Mary
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 934
|
Post by Mary on Nov 21, 2007 21:35:36 GMT -7
WASHINGTON (AP) - In the waning days of the Clinton presidency, senior officials received specific intelligence about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and weighed a military plan to strike the suspected terrorist mastermind's location. The administration ultimately opted against an attack. The information spurred a high-level debate inside the White House in December 2000 about whether the classified information provided the last best chance for President Clinton to punish bin Laden before he left office, the officials said. Hello Mary, Pres. Clinton had sworn enemies in the Congress, which were doing everything possible to make him less effective. The Republican congress was preoccupied with White Water investigation, Monica Lewinsky etc. One lie costs this country millions of dollars and time. I wish that the Congress paid more attention to the terroristic danger rather that trying to caught CLinton on lie. Do you remember when Clinton bombed Iraq - they were saying (even I believed so) that this was just action Monica, so that he would divert the attention of congress from his "terrible" lie. We would probably never resolve whether he could find Bin Laden earlier and bomb him. But, who knew that Bin Laden would carry 9-11? So it is easy to judge Clinton later. Besides, it was Bush who paid less attention to counter-terrrist unit of CIA acccording to Clark book, not Clinton. Bush got the memo about possible airstrike which he ignored. You cannot blame Clinton on war with Iraq which has nothing to do with 9-11. You cannot blame him on economy, which was terrific during his administration, on spending which went out of control. The original question was whether pres. Bush is a good and moral man.In my opinion, he may be a good man but he is a lousy president, really. He surrouned himself with dangerous people and he does have sufficient knowledge, common sense and interests with politics. He really should stay in his farm in Texas where he was quite happy. Pres. CLinton spent long hours in the White house. Pres. Bush prefers to be outside of DC, especially in his farm in Texas. Hello Jaga, I appreciate your in-site and all the debate over these politics and "morality issues". That is why I took the time to look into all our presidents and do some comparisons. I am not saying necessarily that George Bush is right or wrong, or that Bill Clinton was either. I only point out the fact that ALL our presidents have had their faults, some more than others. Many may disagree with me, and I may end up proved wrong in the future, but I believe that Bush thought what he has done (or not done) was in the best interest of the country at the time. And that is why among other things I think he is as moral a man as any president we have had since Washington. (Of course Washington was a slave owner, even our forefathers weren't perfect) It is always easy to criticize after the fact. I know for sure a person must be crazy to seek the position of president! I wouldn't want it! That is why I shared the websites I found, to show the strengths and weaknesses of our great leaders. Many presidents have had affairs, and illegitimate children too, but discretion is the word that should be used in these affairs. Keep it behind closed doors, and not the closed doors of the Oval Office! I could care less what Bill Clinton did in his personal life, every person has that right of privacy. But when he is using his position and what is in fact "our home" (we taxpayers own the White House and are in essence the President's employer) I am insulted and saddened for the public and the office of president. I think we agree the sexual scandal took away much time and money that should have been spent on real important things. What a waste. I guess maybe my age and experiences have hardened me and made me out of touch with the younger generations. (call me a dinosaur) Who was it that said something to the effect..." I may disagree with you, but I will fight to the death for your right to do so!" ? (sorry I don't remember the exact quote or who said it) Lively but friendly debate Jaga, Thanks! Mary
|
|
|
Post by freetobe on Nov 21, 2007 22:12:17 GMT -7
Jaga, Bravo! This was the most well thought out and supportive statement you have ever made on your site about the the US involvement in the illegal war Irag war. Can't imagine how these anti- war/Bush sentiments are appreciated in neo conservative Idaho. But God bless and have a Happy Thanksgiving.
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Nov 23, 2007 23:58:15 GMT -7
I appreciate your in-site and all the debate over these politics and "morality issues". That is why I took the time to look into all our presidents and do some comparisons. I am not saying necessarily that George Bush is right or wrong, or that Bill Clinton was either. I only point out the fact that ALL our presidents have had their faults, some more than others. Many may disagree with me, and I may end up proved wrong in the future, but I believe that Bush thought what he has done (or not done) was in the best interest of the country at the time. And that is why among other things I think he is as moral a man as any president we have had since Washington. (Of course Washington was a slave owner, even our forefathers weren't perfect) It is always easy to criticize after the fact. ... Mary Hello Mary, thanks for your very nice comments I also appreciate a discussion with you. We of course agree that people are people and presidents are also people and made errors. But I believe that we can do some type of ranking among presidents if we take into account the historical perspective (just like you said Washington had slaves but this was normal in this time). At least we should be able to say whether somebody was a good or bad president and this is the most important. So, it is really hard for me to equal the current president to his precedecessors, even his own father was much better. Bush junior lacks many characteristics of good president. He goes to wars too easily, avoids diplomacy, see the world in black and white and ruins the Am. economy. Referring to your links, I checked the one about more current president, president Carter. The article it led to is interesting www.onenewsnow.com/2007/05/former_president_carter_rebuke.phphere are some fragments: +++The White House responded (to Carter's critique) with a strong rebuke, calling Carter "increasingly irrelevant."+++ this is a very common technique. Is somebody critize, instead of responding, just try to undermine the source of critique. Carter was critical, so he is called "irrelevant". +++In 1979, Carter undercut the Shah of Iran and allowed the Ayatollah Khomeini to come into power+++ Is America a champion of democracy? Then, why America was allowing Shah to rule in aristocratic way? If there will be more democratic changes earlier than the revolution may not be so drastic. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I know there was a serious economical crisis during Carter's administration, so maybe Carter was too gentle as a president. He was later awarded with a Nobel prize for his humanitarian work. Also Al Gore got a Nobel prize for his work to stop global warming. How is it that these two democratic presidents (including vice presidents) were awarded Nobel prize but no any republican presidents? Maybe what these two democrats did was more relevant to the people around the globe. Maybe democrats are more in tune with people around the world than republicans? I do not know the answer, still, something to think about.
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Nov 24, 2007 13:34:49 GMT -7
Jaga,
This is due to the power of the press, and we all know how slanted they are.
Michael Dabrowski
|
|
|
Post by rdywenur on Nov 24, 2007 15:26:15 GMT -7
I think it was Voltaire the French philosopher
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Nov 25, 2007 18:03:52 GMT -7
To all,
Many of you do not like the way I think, but here, now, anyway, I can think anyway I want. I could be correct and others wrong, think that over.
Michael Dabrowski
|
|
|
Post by hollister on Nov 26, 2007 5:51:04 GMT -7
Is this guy correct?
The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Nov 26, 2007 5:58:23 GMT -7
Hollister,
Get out you old, very old, school books on this one, it is in there. Just check.
Michael Dabrowski
|
|
|
Post by hollister on Nov 26, 2007 6:15:14 GMT -7
I asked if Madison was correct not where to find the quote....
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Nov 26, 2007 11:19:31 GMT -7
Jaga, This is due to the power of the press, and we all know how slanted they are. Michael Dabrowski Michael, this was a quote from FoxNews, your favorite news outlet, so you should believe it
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Nov 27, 2007 8:17:22 GMT -7
Jaga,
I don't believe everything on Fox or any other, I have a open mind, and search out the facts, ask around, read all, and try and see both sides, first.
Michael Dabrowski
|
|