I"m trying to say.

I still support bush, but I'm going to follow this latest supreme court nominee closely, because I do question this appointment and would like to know more.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

pan6467

I would rather have a president blackmailed by a scorned lover (and I seriously doubt the CIA and the government agencies would allow anyone with close ChiCom or "bad guys" to get too close without making sure she could be made to disappear real fast. There are far, far more ways to get a "spy" close to the president without going that far.

(Of course there are the rumors that Giancana "owned" Kennedy because of his dalliance's with Ms. Campbell, but it seems Hoover held it over the president's head far more than the mob.)

Now, Bush on the other hand, one has to wonder when we see who he appoints and how they have no or little experiences with the position. That to me makes me wonder why, and is far more dangerous to the country than an affair. I understand wanting to give friends positions but they should not be policy making and in positions that could hurt us, there are many qualified people out there and as president regardless of party you should seek the best person out for the job (Clinton did this and put his "friends" in positions that wouldn't hurt the nation if they fucked up) .... Brown in FEMA, Meier for SCJ, and so on.

And by the way, I am sure Clinton is by far not the only womanizing President from either party, he just happened to get caught when the GOP couldn't find anything else that would stick to him.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

stevo

When I think about it, his nominations do make some sense to me. Everyone complains about what a horrible job our officials are doing. So one would think there would be praise when a fresh face is nominated, someone without the "experience" everyone else has. But then again...

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Cynthetiq

read some in depth historical books and what you are saying is painted quite well. I've been in 2 different countries for almost 3 weeks and reading the papers here isn't much different than america when it comes to scandals for government officials. I'm assuming that people think that just because it's America that there isn't such thing as corruption... especially after the dismantling of Tamany Hall and that machine of corruption.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

alansmithee

Although Tamany Hall (and other similar operations in other cities) did have alot of corruption, the organizations did serve an important purpose. They provided many underclass citizens (especially immigrants) opportunities and a voice they might not have otherwise gotten. Whereas much of the influence peddling mentioned in this thread by Bush and Clinton seems to be little more than the lining of their own pockets, the lining of close associates' pockets, or political paybacks.

Marvelous Marv

That's the thought I was trying to express. Your words were very eloquent and "reasonable." I'd like to borrow them for use in discussions with others from time to time.

An interesting point that had not occurred to me, but it tacitly goes along with an important "misconception." Clinton wasn't impeached for having an affair--he was impeached for LYING about it UNDER OATH.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

pan6467

Perhaps in some aspects lack of experience can help, it depends on the job. Do you truly want a Secretary of State that has no idea about foreign affairs? Or the Secretary of Defense to be an ex executive of a company the military has contracts with and gets no bid contracts from? Or a SCJ that makes rulings solely because the political party that put him/her there wants a decision a certain way? Or the head of first responders to take 4 days to respond to a horrid cat 5 hurricane? Or an Attorney General that is your brother and goes after the mob but ignores other important and pressing problems? Or a U.N. ambassador that has had issues with temper and is hard to get along with?

Now WH Chief of Staff and ordering around the staff in the White House or setting speeches up that's different.

You want to make your best friend your press secretary but he isn't qualified? Who cares...... cool, do it.

You want to make a lawyer that has dirt on you SCJ or an Arabian Horse judge director of FEMA? There's credibility issues there, that should send red flags up to all regardless of party as to how you choose people to head important offices.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

Which most men would do, because until now it truly wasn't a criminally punishable offense even in divorce courts.

Palmeiro lied to Congress, we don't see him up for criminal charges.

Point is the GOP wanted to get Clinton on something, anything and used his lying about an affair (which I again stress most married men would lie about, especially public officials) to try to fry him. Thank God we had a some GOP senators that put the country ahead of partisan politics.

Lying under oath about cheating on your wife..... BIG FUCKING DEAL, it's laughable and sad that we almost destroyed the office of presidency and a man because of that.

It's not like he lied about..... welll we didn't really have a crisis while he was in office for him to lie about.

Lying about weapons of mass destruction and going to war and then changing why we went every 5 minutes.... far more serious.

(And the bs that Bush was given bad information is just that bs..... if you're going to send men and women to war and put their lives on the line, then you better know exactly why and have perfectly clear, defendable reasons that you will stick by.)

If he had said weapons of mass destruction and had stayed with it and never wavered, right or wrong, I'd respect him as a man of conviction..... now I just see him as a weasel that will say and do whatever he wants and fuck the truth. I'm sure the right can say that about Clinton's lie.

If Bush had said "look illegal aliens are a terrorist risk and I'm going to tighten up our defenses as that is a prime way for them to get here"....... I'd respect him as tough on terrorism..... but to make it so you can't carry fingernail clippers on a plane or go outside of an airport and smoke a cigarette without having to check back in, or some of these other rules are ridiculous and aren't going to stop a terrorist.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

shakran

You have a very good point. And had that happened we certainly should have prosecuted him - not for screwing his intern, but for treason.

I'd point out that pretty much every politician has something they can be blackmailed on. Bad grades in school, a number of DWI's, jilted lovers from college wanting to get even, etc etc etc. All stuff they wouldn't want to see appearing in the papers and stuff that, if found out by the wrong party, could result in blackmail. At what point would you draw the line and say "yes, this blackmailable action is prosecutable, but that one is not?"

Plus, Lewinsky was cleared to intern for the president. That means all her friends and contacts were checked out before she got anywhere near the oval office. If one of her buddies were ChiCom, etc, she wouldn't have gotten the internship in the first place.

And too you've set up a daunting precident should we ever have an unmarried president. Should we impeach him for dating, since his date COULD be a foriegn national out to do us harm? No, they wouldn't have blackmail possibilities as far as the cheating scandal, but they would have a lot of access to the President, and you're bound to pick stuff up if you're with him that much.


Nope, not directed at anyone specifically, just at those who think the "but he did it too" defense excuses anyone's actions.

Well, his second term anyway. His first term he not only did not have the support of the majority, but he didn't even get elected at all. He was instead appointed by a council of judicial ministers who are NOT accountable to the public.

Well, not really. You can vote for him, then decide he's pissing you off and not support him anymore. It's happening left and right even as we type. That's why his approval rating is in the toilet.


That's true, but you can also support the office, and seperately not support the man. I believe the office of president is important, good, and necessary for our government to function, but that does not mean that anyone who happens to hold that office automatically gets my support.

Cynthetiq

I'm a believer that the Mafia, Triad, Yakuza, et. al. have their place in securing safety and funds for those underclasses. At least you knew what you were dealing with from the get go.

As for politicians, I'm quite sure that the Tamany Hall machine didn't just do it for the benefit of the underclass, they also got funds for their own gains.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

xepherys

I'm not a Dem, but this is a scary way of looking at things. Someone who murders twice is better than someone who rapes thrice? Someone who rapes five times is better than someone that steals 10 times?

The NUMBER of crimes broken is not as important as the crimes themselves. I'd rather have a neighbor with 200 outstanding parking tickets than a neighbor that killed someone over a pack of smokes. *shrug*

thejoker130

This is kind of off topic but I invite you to consider the definition of tyrant as the ancient Greeks coined the term. To them it ment "Someone who rules by other than constitutional means." With that in mind remember that in the first election Bush wasn't elected president by the people he was given the presidency by the supreme court (Which, last I checked, wasn't how it was supposed to happen.) And i'm not entirly convinced that this last election was all on the up and up either. sooooooo....

DOWN WITH THE TYRANNY OF BUSH!!

*thejoker steps off of his soapbox*

__________________
WHAT MORE CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR IF NOT FOR THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN?
-------------------------------------
I like you. When the world is mine your death will be quick and painless.

SteelyLoins

No other word for it: Bullshit. Plain and simple, and the topic has already been discussed extensively.

You're the only one that isn't convinced (well, maybe Al Gore is with you, but no one else). Every agency that has done their own research disagrees with you.

tecoyah

While I do find it amazing....the research you have done to know how extensively this has been discussed (having only 2 posts in this forum) It is Marvelous that you define your opinion with such elegance....Just Marvy.

Might want to be a bit less confrontational till youve been here a bit....unless of course you have had a bit of....uh...clandestine practice.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

shakran

Actually no, it's not bullshit. The Supreme Court appointed Bush in his first term by giving Florida to him. Bush was not elected. So yes, for four years we ceased to be a constitutional republic, and became instead an oligarghy with an appointed head of state.

pan6467

You are very correct sir. The House which Constitutionally had the right was bypassed.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

alansmithee

That's revisionist bs, and anyone with half a brain knows this. Even in the recounts after the election, Bush had Florida. You could argue the stupidity of the electoral college system (one where more people vote for one guy, but the other wins because of where those people voted) but to say that Bush was appointed is the height of democratic/liberal brainwashing.

djtestudo

It only goes to the House if there is a tie.

It went to the Supreme Court because of a lawsuit filed by Al Gore over votes. They threw it out, meaning the votes didn't count, and Bush was therefore elected President.

In other words, the system as it is set up worked. Just because your man lost doen't make it any other way.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

boatin

And now we have the answer!! Clearly Harriet Miers was sleeping with Bush, and blackmailed him into nominating her...

Finally, something that makes sense!

Poppinjay

I think Bush is bad. I looked at that list.

I've never called Bush a criminal. I have said anything with a breath and a heartbeat would be preferable to him.

In terms of quality of leadership, who here enjoyed having the internet made available? Hands? Or just clap. Who enjoyed investments that skyrocketed during the Clinton era?

What advancements has Bush Made? He pushed a law that made birth control unavailable to women in the armed forces - where the rape count is skyrocketing. Ummm... he uh, appointed a cyborg to the supreme court....

And best of all, he completely spent the surplus and built up a massive deficit all over again.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

pig

I'm confused...is the point of this thread that basically that if you make a career out of politics and cutting deals to stay in office and so forth, that at some point you're a lot closer to a criminal than a public servant?

Regardless, I could care less about some comparitive approach between Bush and President X. I dislike Bush. I don't think I would like to be in the same room he's in, I think he would annoy the everloving shit out of me, I think he's policies are backassward and I'm disturbed by the extent to which he panders to reactionary Christian groups, calls himself a Christian, and turns around and bombs the shit out of another country in a pre-emptive strike. I didn't like Clinton. I was too young to give a shit about Bush I, nor Reagan other than as people I generally laughed at for taking themselves so seroiusly despite not having real jobs.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Lebell

I know you put the smilie, but I swear some people probably believe that!

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!