Bush article in 'Rolling Stone'
POSTED BY: aussay
UPDATED: Saturday, April 22, 2006 19:24
VIEWED: 8079
PAGE 1 of 6
Link to article- http://www.rollingstone.com/news/pro...ent_in_history
Even if you are pro Bush, it's interesting to see how he measrues up to past presidents
Aussie Browncoats! Assemble!
http://serenitymovie.com.au/index.php
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by aussay:
Even if you are pro Bush, it's interesting to see how he measrues up to past presidents
I heard it was a hatchet job. I didn't read RS before and don't think I will now either.
If you want to compare Bush to past Presidents, Bush is REALLY hated by the Democrats. So were Lincoln, Reagan, and the first Roosevelt. Perhaps the measure of Republican Presidential greatness is how much the Democrats dislike them. If so, Bush may be the greatest President we've had since Lincoln.
It doesn't really matter. If we take a real look back at the good and bad of history we should realize that greatness or failure is best judged through the dispassionate eye of history.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Maybe we should stop worrying about what somebody labels themselves. Republican. Democrat - all that really matters is whether or not the person can do the job not - the ambiguous title they hang over their heads.
You have to admit though (if you know anything about political history) the republican party of Lincoln isn't the republican party of today. The party made a switch (a flip flop if you will) because of civil rights and the like.
The only problem I have with some Bush supporters (not all of them, just some of them) is that they try to make excuses for his failures.
Time and again I hear "He has good intentions" or "He's trying." Well, guess what good intentions don't mean doodly-squat if you don't have the brains and resources to follow through and produce good results.
And how is it that we impeach a president for lying about who he slept with but when a president neligently gets us into a war where people are killed, has obvious leaks and corruption in his administration, and has possibly broken the laws of the consititution we do nothing. There should at least be an investigation.
If he is innocent the investigation will find that, if not then we kick him out. Remember "We the People" run this country - not Bushy.
Ok - that's all for my political ranting for today.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by jmb9039:
And how is it that we impeach a president for lying about who he slept with but when a president neligently gets us into a war where people are killed, has obvious leaks and corruption in his administration, and has possibly broken the laws of the consititution we do nothing. There should at least be an investigation.
Clinton was impeached for obtruction of justice, and lying under oath, both arising in a civil case brought by a private citizen and which had little to do with his affairs in office.
Your characterization of Bush is one sided. Here's the other side: In war people die, and it has been handled very well over all. The President in legally incapable of leaking classified information because any information he authorizes the release of is no longer classified (in other words he is the final arbiter of what is and is not classified). And the electronic terrorist survelance program does not violate the Constitution and in fact is a continuation of similar programs that have been in existance since before WW2.
The Clinton impeachment never had more then one side. Clinton lied under oath, he addmitted it. He instructed his secretary to conceal and destroy evidence. He engaged in a systematic scheme to deny justice to a private citizen who had the basic American right to have the merits of her case decided in court and not by the misued power of the nation's most powerful man. Sure, there was poltical motives in the effort to get Clinton by the Republican Congress, but it doesn't change what he did.
Your standard would have any President impeached for any misfortune that happens during his term. For example, Columbia burned up, people died, impeachment. 77 year old man dies of cancer, impeachment. House fire claims family of five, impeachment. Ten-year old shoots up classroom, impeachment. Anything, impeachment. Or is the standard: do I like the President and support his political position? If no, impeach.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
...The President is legally incapable of leaking classified information because any information he authorizes the release of is no longer classified (in other words he is the final arbiter of what is and is not classified)...
This is a good point and why I was never really concerned about the legal particulars. Rules are meant to be broken, especially when you're making them up as you go. "It's good to be the king". The thing that always bugged me about the whole affair was the president using state secrets as a way to punish those who publicly challenged his policies. At best it's petty and at worst tyrannical.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Clinton was impeached for obtruction of justice, and lying under oath, both arising in a civil case brought by a private citizen and which had little to do with his affairs in office.
Your characterization of Bush is one sided.
So is yours.
Quote:
Here's the other side: In war people die, and it has been handled very well over all. The President in legally incapable of leaking classified information because any information he authorizes the release of is no longer classified (in other words he is the final arbiter of what is and is not classified).
If that's the case, he should have admitted to leaking the info from the start. Instead he promised to fire whoever leaked the info. Lie.
Quote:
And the electronic terrorist survelance program does not violate the Constitution and in fact is a continuation of similar programs that have been in existance since before WW2.
Wire-tapping American citizens, without a warrent and without proof of terrorist activity is unconstitutional. If they had evidence indicating the people under surveilence were tied to terrorists, they could easily get a warrent, even retroactively, yet they don't.
Quote:
The Clinton impeachment never had more then one side. Clinton lied under oath, he addmitted it. He instructed his secretary to conceal and destroy evidence. He engaged in a systematic scheme to deny justice to a private citizen who had the basic American right to have the merits of her case decided in court and not by the misued power of the nation's most powerful man. Sure, there was poltical motives in the effort to get Clinton by the Republican Congress, but it doesn't change what he did.
Yes, what Clinton did was wrong. But the extreme over-reaction from the Right, which led to a massively expensicve witch-hunt was a waste of time and taxpayer money that ultimately served no purpose beyond Republicans going "nyah-nyah".
And Bush did lie about the reasons for going to war. The fact that we've found infractions that justify it after the fact does not change the fact the we were led into war under false pretenses. And investigation should be in order.
Quote:
Your standard would have any President impeached for any misfortune that happens during his term. For example, Columbia burned up, people died, impeachment. 77 year old man dies of cancer, impeachment. House fire claims family of five, impeachment. Ten-year old shoots up classroom, impeachment. Anything, impeachment. Or is the standard: do I like the President and support his political position? If no, impeach.
That's a rediculous conclusion to draw. There is a big difference between something bad happening on his watch, and a string of lies, corruption, and botched programs stemming directly from the Oval office.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HERO --
While I agree that Clinton did break the law, your defense of Bush is laughable. First of all, I think most experts agree that the war is not going all that well. Second, we have legal experts on both sides admitting that the warrentless wiretapping might be legal and might be illegal. That is why we need an investigation. We have evidence that suggests that we were going to war no matter what (british documents). Now, I agree we don't know the validity of this, which is why you HAVE AN INVESTIGATION! I never called for Bush's impeachment (try reading and stop being a moron). All I'm asking for is an investigation.
yes, if the president declassifies something then he isn't accountable for releasing classified info - however, you have to wonder about the movites. If his motives were intimidation or saving his political behind, then, I think he should be held accountable for abuse of power.
All I ask for is transparent government and investigations when politicians appear to act improperly. That's all.
And don't imply I don't see both sides of the argument. Just because I present one side - don't assume I haven't looked at the other.
All I'm saying is the people need to be aware of what officials are doing - and we need to keep the power in check. The constitution is written that way and I think that is the way it should be.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The thing that always bugged me about the whole affair was the president using state secrets as a way to punish those who publicly challenged his policies.
But its ok if he uses noncritical intellegence to set the record straight after Mr. Wilson deliberately ommitted key facts from his press interviews. Wilson said one thing in the press and another in his own classified reports, so the President declassified the reports.
Now we know that Iraq tried to by nuclear materials from Nigeria, Wilson's report agrees with that conclusion, yes, he ommitted key facts, although to be fair they were classified. Its interesting that the whole 'Bush lied' debate got its start with Wilson's deliberate effort to distort what he knew to be true.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
So is yours.
Yeah, what part of "Here's the other side" tipped you off?
Quote:
If that's the case, he should have admitted to leaking the info from the start. Instead he promised to fire whoever leaked the info. Lie.
Actually it was an empty promise, not a lie. Bush promised to fire anyone in his administration who "broke the law". Since he declassified the info and authorized its release, no law was broken and his promise was not a lie.
Quote:
Wire-tapping American citizens, without a warrent and without proof of terrorist activity is unconstitutional.
They only listened in on international calls where one party was a know terrorist. Signals intellegence is part of the President's war making power and has been recognized as such since this issue first came up in WW2. No one, not even the Democrats in Congress has said that this program should be stopped, or that any domestic calls were monitored, or that any calls not involving one party being a known terrorist has been monitored. Its been labled a "Domestic Wiretapping Program" by the press and liberal activists and the "Terrorist Surveilance Program" by the administration and conservative talk show hosts. As a lawyer, I figure anytime your talking to a terrorist or an enemy operative during time of war, you have no expectation of privacy, so a warrant is not needed.
Quote:
There is a big difference between something bad happening on his watch, and a string of lies, corruption, and botched programs stemming directly from the Oval office.
Yeah, "big difference". One is Bush with disasters, war, and such. The other is Clinton with too many scandals, bad economic policies, and so much corruption you don't even know where to begin...even if you ignore all the sex stuff.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HERO -
You still don't get it. When we talk about the warrentless wiretapping, we aren't talking about this president - we are talking about a policy. By supporting this, you are supporting every president from here on out to have the same over reaching power.
This is why the consitution is direct about search and seizure. Checks and balances keep a democracy working - again "we the people" run the country. We can't really do that if we put blind trust in a president or other elected officials.
Also, I think you are misunderstanding some of the issues here. I don't care what wilson said or what bush said. If he used wilson's wife's name for retribution or intimidation then there is an abuse of power. I don't mind him declassifying info to defend his position - so long as it was to show evidence and not for political reasons.
Second - according to FISA, the president could wiretap a suspect and then had 3 DAYS to get a warrant that was retroactive. When congress (republicans and dems alike) said what he was doing might be illegal, wrong, whatever, Bush's response was basically "i don't care i'm doing it anyway" No one is above the law and the additude is the problem. We have a system for a reason and to buck it out of blind trust if foolish.
I don't care if you support Bush, just be smart about it. Don't be blind.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME