The surest sign that Bush’s poll numbers are reliable is this:
Former US president Bill Clinton sharply criticised George W. Bush for the Iraq War and the handling of Hurricane Katrina, and voiced alarm at the swelling US budget deficit.
Breaking with tradition under which US presidents mute criticisms of their successors, Clinton said the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq “virtually alone and before UN inspections were completed, with no real urgency, no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction.”
The Iraq war diverted US attention from the war on terrorism “and undermined the support that we might have had,” Bush said in an interview with an ABC’s “This Week” programme.
Clinton said there had been a “heroic but so far unsuccessful” effort to put together an constitution that would be universally supported in Iraq.
If Clinton is out talking smack, the poll numbers are solid. And bad.
BTW- I have not seen the entire transcript yet, but the excerpts in this little write-up characterize this as a ‘withering attack,’ and I just didn’t see it as that bad.
srv
I think Rove thought the FDR/LBJ-like talking points would convert some of the moderates or liberals back. Instead, he’s just alienating confused Republicans. They can only dance on the head of a pin for so long.
Techie
I’m sure Clinton thought there was no evidence of WMD’s back during Desert Fox in 1998….
TallDave
The Clintons are playing a dangerous game here. Ex-presidents aren’t supposed to criticize policy this way. A baldly partisan and precedent-breaking attack so transparently intended to smooth his path back into the White House via his wife could backfire badly on both of them.
I thought Bill had conducted his post-Presidency with a lot of class to this point, but now I’m somewhat disappointed.
Krista
I do enjoy the fact that he clearly stated a distinction between the war in Iraq and the WOT.
It is kind of odd that he’d speak up like that, though. Hillary has been taking obvious pains to lean towards a more moderate stance. There’s probably a method behind the madness, though…the Clintons aren’t everybody’s cup of tea, but you can’t deny that they’re pretty shrewd.
srv
I don’t think any of what Clinton said would backfire from any liberal or moderates viewpoint. Hell, even Republicans are starting to look wistfully and Bubba’s fiscal policies.
It’s not like the Cherry Kool-Aid crowd is ever going to vote for Billary.
guav
Of course it wasn’t “withering” or “vicious” or any of the other horrifying words used to describe what Slick Willy said—it was a simple statement of fact.
And as far as this unofficial rule that ex-presidents aren’t supposed to criticize their sucessors, it didn’t seem to stop Bush Sr. or Reagan from criticizing Clinton.
sean
bullshit
Jeff Maier
Clinton’s remarks seemed rather mild and making mild criticisms of decisions that seem sub-par to many is hardly baldly partisan. I’d say that supporting every mistake is perhaps more baldly partisan.
jg
Its not even an attack. He stated a few obvious facts.
Defense Guy
The Clintons playing both sides of the fence? The hell you say.
sean
here’s a link to someone’s blog to explain why i called bullshit:
http://nitpicker.blogspot.com/2005/09/memories.html
demimondian
Sean…wow. Pretty damning.
You’d think that Powerline, of all organizations, would know that they’d get called out for making things up.
jg
So the republicans are going to avoid the issue (Bush is incomptetent) by spinning it that Clinton has no class because he broke precedent.
Yet Bush 1 did it to Clinton in ’94.
LOL
Dave Ruddell
OK, sean, give an example where an ex-prez openly criticized a sitting president’s policy. I’m not saying that one doesn’t exist, but simply calling bullshit with no back-up is just silly.
sean
keep reading, dave….
Davebo
Err. Dave. He just did.
Dave Ruddell
sean and Davebo,
When I responded to sean’s post, I had not refreshed the page for about 20 minutes, so I had not seen the follow-up post. I would not have made my post otherwise. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
John Boucher
According to this Rasmussen Poll, Bush’s Katrina ratings actually FELL after his most recent New Orleans speech and nicely lighted photo op tour. Can it be Bush has become so unpopular with the citizens of this country that he can’t even spend (excuse me, borrow) his way into positive polling territory any more?
So what does happen to a one-trick pony when it can’t do its trick any more?
http://rasmussenreports.com/2005/Katrina_September%2018.htm
sean
no problem, Dave. i knew i read that post this morning, so i posted my ‘bullshit’ claim and then searched for the link. apologies from me too, if it caused any confusion.
slide
hey even the Republicans are abandoning bush why would you expect Clinton to stay on board. This from the American Spectator, a very right wing magazine:
.
Zifnab
Clinton is breaking a few precidents with his criticism of a sitting Commander-in-Chief, but to be fair he’s doing it under some incredible circumstances. We’re running the highest deficits in the history of the nation while engaging in a multi-front war against “terrorism”(TM) in Afganastan and Iraq while contemplating invasions into Syria and Iran. Meanwhile, we’re suffering hurricanes up and down the Gulf Coast which our political beaurocracy has shown neither the will nor the means to combat. Even sitting Republican Congressmen and pundits are admitting that tax cuts and SS reform are off the table.
The shit has hit the fan. Clinton’s just pointing out all the poo on the walls.
John Boucher
I really don’t know why anyone would be upset with Bill Clinton taking little Georgie over his knee and giving him what he so obviously needs. Can’t anyone see just how bad things have gotten since adult supervision left the White House? If someone with the stature of an ex-president can’t call this bumbling incompetent out on his ineptitude, who can?
New Gallup numbers confirm what everyone knows. Bush is toast. 32% Approval for Iraq, 41% for Katrina, 40% overall, a drop of 5% from the last Gallup sampling. Oh, and 54% say they favor cutting the spending on Iraq to pay for Katrina. Not that the money would end up in different pockets, mind you.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/19/bush.poll/index.html?section=cnn_latest
slide
John Boucher:
Not only Rasmussen but SurveyUSA poll also shows Bush going down AFTER his speech:
What was that Lincoln saying?
“You can fool some of the people all of the time and you can fool all of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”
ppGaz
DG, you ran away from the Grieving Mom thread just a few mins ago …. why? Did you discover, once again, that you had no idea what you were talking about, so …. time to run away and pitch your tent in another thread?
Why don’t you go back over there and reconcile your last silly-assed post with the facts about the neocons?
Zifnab
Whatever moral bullshit may get spewed your way by religious fanatics or Senatorial Candidates or right wing talkshow hosts, the Clintons have always occupied the center of the American culture. Bill got elected to Governor of Arkansas by seizing the middle ground, and he won the Presidency the same way. Hillary maintains the image of wife, mother, and hard nosed politican (however she gets smeared in the meantime) to sustain her seat as New York Senator.
This is a family that, since they rose to power, have been good friends with the Bushes and with many other rank and file members of the Republican party while still maintaining their stance as liberal Democrats.
They’ve made their fortune on straddling the fence. I just wish we could have more moderates in our ruling class.
slide
TallDave:
This gets my award for the most ridiculous analysis of the day.
pmm
Zifnab, while I doubt it was your intent, this line:
Made me think of “Mayor” Adam West stabbing the ocean with a knife in last night’s “Family Guy” episode…
slide
The SurveyUsa people made an interesting observation. It seems that Bush is losing his base by trying to throw money at the Katrina mess. Bush has already lost most Dems and independents, he is now on his way to pissing off his base. Perhaps the Rove genius has been distracted of late, with impending indictments and all.
this from SurveyUSA:
.
KC
John, you’re absolutely right. This really isn’t that bad, if it’s bad at all. In fact, I found Clinton’s criticism pretty straight-forward run-of-the-mill stuff. I read American Conservative magazine, and you can read much harsher criticisms of Bush in there. Everything he said was basically couched in “in my opinion” type language; he never denounced Bush or did anything to merit the description of “withering attack” in the discussion. If Clinton had his fangs out, I missed them. About the only think I took from the discussion was that Clinton would have let the inspection process play out instead of going to war in Iraq and would have proposed rolling back some of the taxcuts for the wealthy to offset the expenses for Katrina related reconstruction. In other words, he said obvious stuff, nothing that hasn’t been proposed by Dems and Republicans already.
Obviously, someone had a deadline and needed a story.
Darrell
How does ‘liberal Democrat’ square with being a “moderate” fence straddler? As for the Clintons’ being “good friends” with many rank and file Repubs, I don’t know about that. Since when do you keep FBI files on your Repub friends as the Clintons did?
ppGaz
Rove: Let’s see … some of the people all of the time … or is it all of the people some of the time …. or a few people most of the time …. or some people … AW SHIT.
slide
While on the subject of polls, the one bright spot for Bush was the CNN Gallup poll that had him at 46% approval. Guess what? That Gallup poll now has him at 40% approval. Not only that, it has recorded some of the worst numbers for Bush on a number of issues. Some lowlights:
Whew. These are devastating numbers any way you want to cut it.
Darrell
Clinton today: “no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction”
Clinton two years ago:
oh my
slide
Darrell:
Unaccounted for is a lot different than positive intelligence that they existed. I would imagine if one is going to go to war over this issue we would have wanted more “positive” evidence of WMD. And basically that is what clinton said, even though he belived there were WMD, he wanted the inspectors to have more time to determine that for a fact. Seems entirely consistant to me.
KC
Why do you guys think the reporter decided to call what Clinton said a “withering attack?” As I said above, I think the reporter had a deadline and wanted to get his story out there with a bang. There could be more to it than that though.
ppGaz
Not only are the two assertions not incompatible with each other, Darrell, but you are left with the appearance of defending a path to war based on “unaccounted for stocks.”
Is that right, man? A war, over “unaccounted for stocks?”
Couldn’t we have performed inspections and attempted to account for those stocks?
Oh, wait ……. there was no time.
KC
Tell me Clinton’s remarks were withering after reading this:
ppGaz
Sorry slide, I walked on your point.
My bad. It’ll never happen again. At least, not in the next 5 minutes.
Defense Guy
Twice elected governor, only not consecutively. You should look up why that is. Also, you are buying into the ‘idealized version’ of Hillary, which when put up against the actual history, is very different. It’s not smear to state something factual about a person.
pmm
Slide, they were unaccounted for because UN inspectors had established that they (notably anthrax and–I think,–VX) existed in the past, but the Iraqis couldn’t demonstrate that they had eliminated those weapons to the satisfaction of pretty much anyone besides Scott Ritter. So they were positively identified at one point, it was their status in 2002/2003 that couldn’t be determined.
Darrell
Clinton said it was “incontestable” that there were unaccounted for stocks of bio and chem weapons.
Yes, tons of unnaccounted for Vx and Chem weapons.. after 12 years of second chances. Saddam could be trusted, right? It’s not like he was required to account for these known WMDs after his 1991 terms of surrender or anything.. Oh, wait…
srv
KC,
Reporters don’t write the headlines. Corporate Editors do. There’s no use of ‘withering’ in the actual story, I think.
ppGaz
So, if don’t trust a dictator, the remedy is to declare war, invade his country, and spend the next n years and billions of dollars trying to rehabilitate it?
Where did you learn this crazy version of what America is for?
Krista
Damn, that was a funny episode.
And yeah, I think this is being overblown. He could have said a lot worse if he’d wanted to.
t. jasper parnell
TR was loud and long in his criticism of Wilson. Prior to American entrance in WWI TR, to paraphrase, called Wilson a girly-man and the phrase to proud to fight weaslely, if that is a word. As the war wound down, TR was just as loud in his condemnation of the 14 pts. And didn’t Adams lambast Jefferson? Assuming a Roberts-like adoration of precedence, none would seem here to be broken. On top of which, ex-presidents do not lose, so far as my limited understanding of the 1st Amendment has it, their right to say whatever they might wish. Given the limited number of presidents alive or dead for that matter, in many circumstance it would be an abrogation of their responsibility as citizens not to comment on something, positively or negatively because of the special perspective they bring. Just to return to the post at the head of the thread. And I agree the comments are middle of the road.
Zifnab
That’s kinda the problem. We didn’t wait. We charged in guns blazing and found… nothing. Jack squat. Diddly.
You want me to say it? Yeah, I’ll say it. Bill Clinton was ten types of wrong when he claimed Saddam was stockpiling WMDs in Iraq. Of course, Bill Clinton didn’t initiate a $200 billion war into the region. He just sunk a few million dollars in laser guided bombs into a few suspicious buildings. No Americans died when Clinton made his mistake. And when he was done bombing Bahgdad, the UN inspectors walked right back in.
We’ll be lucky if we’re still in the UN after Bush leaves office.
Zifnab
Damn. That reminds me. I did miss Family Guy last night. Crap!
srv
I for one welcome our lamest duck ever. There’s no upside, the fatigue has set in and his only solution is to start throwing more money around. If only it could always be this way.
ppGaz
Not to pick nits with the choir, but the quote shown in this thread didn’t state such a claim. It stated that stocks were unaccounted for. That’s a whole different thing.
One could argue that the lazy leap from A to B is exactly what Tenet was doing when he made his “slam dunk!” declaration.
The the lazy, it’s the same thing. But in fact, it isn’t the same thing, and the distinction is important a year later when the president is making funny home movies about looking for weapons under sofa cushions in the White House.
pmm
ppgaz, unaccounted for stocks is a pretty big deal, actually. You seem to assert that inspections could’ve actually resolved the issue with just enough time.
However, that assumes that the Iraqis would’ve actually cooperated so that the inspectors could reach a conclusion to the matter. Since the Iraqis had refused to cooperate satisfactorily for the decade + prior to the war, I don’t see why another 1-2 years would’ve changed anything. And once we made it clear that we were going to let inspections go on until they alone resolved the matter, the very motivating factor that brought Hussein et al. back to the negotiating table would be negated.
Your argument that inspections could be extended indefinitely because we had the luxury of time is predicated in part on hindsight. It was only with the ability to inspect completely provided by OIF that we were able to ascertain that Iraqi’s WMDs weren’t a threat in 2003.
Exactly how much time we have before an enemy regime gets nukes or sufficient stores of bio/chem that they are a threat to us can be determined too often only in hindsight. We have estimates to go on, but those are just estimates, and their revisions and reliability are pretty crummy.
By means of counter-example, look to North Korea and Iran. Nobody can tell with certainty how much time we have left (if any) before those guys obtain a nuclear bomb. Once they have nuclear weapons, our options are minimal.
Shoot, proof-reading this post tells me that we had the exact same discussion several weeks ago. I’ll post it anyhow so that the Zifnab, SRV, and the rest can have fun taking wacks at it.
The only new thing I can bring to the table is that JFK’s decision-making process during the Cuban Missile Crisis is an interesting case study of Presidential decision-making with time constraints, an echo-chamber staff, & imperfect knowledge, and as such provides a contrast to the run-up to OIF.
Darrell
ppgaaz is exactly right, but it opened the door for the leftist kooks to show what fools they truly are: “Saddam never had WMDs!!!”
Geek, Esq.
This certainly won’t help.
No doubt that the folks over at Redstate.org will want to award him a medal, like the Ernest Fletcher Distinguished Corruption Medallion.
GT
Yes, tons of unnaccounted for Vx and Chem weapons.. after 12 years of second chances. Saddam could be trusted, right? It’s not like he was required to account for these known WMDs after his 1991 terms of surrender or anything.. Oh, wait…
You want me to say it? Yeah, I’ll say it. Bill Clinton was ten types of wrong when he claimed Saddam was stockpiling WMDs in Iraq. Of course, Bill Clinton didn’t initiate a $200 billion war into the region. He just sunk a few million dollars in laser guided bombs into a few suspicious buildings. No Americans died when Clinton made his mistake. And when he was done bombing Bahgdad, the UN inspectors walked right back in.
We’ll be lucky if we’re still in the UN after Bush leaves office
Actually that’d be great, send those neer-do-wells somewhere else.. like to a dictatorship they love so much.. hmmm China?
ppGaz
Can’t agree, though. Inspections needn’t go on “indefinitely.” It took only 12-16 weeks to ascertain the WMD situation once we were in there. Actually, in terms of estimating the true threat that Saddam could mount, not even that long.
For whatever reason it was done — I am leaving that out of the question for now — the invasion of March 2003 was the biggest Shark Jump in our lifetimes.
As Bush’s dad would have said, “Not prudent, at this juncture.”
KC
Isn’t it possible that Clinton used Iraq for political posturing nearly as much as Bush? It’s clear that the US knew from Hussein Kamel that at least a good portion of Iraq’s WMD were destroyed after the Gulf War.
DougJ
Very keen analysis, John.
I wonder what the Hillary presidency is going to be like. Any thoughts. Personally, I’m not a big fan.
KC
Srv, thanks for that tip on the reporter versus editor thing. I was looking at this headline and jumped to conclusions. I still think “withering” was way off base though.
TallDave
Sean said: “bullshit.”
No, I’m sorry, Sean, this is still a precedent-breaking attack. If you’ll notice the earlier criticisms by GOP ex-Presidents were informal settings: on a plane, in front a of a few hundred supporters — not on a national TV news show. Ex-Presidents are not supposed to go on TV for the specific purpose of trashing a current President. It’s unseemly.
ppGaz
Now that’s bullshit.
Any constraint on speech is manipulation. Clinton should say what he likes, and let the chips fall where they may.
rayabacus
You guys who think GWB took it on his own to go into Iraq should remember that both the Senate and House authorized the Invasion. You might also check these links for what your favorite Dems thought about Saddam and his WMD.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php
http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin072103.asp
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/le20040205.shtml
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/005456.php
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
Kick this around a little bit.
TallDave
It’s not a constraint on free speech; that’s moronic even for you. It’s voluntarily refraining from undermining a sitting President out of respect for the office.
Once again, Dems are throwing dignity out the window. You guys forge memos to attack Bush, you create “art” with a gun to Bush’s head, now this… and then you wonder why you can’t win an election.
TallDave
But hey, don’t listen to me. Keep on committing political suicide. When there are 65 Republicans in the Senate, you can scratch your heads and say “How’d that happen?”
ppGaz
Fuck you, you twit.
Bush is not entitled to that respect, AFAIC.
It is, in fact, a constraint, regardless of what lipstick you smear on it. If you can’t grasp a fact as simple and obvious as that, why should anyone listen to you?
KC
TallDave, I guess it’s all a matter of perception, but it just seems the headline didn’t fit the story. More to the point, I watched the interview and Clinton was fairly tame in his criticism. As I said earlier, everything he said was basically couched in “in my opinion” type language; he never denounced Bush or did anything to merit the description of “withering attack” in the discussion. I mean, really, it came down to him saying he would have let the inspection process play out instead of going to war and would have proposed rolling back some of the taxcuts for the wealthy to offset the expenses for Katrina related reconstruction. That’s pretty much it. Run-of-the-mill light criticism couched in “I would do this if I was president” talk.
In all, the story is practically a redherring when it comes to the criticism issue. The real story seems to be here, I think.
StupidityRules
TallDave uttered:
Leave the undermining to the man who does it best. The President.
TallDave
ppGaz,
Why am I not surprised you’re not smart enough to tell the difference between “constraint” and “restraint”? Sheesh, why do I bother talking to you.
KC,
He didn’t scream like Howard Dean, but even the press (which goes 5:1 lib vs con itself by its own admission) noted how unusual it was to see an ex-Pres bascially campaigning against a sitting Prez. I mean he hit eveything.
Andrew J. Lazarus
TallDave, before you repeat the latest in GOP spin, you might have the decency to check the links upthread. Here’s what you missed.
Et cetera. Now, are you going to go out and claim that there’s some big difference between criticism by the ex-President on the most significant Op-Ed page and criticism on a TV show, or are you going to admit that these “unprecedented” remarks have Republican precedents? Or will you split the difference, and argue IOKIYAR, which I suspect is the true heart of the matter?
Ancient Purple
Darn. My copy of the Bills of Rights must be a misprint because it doesn’t say that Congress shall establish no law with regards to freedom of speech unless said speech is deemed “unseemly.”
TallDave
Ancient Purple,
Great, another genius. Show me again where Presidential precedent is an act of Congress.
Andrew,
Well, if you actually read Reagan’s criticisms, he was making an argument against Clinton’s not-yet-enacted policies, not trashing existing policies with rehashed RNC talking points. About the worst thing Reagan said was “hey, please keep your campaign promises.” Also, Nancy Reagan was not the presumptive nominee for the next election.
ppGaz
Idiot. I said “constraint” and meant “constraint”.
Your whole act here is to prop up the idea that Clinton is, or should be constrained from speaking badly of Bush.
No such constraint is in place or appropriate, except in your head.
constrain: To hold back, to confine.
If I had a blog, even one as lousy as yours, I’d shell out ten bucks and get a frigging dictionary, Dave.
Darrell
I think Clinton’s attacks were a bit unseemly, but not nearly so over-the-top as Jimmah Carter’s hysterical rantings over the Iraq War being based on “lies”.. and how Carter took a page from the Dixie chick playbook going to England and denouncing Iraq as “unjust”, trying to undermine our efforts with our strongest ally. Clinton’s remarks were child’s play compared to Carter’s bile
Ancient Purple
Why, thank you.
It isn’t. It isn’t statutorial or constitutional either.
The Rule of Law does not include a “gentlemen’s agreement.”
KC
TallDave,
So, there was something to hit?
Look, there are a lot of people who are being far more critical of this president now than Clinton was in his interview. I pointed to an article above in which Republican congressional aides had some fairly unkind things to say about the state of this administration. If I were going to be concerned about criticism, I’d be concerned about it when it’s coming from them. After all, heat from within the party has got to be worse than heat from the opposite party. It’s a sure sign that things are going wrong. Moreover, as Andrew indicates above, president-on-president criticism has been dished out by none other than former president, Ronald Reagan, who had some fairly unkind things to say about the Clinton administration.
Bottom line, if I was concerned that criticism from particular quarters could undermine the president, it’d be the criticism from the president’s own party’s political establishment that I’d fear most. Not criticism from a former president who is in the opposite party. Especially a former president who never really offered any “sharp” or “withering” criticism of the president.
Otto Man
Let’s see, elected in 1978, defeated in 1980, re-elected in 1982. Then, after Arkansas shifted from two- to four-year terms, he won three more, staying in office from 1982 until he was elected president.
How exactly do five elections count as two? When it’s that dastardly Clinton winning them.
Otto Man
Right, because if you say something before several hundred reporters, or write a high-profile op-ed piece, or any of the other very public things that Reagan and Bush did, no one will ever hear of it. You have to be on the teevee for it to count.
Say it with me: IOKIYAR.
Otto Man
Whoops, misread “supporters” in the original. Whatever. It’s still a pathetic rationalization.
TallDave
ppGaz,
Get a clue if you want to talk to me.
Ancient,
Exactly, and that’s why the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with this. Sheesh.
Otto,
It wasn’t several hundred reporters.
All of you, together now, say it with me: reading comprehension.
It’s just incredibly disingenous to be out there with Bush Sr. in this great show of bipartisan above-it-allness, and then go on TV and launch this kind of broad attack on the son’s policies.
KC
TallDave, just watched the interview again. His only two real criticisms of the president concern the taxcuts for the rich and to some extent, not letting the weapons inspectors do their thing. However, I saw a lot that could be seen as support of the president. Clinton supported him on not setting a timeline in Iraq (check). He supported him in the attempts to write a constitution (check). He supported efforts to get the Iraqi troops in line (check). So there were supportful things there.
Otto Man
Two minutes earlier and directly below:
Say it with me: reading.
Otto Man
I know. It’s almost like the cooperation and the criticism were about two entirely different things!
Ancient Purple
Right. So why do you care at all if an ex-president blasts a sitting president? This has a negative effect on the Republic how?
Bob
TallDave is talking about the respect for office. What was he saying when all that came out of Whitewater was a blowjob by an intern.
Sometimes Tall D’s shock over past practice in politics, you’d think he’s wearing a powdered whig and lace cuffs and he holds a handkerchief to his horrified face. Maybe.
I’m sure that TallDave was loud in his opposition to the horseshit impeachment proceedings for what consenting adults did in private. If not, I’m sure he’s writing his Senator to get hearings going about Jeff Gannon’s White House sleepovers.
Or he’s just being a hypocrite. I like Tall D worrying about Demos “committing political suicide,” I guess he’s a real supporter of the two-party system, as long as one party is on a leash held by the other.
ppGaz
Somebody here wants to talk to you?
jaime
Since when did the Frank Luntz/ Newt Gingrich/ liberal is a dirty word / Bill Clinton is a rapist-murderer-coke dealer/ Republicans become such pussies?
Waaa! Someone said something less than nice about my President! Waaaaa!
Tim F
You don”t even want to know what sort of things those guys did while in office. Or what they accused each other of in ribald ditties that the parties would have their goons march about and sing in the street.
Tim F
BTW, for the next ten minutes Im a Republican again. Why? Because I had no idea that a magazine called Government Executive existed. That just feels wrong.
goonie bird
So why is slick willie shooting off his big mouth again whats he trying to prove?
slide
Tall Dave:
Latest polling data:
Thanks for the advice TallDave but I think the suicide you are talking about may be happening on your side of the aisle.
One more just for fun:
.
slide
That a President doesn’t have to be a moron?
Otto Man
Zing!
CaseyL
You Bushies want to tell us who is “allowed” to criticize him?
Because never is a discouraging word heard about Bush that one of you doesn’t start popping off about disloyalty, undermining the country, and treason.
A few hundred years ago, Poland had an “elected monarchy” form of government. The King had to be voted into office, and could be voted out of office, but between those times he was the King, by golly, and you better not say anything bad about him.
I want to know when 21st Century USA turned into 17th Century Poland.
Mr.Ortiz
Looks like “withering” is the word of the day. I think the media smells blood in Bush’s poll numbers, but are still too timid to criticize him directly (e.g., describing him as an “embattled president”). Instead, they’re giving other people’s criticisms much more play than they normally would.
Defense Guy
Good call on the numbers Otto, now tell us why he lost the one after his first term. If you can do that, then you will win the prize.
Andrew J. Lazarus
So let me see, TallDave, if Clinton started criticizing Bush43 earlier, before his policies were enacted then it would be OK.
Somehow, I don’t think that’s what you mean. And when you point out that Clinton might be helping Hillary, it reminds me that Bush41 was ragging on Clinton with his son a candidate for President. (Of course, I remember that the Bush criticism didn’t count because—I can’t remember. Was it uttered on a Tuesday? Were his fingers crossed? Some equally specious distinction without a difference?)
As Bush drowns in the Irakatrina quagmire of his own making, no wonder his slaves insist no one can criticize him. The intellectual coherence of the argument, however, is a joke.
Boronx
Darrel, if you can find one moonbat that insisted Saddam never had WMDs ever in his entire history, we’ll let you and Bush off the hook for the murder of 100,000 people.
I’m sure Clinton thought there was no evidence of WMD’s back during Desert Fox in 1998….
Jesus H Fucking Christ.
Clinton pulled the inspectors out before the bombing, after he’d riddled them with spies. He knew better than Saddam himself that there weren’t any real weapons left.
Shygetz
TallDave said:
Oops, not quite true.
and then:
Nope, Reagan’s Op-Ed in the NYT scuttled that accusation.
Finally, TallDave said:
So let me see if I got this straight; an ex-President should not criticize a sitting President. Unless they do it not only in front of the press, but also in front of supporters. But they can do it only for the press so long as they only criticize what the sitting President b>plans to do, not what they have already done. Otherwise, it just isn’t seemly.
Gee, TallDave, you keep moving those goalposts and we’re gonna have to buy a bigger field.
Shygetz
Defense Guy–According to most sources, it was because he raised taxes (mainly on individual car owners) to fund improving the highways in Arkansas (imagine that, he improved infrastructure without creating a huge deficit–the bastard); he was against clear-cutting national forests when the lumber and paper industries were the state’s biggest employer (and everyone hates trees), and there was a Cuban refugee crisis in the state triggered by Carter (a real governator would have just killed all the Cubans–they are all commies anyway). What’s your point?
Defense Guy
Shygetz
Raising taxes will get you thrown out. In fact, had they listened to their version of Rove, they would not have lost that election. Bush Sr. can tell you that tale as well.
Boronx
You get offended at others who you claim are stretching the truth and then you go right ahead and repeat the 100,000 number, which is a lie. Good job.
slide
Very revealing. So, its not “doing the right” thing that is ever important, its winning. That should be the motto of the modern day GOP.
Quite frankly I have tons more respect for politicians that do things that may be against their own personal interests. Don’t you?
slide
It takes a while, but eventually the people “get it”. Bush’s political answer to his grossly negligent response to Katrina was to throw money at the problem. I’m sure Rove had a hand in that decision. But, every poll seems to show that that decision has backfired badly as ever poll has Bush dropping in the polls since the speech. Rasmussen has a nice analysis:
.
jobiuspublius
Maybe, it’s about the CLINTON GLOBAL INITIATIVE.
Maybe, there is some competition with the Carlyle Group.
jobiuspublius
Wiki link: Clinton Global Initiative.
jobiuspublius
jobiuspublius
Ah, that could be pre-911 thinking. How has Worst-POTUS-Ever reacted in the past to criticism.
I’m surprised that I’m not hearing tons of noise about Clinton. I guess hanging out with pappy paid off. Hmm, maybe they are colluding, not competing as I suspected. Exit strategy?
Defense Guy
Joe, first your just an asshole, so I shouldn’t waste my time responding to you. I will this once. It doesn’t reveal shit you sanctimonious asswipe, it’s a discussion on politics, not on what I think makes a moral man. For that, I think we would have to rebuild your worthless ass from scratch.
A politician that does not get elected is not effective at all. Something that the Clintons know very, very well. So take your high and mighty empty emotional tripe and stick it where the sun don’t shine, because both parties are exactly the same when it comes to doing whatever it takes to win elections. Anyone who is seeking your respect deserves to lose an election, because you don’t know shit, probably won’t every know shit and are a completely worthless know-nothing on pretty much every subject you spout off on. Your only quality that has any merit to anyone is your ability to be completely partisan on each and every single subject regardless of the facts involved.
Have an nice day asshole.
StupidityRules
Defenese Guy, great answer, nothing works as good to rebute someone views as some good personal attacks.
jobiuspublius
Is this deadpanned?
Defense Guy
StupidityRules
I thought so. As they say, the first rule of communication is know your audience. That was for Joe.
Otto Man
I’ve heard it was due to both a DMV tax and the escape of some Cuban Mariel boatlift prisoners from a state jail.
What do I win? Your undying respect?
Defense Guy
Your choice of a Helen Thomas blow up doll or a free small fries at McDonalds.
You have to earn my respect you lefty you.
SeesThroughIt
slide–1
Defense Guy–0
Otto Man
Tough choice. I try to steer clear of both.
I’ll take the Helen Thomas doll. I’ll prop it up in the White House press corps and the open-mouthed, ready-to-serve, plastic head will fit right in.
Darrell
What are the rules for “slide” to accrue points since he posts under different aliases such as “Joe Albanese” (and others?), depending on which of his personalities is in control at the time of posting? And the Helen Thomas blow-up doll retort is worthy of a bonus score
Com Con
I knew Clinton wouldn’t be able to help himself. Looking at this situation and trying to keep his mouth shut was like him having a Big Mac in front of him and not taking a bite. No way.
Who is Helen Thomas?
slide
poor DefenseBoy. Flailing about. Spewing invective. Personal attacks. Sputtering like a 58 chevy on a cold morning. Whats got you all riled little boy? Oh, perhaps it was the fact that in one sentence I was able to show everyone what you are all about:
Yes. Its all about winning. Power. Anything to gain power. Swift boating your opponent. Cheating and lying like Rove has made a carreer out of. Hey, I never said the Dems were innocent little lambs all the time but they certainly can’t be compared to the ruthless viciousness of the right. And its been going on for years. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’reilly, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, G Gordan Liddy, Micael Savage et al. The little minions that do the dirty work for the GOP.
But according to little DefenseBoy this is fine and dandy because.. well.. a politican has gotta win right? Fuck morality. Fuck doing the right thing. Fuck putting your country ahead of your personal interests. Thats why we currently have an adminstration completely bereft of any combat vets. Not one of these tough talking war hawks managed to serve their nation at at time of war. But they are so quick to pin on their little flag pin on their lapel and send your sons and daugters into battle.
DefenseBoy your sill tirade against me just highlights the weakness of your arguments. Enjoy your day.
Defense Guy
slide thinks his party is above all that. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Carry on fuckwit.
Defense Guy
Your just a silly partisan hack, and all of your previous comments precluded me from speaking to you like an adult. Which you don’t deserve.
Yep, keep thinking yourself above that.
slide
DefenseBoy:
I will endevour to do a bettr job DefenseBoy. And I will do that by examining your posts rather carefully to see what you know or don’t know. I hope you will not mind when I correct you? It indeed will be my pleasure to be of service to you as I see that you quite frenquently make factual errors. And I am sure you would not want your errors to stand uncorrected. Like when you characterized Bill Clinton’s record as follows:
You DID know Clinton was elected FIVE times in Arkansas didn’t you? Musta been a typo right DefenseBoy?
Defense Guy
Go back to yelling obscenities at Cole for not giving you the free ice cream you want, yer a worthless pile of monkey puke as a thinker.
I covered that with Otto you wasted sack of oxygen.
slide
You covered that? You mean Otto corrected your ignorance don’t you? that would be a little more accurate. You see how it works. I will be your truth meter DefenseBoy. Consider me your shadow for a while. It will keep you honest dear boy. And when all is said and done, we’ll all get a good feel on who knows what.
Slides enlarged ego
When you admit a mistake, which you never do, then talk to me about reasonable discourse. As long as you live in this fantasy land where you can never be wrong about anything, and will use any dishonest tactic to ensure you never have to admit a mistake, then I will continue to just mock you.
Oh and shaking in my boots about you being my shadow big guy. I’m sure you’ll really set me to rights like you did John Cole. I know, I’ll just change my name to escape your wrath.
DougJ
Not to be a prick, but it looks like the facts are conspiring again.
Sorry, I’m still reeling from that conversation with Darrell. I think that guy really does believe that the facts have formed a conspiracy against him.
slide
Lol now that is a laugh. You started the name calling my friend. I welcome anyone to look at this thread. My discourse was always reasonable. This was my response to you that apparently set you off like a toddler having a tantrum:
I didnt’ even refer to you or call you any name, all I did was state my opinion which you apparently disagree with. And what did I get hit with? This:
And NOW you want reasonable discourse? lol It would seem the time for reasonable discourse has come and gone DefenseBoy.
Do as you wish. I will just be using factual, sourced information to make my points. Let the mockery fall where it may.
Boronx
You get offended at others who you claim are stretching the truth and then you go right ahead and repeat the 100,000 number, which is a lie. Good job.
I suppose you have the official DoD numbers close at hand?
Slides colon
This is why you are an asshole. You have always been quick to come in on attack, that this instance was less attack than innuendo has nothing to do with it. Then you whine like a little bitch when you get it back. Grow a pair pansy.