| Name: |
au67
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Class vs Crass
|
|
Date:
|
3/17/2009 7:09:16 PM
|
CALGARY, Alberta (AP) - Former President George W. Bush says he won't criticize President Barack Obama because Obama "deserves my silence," and says he plans to write a book about the 12 toughest decisions he made in office. Bush's speech Tuesday at a luncheon in Calgary, Alberta was his first since leaving office.
He declined to comment about the Obama administration like former Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney said Sunday that Obama's decisions are threatening the nation's safety.
Bush says he doesn't know what he'll do in the long term but says he'll write a book that will let people determine what they would have done if their most important job was to protect the country.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Class vs Crass
|
|
Date:
|
3/17/2009 8:56:34 PM
|
Bush was told that he should "hold off" writing a book because he's prospects for sale were not very good given his unpopularity at the end of his Administration. I'm sure it is very diffcult for a retiring President -- trying to find something meaningful to do. You figure, they spend 8 years in office with everyone hanging on their last word, and suddenly, no one is listening.
I think Bush has been very gracious towards Obama.
On the other hand, I think Dick Cheney has behaved terribly. He's trying to use the same "fear" tactic that he used before. The man needs to retire; but then that's the problem with someone like him who has been hanging around Washington for so long -- he doesn't know what else to do.
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Class vs Crass
|
|
Date:
|
3/17/2009 10:26:41 PM
|
Maybe Cheney should restrain himself a bit, but I will have to say that I agree with what he says about Obama's actions raising the risk of another attack.
|
| Name: |
John boy
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Class vs Crass
|
|
Date:
|
3/17/2009 10:55:42 PM
|
I agree with you Hound that the previous admin. should always move on. But my question is "What about Bill Clinton" we CAN'T get rid of him. He won't ever leave.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Class vs Crass
|
|
Date:
|
3/18/2009 9:50:55 AM
|
I think it has probably hit Clinton harder than Bush. He doesn't seem to know what to do with himself. He definitely misses the attention and the adulation. I think it was evident that he wished he was running for President instead of Hilary. He needs to fade into the background, but given his personality and his impulsiveness, I don't think that will happen.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Cheney makes sense
|
|
Date:
|
3/18/2009 11:44:46 AM
|
What he said made perfect sense to me. I know many make not like the message and its arguable whether he should be so visible and what his goal is. I do think it is appropriate that to the extent the current administration wants to blame everything on the previous administration (to the point of calling them socialists) then they should expect a formal rebuttal. This is usually done by cabinet-level personnel although both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton ignored tradition and did it themselves.
I think given that Cheney has no future plans for a role in government and his role in the previous administration it is entirely reasonable and appropriate for him to respond to the allegations made by the Obama administration. So Hound, you may not like it but it appears Cheney is going to be the point person to correct misrepresentations and allegations of the current administration and while you may not like him he is effective.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Sorry MM
|
|
Date:
|
3/18/2009 12:00:08 PM
|
I don't agree. His comments smack of the days of Tom Ridge and the boys trying to scare people into submission. If he had specific threat information it would be one thing, but this is just saber rattling. I'm not saying he doesn't believe what he says; but, just because he believes it doesn't make it so. And he can get $$$ for going on the rubber chicken circuit to talk about it.
Are we likely to have another terrorist incident? Probably. Because of something that Bush did and Obama is not doing -- No. when the opportunity is there, they will take it. We've always been vulnerable, it's just now we're more aware of it.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Sorry Hound
|
|
Date:
|
3/18/2009 1:32:31 PM
|
I was focused on the economic issues but another terrorist attack is not going to be based on something Bush did (remember, OBL planned the latest attacks under Clinton after several with only limp wristed responses) or likely for something Obama didn't do (other than they will be emboldened by his approach to terorism...back to the Clinton days).
There will be another attack because they hate us and our way of life and want to destroy us. If its under the Messiah's watch he will try to blame Bush but will in the end take the political hit. What BO is doing will only embolden terrorists and make it harder for us to respond when they do attack but he will not be directly responsible for them because we can be right 1,000 times to stop an attack and they only have to be right once.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Did you Read my Post?
|
|
Date:
|
3/18/2009 3:58:30 PM
|
I didn't say it would be based on what Bush did. And it won't be because of something Obama did. We're vulnerable. We've always been vulnerable, but until 9/11, most Americans didn't realize it.
My point was that Cheney is saber rattling to make people feel like we're vulnerable based on this Administration's policies. But that's not necessarily true. We're vulnerable. PERIOD.
But, this country is far more vulnerable in terms of the economy. As a result of our economic woes, foreign governments hold our debt, our currency and own large chunks of our companies. Now that is scary.
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Did you Read my Post?
|
|
Date:
|
3/18/2009 4:24:10 PM
|
I believe that the Bush Administration's post-9/11 actions DID lessen the likelihood of another attack, and if Obama keeps letting our guard down like he has been he WILL be responsible in part if we are successfully attacked again. In the most basic sense, strength deters aggression, weakness invites it.
I do agree that, at the moment, we are far more vulnerable financially than militarily. There are too many folks holding our debt that are not necessarily our friends, and if they decide to wield that weapon we will be in a world of hurt. But Obama's apparent disregard for who is financing his egregious spending binges is increasing that risk exponentially.
Nasreddin Hodja
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Just Curious
|
|
Date:
|
3/18/2009 6:08:34 PM
|
What actions that he took that you believe lessened our vulnerability?
One thing that I think he did was increased the size of the intelligence workforce. They got rid of a lot of those Russian specialists who had been populating the intelligence workforce and brought in some people who know the Middle East.
Another thing is that he put more security in the airports. For all the aggrevation it causes and the criticism it gets, I think it has served as a deterrent.
Normally I would say that power projection is a good deterrent, but I'm not sure I think that is the case now. The only positive thing I can see out of Iraq is that it gave Al Quayda an American target in the region.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Did you Read my Post?
|
|
Date:
|
3/18/2009 6:08:40 PM
|
Hound: I missed the No at the beginning of the 2nd line, sorry about that. I guess the question I have, and I don't think either of us really knows the answer, is what is the point of Cheney rattling his saber? What does he have to gain by this? Could it be based on his knowledge gleaned over the last 8 years that he genuinely believes the actions being taken by the BO administration will make us less safe? Until I can be given a rational motivation for what Cheney is doing I can only guess why he is doing this.
It is inarguable that we have not been attacked domestically for the last 7 years of the Bush administration and they deserve some credit for that. This is especially true if you look at the frequency of attacks during the Clinton administration.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Did you Read my Post?
|
|
Date:
|
3/18/2009 6:19:03 PM
|
If you see my "Curious post" I do think that a few things that the Bush Administration have payed off.
Maybe Cheney was sorry when the Administration stopped the Saber rattling. After Ridge left Homeland Security, they stopped a lot of the fear mongering. I think Bush realized that it had gotten all the mileage out of making people fearful, that they could get.
I just always think of Cheney as an angry man. I think he likes to manipulate situations. Maybe he is angry because the Bush Administration's popularity plunged by the end. You are right, we have no real insight to what he is thinking.
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Just Curious
|
|
Date:
|
3/18/2009 7:34:43 PM
|
My apologies, but I am not sure who the "he" is you refer to -- GWB or BHO. Maybe I should but this ole Arky is slow on the uptake.
So far, BHO has just started dismantling the protective mechanisms GWB put into place....nothing egregious so far, but ominous signs - closing GITMO, dropping charges against the Cole bomber, being willing to negotiate with "moderate" Taliban (IMHO, that is an oxymoron).
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Did you Read my Post?
|
|
Date:
|
3/18/2009 7:41:53 PM
|
I think you answered my previous question.
Maybe Cheney is a disgruntled old man. But just maybe he is a patriot (there is that possibility, you know) who can't stand by idly and watch the Clinton history, vis-a-vis the terrorists, be repeated.
Funny, one of the things I have saidfor several years now, based on a fair amount of "Green Door" experience while serving in the AF, is that we just don't know what we don't know. It is that fact alone that has allowed me to give GWB a wee bit of slack with regard to the war, terrorists, and the like.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
You are
|
|
Date:
|
3/18/2009 11:24:22 PM
|
|
I'm in a cat landing zone.
You are right. We don't know what we don't know. Impossible to tell what the intelligence is saying these days.
Most days I'm glad I don't know. My feeling is that if we really knew what was going on in the world on any given day, it scares the h_ll out of you.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Did you Read my Post?
|
|
Date:
|
3/19/2009 12:33:09 AM
|
I don't know but I have listened to Cheney and he never comes off as angry. He seems very logical and matter of fact. I frnakly think you see everything through the prism of BDS and can't really listen to what he says and how he really says it. You may not agree with what he says but he never comes across as angry or whatever.
|
| Name: |
lakngulf
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Did you Read my Post?
|
|
Date:
|
3/19/2009 6:40:21 AM
|
He comes over as "robotic".
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Okay, not angry
|
|
Date:
|
3/19/2009 6:03:11 PM
|
but creepy none the less. He WANTS you to think he's being logical and straitforward, but he's a behind the scenes manipulator from Way Back (and I don't mean Texas). You always rail against Washington insiders, but Cheney is the ultimate Washington "insider's" insider.
But that's okay, if you like him.
I think there must be two kinds of BDS -- those who disliked Bush and you think are deranged; and folks like yourself who think everything he did was straightforward and aboveboard. That's a different kind of derangement.
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Indiana Lakes
»
Salamonie Lake
Login
|
Home
