Nixon = Carter; Bush = Obama
Posted By: sm on 2009-01-15
In Reply to: It's not just our current administration and that's the problem. - Zville MT
It looks as though both of these democrats were handed a huge bag of flaming s*it that they were/are expected to clean up in a nanosecond. No, I'm not a democrat, either. But I am fed up with the label "liberal" being used like an expletive. Liberal means "free thinking," and I am honored to be a liberal. I don't need to walk in lockstep so others can do my thinking for me. I want our country to prosper and survive and I'm placing my trust in Obama's hands. I pray he succeeds.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
It was Nixon
That speaks for itself.
what does nixon have to do with this?
There is no going there...you're gone. lol.
You mean owning up?.....like Nixon?
Let's see your statistics. I'm assuming you've done a lot of research to support these claims.
As stated below, my guess is the wrong-doers are about 50 percent Republican and 50 percent Democrat. The only thing I can see that is particularly ironic or shameful is that the Republican party generallly portrays itself as the superiorly moral, family-oriented party.
Yeah, Nixon is gone but, (sm)
I found a lot of the tapes rather interesting. He used extremely foul language consistently, was paranoid as I don't know what all (in particular with the press), and actually notes at one point that pushing republicans father to the right and dividing the country would benefit the republican party for elections. I think you can learn a lot by going back and reviewing this stuff.
As far as Bush goes, he's still up for a good bashing every now and then. He may be a lame duck, but he's still passing legislation, which can hopefully be reversed. He has also put together a team (including Rove) to come up with a strategy for how he will be *presented* as a past president. These are government employees on this committee, so guess who's paying for Bush's new reputation?
How about those Nixon tapes...LOL
The other day on one of the news channels (can't remember which one) they were reviewing some of the new Nixon tapes released. Yeah, he was completely nuts -- literally. Someone on the show actually said that they couldn't understand how someone that crazy actually made it to become president. My first thought was *and how did Bush get there?* ROFL. I can't wait for all the Bush crap to start coming out. From what I understand now he's trying to rewrite history. In one exit interview he actually said if it weren't for bad intelligence (referring to WMDs) he would have never gone into Iraq. And that completely contradicts earlier interviews where he said he would have gone in anyway. What a dork.
Yes, dear, Mr. Nixon did own up AND RESIGNED....
All I posted was the truth about the two accusations you made regarding Bush and Reagan...not at ALL the same thing as the handsy Mr. Clinton. I already did the statistics on that and blew your comparison out of the water. I stated in a response to Lurker that there are bad folks on both sides, of course. You mentioned one, Nixon...who DID own up when he got caught and RESIGNED because it was best for the country. Did not see Mr. Clinton resigning after it was proven he committed a felony while a sitting President. That is what I am talking about. No accountability. And his party supported him and spun it that he was only lying about sex so somehow that excused committing a felony. I rest my case. Congressman Jefferson is still serving and was even considered by the sitting speaker of the house for a committee head appointment. Teddy Kennedy is still serving. That is what I am saying...both sides have done wrong, of course, but I only see accountability on one side. Clinton is a morally bankrupt individual which has nothing to do with his politics...but his politics enabled him. Republicans are more likely to call a wrong a wrong and hold their own members accountable, which the Democratic party does not seem to be willing to do. That should be obvious to anyone who has been paying attention to politics over the years.
Oh, I remember the Nixon administration
I think our woes go way farther back than just Bush. The politicians seem to just get worse and worse with each administration. I think in order to fix our government we might all do well to look back at previous administrations and evalulate their performance. I don't remember the Great Depression but I do remember that my parents and people I knew from their generation swore FDR saved the country.
Yeah!! Tin Soldiers and Nixon coming...
Got to get down to it - get rid of the current regime!!!!
The Carter Doctrine.....
hmmmm. Very, very interesting article. I'm not sure I agree with some of the broad unsubstantiated statements but all in all, a very interesting article. Thanks for posting!
Yes, but they are and it's the left that's doing it. Jimmy Carter even said so. nm
.
Carter and Clinton snooped on you too
I bet you weren't screaming about this..
Drudgereport.com
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval
Clinton, February 9, 1995: The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.
WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order.
Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes.
Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.
Does anyone know what happened to Jimmy Carter's eye?
I'm just wondering, I'm watching the democratic convention and it looks really bad! Is it an infection or something??
Unemployment isnt even down to the Carter
nm
Clinton & Carter DID NOT ORDER any such things.
Do you lie on purpose to emulate your God Bush or are you just so lacking in common sense and intelligence that you unquestioning believe everything ANY neocon says?
Either way, YOU'RE SPREADING LIES. In case you haven't noticed lately, AMERICANS ARE GETTING FED UP WITH LIARS....especially UNDEREDUCATED, ILLITERATE, HATEFUL, JUDGMENTAL liars.
CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
Here's what Clinton signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that Clinton allowed warrantless searches if and only if the AG followed section 302(a)(1). What does section 1822(a) require?
- the physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers. Translation: You can't search American citizens.
- and there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person. Translation: You can't search American citizens.
- Moreover, Clinton's warrant waiver consistent with FISA refers only to physical searches. Physical searches, as defined by 1821(5), exclude electronic surveillance.
CARTER DID NOT AUTHORIZE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
And now, Carter's turn:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
Here, Carter refers to electronic surveillance, rather than physical searches like Clinton. But again, Carter limits the warrantless surveillance to the requirements of Section 1802(a). That section requires:
- the electronic surveillance is solely directed at communications exclusively between or among foreign powers. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.
- there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.
Section 1803(a)(2) requires that the Attorney General report to Congress (specifically, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees) about whether any American citizens were involved, what minimization procedures were undertaken to avoid it and protect their identities, and whether his actions comply with the law.
It's called check and balance!
Falling for O's promises, just like Jimmy Carter
nm
Ever heard what Jimmy Carter has to say on this issue -
Obama has not said much of anything in light of this recent development. Looks like he may be keeping an open mind and may be exercising alternative options once he takes office.
Jimmy Carter tries to rewrite history...
December 1, 2006 by Lee Green
Jimmy Carter Distorts Facts, Demonizes Israel in New Book
Former President Jimmy Carter has written an egregiously biased book called Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and is currently doing numerous interviews to sell the book and its ideas. Carter is attempting to rewrite history, and in his alternate universe, Arabs parties are blameless and Israel is at fault for almost all the conflicts in the world. One gets the feeling after reading just a few pages that if he could have blamed Hurricane Katrina on Israel, he would have. His main messages are that Israel is badly mistreating the Palestinians and that the cause of the conflict is Israel's refusal to return to what he calls its "legal borders" (sic), the pre-67 armistice lines.
Because the Palestinian Arabs have been offered a viable state of their own numerous times, including with the same borders that Carter desires, but turned it down since it meant recognizing Israel's legitimacy and permanence and ending the conflict, Carter either ignores or mischaracterizes the offers. He never lets the facts get in the way of his "must blame Israel" theories. In Carter's twisted universe, it is the Arabs who have always been eager for peace, with Israel opposing it at every turn.
Almost every page of Carter's book contains errors, distortions or glaring omissions. The following list is just a small portion of the many problems in the book:
• Carter claims Israel has been the primary obstacle to peace, that Arab leaders have long sought peace while Israel preferred holding on to "Palestinian land" over peace, and that if only Israel would "[withdraw] to the 1967 border as specified in the U.N. Resolution 242...", there would be peace.
Aside from his obviously questionable opinions, Carter is factually wrong when he asserts that U.N. Resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw to the 1949 armistice line that was in place until 1967. He has repeated this serious falsehood in many interviews, such as on the November 28 PBS NewsHour:
"The demand is for them to give back all the land. The United Nations resolutions that apply, the agreements that have been made at Camp David under me and later at Oslo for which the Israeli leaders received the Nobel Peace Prizes, was [sic] based on Israel's withdrawal from occupied territories."
He mischaracterizes UN resolutions and apparently has forgotten what he himself signed as a witness to the 1978 Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, which states in Section A1c: "The negotiations [concerning the West Bank and Gaza] shall be based on all the provisions and principles of UN Security Council Resolution 242. The negotiations will resolve, among other matters, the location of the boundaries and the nature of the security arrangements."
To claim now that the very agreement he witnessed and signed specifies withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines is outrageous. [While the 1979 Camp David document again mentions UN Resolution 242, it makes no further mention of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. It instead deals with Israeli-Egyptian relations, and includes a map of the Israel-Egypt International Boundary (Annex II). Tellingly, no maps demarcating any boundary between Israel and the Palestinians are appended to the Camp David documents, Resolution 242, the Oslo Accords, or the "road map".]
UN Resolution 242 does not require Israel to withdraw from all the land to the "1967 border", since there is no such border. The "green line" is merely the 1949 armistice line and the drafters of 242 explicitly stated that this line was not a "secure border" -- which 242 calls for.
The British UN Ambassador at the time, Lord Caradon, who introduced the resolution to the Council, has stated that, "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."
The American UN Ambassador at the time, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, has stated that, "The notable omissions - which were not accidental - in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and the 'June 5, 1967 lines' ... the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal." This would encompass "less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably insecure."
The reasoning of the United States and its allies at the time was clear: Any resolution which, in the face of the aggressive war launched in 1967 against Israel, required complete Israeli withdrawal, would have been seen as a reward for aggression and an invitation to future aggression. This is assuredly not what the UN voted for, or had in mind, when it passed Resolution 242.
For more details on the meaning of 242, click here.
- Many media outlets have corrected erroneous characterizations of 242 (prompted by CAMERA), including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. The corrections clarify that 242 does not require Israel to give all the land acquired in the 67 War to the Palestinians. For example:
Correction (New York Times, 9/8/00): An article on Wednesday about the Middle East peace talks referred incorrectly to United Nations resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict. While Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the 1967 Middle East War, calls for Israel's armed forces to withdraw "from territories occupied in the recent conflict," no resolution calls for Israeli withdrawal from all territory, including East Jerusalem, occupied in the war.
Correction (Wall Street Journal, 5/11/04): United Nations Security Council resolution 242 calls on Israel to withdraw "from territories occupied" in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, but doesn't specify that the withdrawal should be from all such territories. An International page article Friday incorrectly stated that Security Council resolutions call for Israel to withdraw from all land captured in the 1967 war.
• Similarly, Carter repeatedly errs when he asserts that the West Bank is "Palestinian land," rather than disputed land whose (likely) division and designation will be decided through negotiations (as per Resolution 242).
For example, Carter said on the Nov 28 Newshour:
"And I chose this title very carefully. It's Palestine, first of all. This is the Palestinians' territory, not Israel."
• In his book, Carter almost always presents Israeli leaders in a negative light, and they are frequently described as trying to impede the peace process. In contrast, Carter describes despotic Arab leaders in glowing terms, quotes them at length, without any comments about the accuracy of their statements. He writes, for instance,
"When I met with Yasir Arafat in 1990, he stated 'The PLO has never advocated the annihilation of Israel.' "
Carter fails to note that Arafat and the PLO have frequently called for the destruction of Israel and that the destruction of Israel is a key part of the PLO Charter (most explicitly in Articles 15 and 22):
"Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence..." (from Article 22).
Arafat regularly called for violence against Israel. In a speech to Palestinian Arab leaders from Hebron, broadcast on official PA Television on January 26, 2002, Arafat urged:
"Jihad, jihad, jihad, jihad!"
Carter follows up the absurd quotation from Arafat by describing the PLO in admiring language, without mentioning the terror so central to their agenda.
• Carter spends much of the book conveying Arab grievances against Israel, while rarely providing any context from the Israeli perspective. When he does, it is perfunctory and brief. While terror against Israel is mentioned, it is rare and sharply minimized.
• The vicious incitement against Israel and Jews by the Arabs is treated as a trivial complaint rather than as the fuel that keeps the flame of bigotry and violence alive. The only time Carter mentions incitement is to complain that the Israelis insisted on cessation of incitement against Israel, "but the Roadmap cannot state that Israel must cease violence and incitement against the Palestinians."
Since there is no state-sponsored anti-Arab incitement in Israel, and incitement against Arabs is actually a crime in Israel, it would have been misleading to include a proscription against it in the Roadmap. That would have made it seem that incitement in Israel was comparable to the massive, systemic incitement in Palestinian society.
As for his reference to "Israel must cease violence...against the Palestinians," he appears to morally equate Israeli counter-terror measures with Palestinian terror against Israeli civilians.
• In describing what led to the conflicts this year between Israel and the Palestinians and Israel and Hezbollah, Carter continues his pattern of minimizing Arab violence, thereby placing Israel's military responses into question due to the lack of context. Carter mentions the abduction of the Israeli soldiers, but fails to inform his readers about the rockets from Gaza that were being fired daily at Israeli civilians in southwest Israel and omits that Hezbollah did much more than abduct 2 soldiers; before the abduction, they fired missiles at Israeli communities in northern Israel.
• Carter obfuscates important aspects of history. Here's how he describes the British giving almost all of Mandate Palestine—78 percent—to Emir Abdullah after World War I to create Transjordan (later renamed Jordan): "Another throne was needed, so an emirate called Transjordan was created out of some remote desert regions of the Palestine Mandate ..." [emphasis added]
• He writes of various Arab leaders accepting the two-state solution, and sometimes mentions that they also require the so-called right of return (of the millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees to Israel, as opposed to the future state of Palestine). But Carter doesn't explain that due to the high Arab birthrate, the so-called right of return would quickly turn Israel into another Arab state, transforming the two-state (Arab and Jewish) solution into a two-Arab states solution. While he writes of the many items he feels are unreasonable deal-breakers demanded by Israel, he never addresses the Arab demands that are deal-breakers for Israel.
• In his conclusion, Carter accuses the American government of being "submissive," claiming that due to "powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Israel dominate in our media ..."
Carter's claim that "voices from Israel dominate in our media" is especially ironic at a time when Carter himself is all over the media spreading his anti-Israel message. And since Carter is prone to demonizing Israel, it likely never occurred to him that perhaps our politicians don't frequently criticize Israeli government decisions because Israel shares our values of democracy, pluralism and the sanctity of life, and its decisions are, on the whole, fair and just.
• Apparently admiringly, Carter writes: "At the same time, political leaders and news media in Europe are highly critical of Israeli policies, affecting public attitudes. Americans were surprised and angered by an opinion poll, published by the International Herald Tribune in October 2003, of 7500 citizens in fifteen European nations, indicating that Israel was considered to be the top threat to world peace, ahead of North Korea, Iran, or Afghanistan." That Carter apparently feels this is a more realistic, helpful worldview is revealing.
In general, Carter holds Israel to an unreasonably high standard of almost pacifist behavior, while holding the Arabs to no standard at all. In his world, the terror against Israel has been minimal, hardly worth mentioning and certainly not important enough for Israelis to respond to or for the world community to condemn. The Arabs should suffer no consequences for continuing to attack and terrorize Israel, for continuing to indoctrinate their population to see Jews as sub-humans who deserve to be murdered. Carter advocates having the Arabs' maximalist demands rewarded. It is Israel who must make all the concessions and sacrifices. The Arabs' bigotry and supremacist attitudes regarding non-Muslims and the west - attitudes central to the conflict -- are entirely ignored by Carter.
Since Carter is a former president, and because he is well known for his work on Habitat for Humanity, interviewers are for the most part being entirely deferential to him, while rarely pointing out that his book and statements are filled with inaccuracies and distortions. But Carter should not be allowed to rewrite history and erase decades of Arab bigotry, rejectionism and terror, while inventing Israeli intransigence and opposition to peace.
No, I think Carter was the worst president in history.
nm
Carter = worst president ever...yes, I agree with you.
Yeah and #2 is Jimmy Carter and #3 Michael Moore. So what? SM
Wow, you are easily amused.
Lee Green did not monitor the elections, Jimmy Carter did.
Lee Green is the director of CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy on Middle East Reporting) which is a Pro-Israeli American Media Monitor. I prefer to read a book and make up my own mind and certainly am not surprised that Zionist critics would hate Carter and the truths he exposed in his book. They can protest to their heart's content, but they can't turn lies into truth.
Not the worst...Jimmy Carter holds that dubious honor....
Mr. Democat Jimmy Carter. Check out the economy while he was in office...and what Obama is doing will make that look like a walk in the park. Oh, but the rest of the world will love us....LOL. Ya kill me. LOL.
What about Roger Clinton, Bill's drug addict brother. Or Billy Bob Carter, sm
Jimmy's alcoholic brother. Man, we could do this all day. You know you posted that article to make the Bush's look bad. If you judge people by their families, that says a lot about you.
I was no Bush fan, but I see Obama as much
nm
Because Obama is not as friendly with Bush
serving caviar for anyone who attends that meeting. I'm sorry but I'm tired of the rich getting richer. I think Obama is right; let's stay on task which is the debate.
Biden could easily step in as President, why do you think he ran intially? Palin, hmmm, dunno, she seems so "not ready" even though she thinks her name should come first; hmmm, slip up, I doubt it. She probably thinks in her mind she's going to be the next president, but she's sadly mistaken. She needs to get back in the kitchen where she belongs, yup, with her family issues, they need her right now. It sounds like Alaska really loves her too and she should stay there in Alaska and take care of her business there in between tanning sessions.
Bush/McCain/Obama
I already hid my money. Might be if Obama is elected I can bring it out of hiding. Keep it hid if McCain is elected...........more of G.W. Bush.
thank Obama? He isn't the President.Thank Mr. Bush. NM
x
Bush is President. Obama is not (yet).
Very disrepectful to treat him like this. Like I say come 01/20/09 Obama can have at the cameras all he wants 24 hours a day 7 days a week. But to come out and act as though he is already president is very disrespectful.
Yep! That's it! Blame what Bush has done on Obama...
...again! LOL!
How pitiful. 
No, but Bush would not work to end it, Obama will. nm
x
Obama won't. Bush has earned
NM
Obama does not use Bush's phrases,
because he wants to bring
CHANGE.
Hatred breeds hatred, let's all try it with love.
So what you're saying is that what was okay for Bush is now okay for Obama?
What about that change we can believe in and choosing morals over fear, etc, etc.? It was a bad idea in 2000 and it still stinks in 2010 - doesn't matter who's doing it.
No. I'm saying that Bush left Obama a lot
disastrous years. Obama simply needs a list of what is most important and a truckload of Hefty bags.
Bush sr having lunch with Obama Bin Laden?
freudian slip? LOL. Before you have a canniption...joke. lol.
Here is the Obama vs McCain/Bush tax calculator sm
http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/
Obama said he was going to let Bush's tax cuts expire....
there is nothing at this site that suggests this takes into consideration letting Bush's tax cuts expire. Everyone should look at what Bush's tax cuts were and what you are going to lose when Obama lets them expire. Get the whole story.
THe Bush tax cuts that Obama is going to let expire...
DID help hardworking people. Do you even know what they are? Sheesh.
Did Obama skip Bush's speech? sm
Looks like he did.
Did Obama Skip Bush's Speech?
Posted by Michelle Levi| Comments10
As his predecessor, President Bush, said his final goodbyes to America on national television, President-elect Barack Obama and his wife Michelle dined at the DC restaurant, Equinox Thursday night.
CBS News' Maria Gavrilovic, who waited outside the restaurant, reports that there is no indication whether or not Mr. Obama was watching President Bush's farewell remarks.
The President-elect departed the Blair house, located right across the street from the White House podium from which the president spoke, minutes before President Bush commenced.
A host at the restaurant tells CBS News' that the President-elect stopped by the only television in the high end establishment, a small screen at the bar, and watched for "a minute or two." The source said he did not notice what Mr. Obama was watching but that "no" it was not for an extended period of time.
No one from Obama's transition team has responded to CBS News' inquiries as to whether he was watching the address.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/01/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4726147.shtml
Did Obama skip Bush's speech? sm
Looks like he did. Very unbecoming, disrepectful side of Pres-elect Obama we're seeing.
Did Obama Skip Bush's Speech?
Posted by Michelle Levi| Comments10
As his predecessor, President Bush, said his final goodbyes to America on national television, President-elect Barack Obama and his wife Michelle dined at the DC restaurant, Equinox Thursday night.
CBS News' Maria Gavrilovic, who waited outside the restaurant, reports that there is no indication whether or not Mr. Obama was watching President Bush's farewell remarks.
The President-elect departed the Blair house, located right across the street from the White House podium from which the president spoke, minutes before President Bush commenced.
A host at the restaurant tells CBS News' that the President-elect stopped by the only television in the high end establishment, a small screen at the bar, and watched for "a minute or two." The source said he did not notice what Mr. Obama was watching but that "no" it was not for an extended period of time.
No one from Obama's transition team has responded to CBS News' inquiries as to whether he was watching the address.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/01/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4726147.shtml
OBAMA has already put in motion AND END TO BUSH'S WAR CRIMES sm
Bush committed war crimes and Obama on day one of his presidency has already put in place measures to stop the crimes. Be proud because these are issues that affect human rights for all of us.
Read up, do your research, see what Amnesty International says... be PROUD now instead of ashamed to be an American! We are on the road to recovery, albeit a long road but at least Obama has us on track.
I'm sorry...........is Bush in office? Thought Obama
**
Give me a break! It is okay if it was Bush, but not okay for Obama!
Guess it will never be okay to make fun of the chosen one.
People thought Bush was so bad, under Obama,
nm
I'm wasn't for Bush but you need to remember...Obama is
nm
I'm wasn't for Bush but you need to remember...Obama is
nm
Bush vs Obama on the current crisis
I think I cannot post the link (?) but go to Youtube and search "timeline shows Bush, McCain warn.... for a news piece aired in Canada (and certainly not in the US on the MSM). Back in 2002 Bush and McCain both warned that Fannie and Freddie needed overhauling ,after the Clinton/dem policy that anyone who wants a mortgage should get one had us on a collision course with financial ruin. But did anyone listen? Noooooooo! Bawney Fwank said: We're all just fine here. No problem. Nothing to look at, people. Move along. Chuck Schumer said: Fannie and Freddie have been doing an outstanding job and there is no problem. So, once again history has vindicated a republican, but we in the US are being protected from such dangerous information. How about a REVERSE fairness doctrine?
Oh slam Obama all day, but don't bring up BUSH
He's the one that put us in the mess. Get it?
Obama has nothing to do with market... BUSH TANKED OUR COUNTRY nm
nm
Distract from Obama's disaster by bashing Bush
nm
Bush Chief Of Staff To Obama...Put On Your Jacket
On Wednesday night former Bush Chief of Staff Andrew Card told "Inside Edition" that he's not pleased with President Obama's lax Oval Office appearance. (Obama has instituted an even more relaxed weekend dress code.) According to the Inside Edition website:
"There should be a dress code of respect," Card tells INSIDE EDITION. "I wish that he would wear a suit coat and tie."
Card is the first member of the Bush administration to bash Obama, and he's going after him for forgoing a coat and tie.
"The Oval Office symbolizes...the Constitution, the hopes and dreams, and I'm going to say democracy. And when you have a dress code in the Supreme Court and a dress code on the floor of the Senate, floor of the House, I think it's appropriate to have an expectation that there will be a dress code that respects the office of the President."
Card continued, "I don't criticize Obama for his appearance, I do expect him to send the message that people who are going to be in the Oval Office should treat the office with the respect that it has earned over history."
MSNBC dissected the dress code controversy on Thursday morning, and pointed to a similar fashion "faux pas" by President Clinton while in office:
Video
Unfortunately for Card, the New York Times dredged up this picture:
It seems the former Chief of Staff is as wrong as he is bitter.
Link
|
