Clinton Violates Presidential Protocol

[carpro]

Slick Willie didn't have any class as a president. He has even less now.

 

[fromtheright]

Clinton ignoring Presidential protoccol. Now there's a shocker.

 

[Bunyon]

Perhaps it was Clintons failure to back up the agreementst that were agreed to in the first gulf war, and his failure to make the UN follow throug, that has put us in Iraq now.

On a further note: I am predicting a Clinton/Richardson ticket. Richardson is the NM governor and was in the Clinton cabanit.

 

[El_Guero]

He has done it in the past ...

“Clinton Calls Terror a U.S. Debt to Past,” stated that the former president said America is “paying a price today” for slavery

 

[Daisy]

From the opening paragraph of the article:

Breaking with tradition under which US presidents mute criticisms of their successors, ...

Who are you to say that his criticism was not muted - it may have been far harsher before he toned it down.

One of the first things Bush did when he came into office was unleash his attack dogs on Clinton. There are people who still believe that the offices were trashed and that the Clinton's stole furniture.

Or is trashing your predecessor a legitimate tradition?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

HAW..HAW...HAW!

Now Daisy has gone from glee that Clinton is throwing stones to questioning the article and whether or not Bush should have thrown stones. I am guessing you have abandoned the glass house approach?

Nobody cares anymore about the trashed offices. Ancient history. But, I am guessing that the liberals are still smarting from all of those elections they have lost in the last four years.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[carpro]

Another opinion on the subject:


http://www.powerlineblog.com/

Uncharted Territory, Once Again

In recent years, the Democrats have violated many of the tacit conventions of civility that have enabled our political system to work for more than two centuries. Yesterday another barrier fell, and once again, we entered uncharted waters: former President Bill Clinton launched a vicious attack on President Bush on ABC's "This Week" program.

This has never happened before. Until now, both parties have recognized a patriotism that, at some level, supersedes partisanship. Consistent with that belief, former Presidents of both parties have stayed out of politics and have avoided criticizing their successors. Until now. The Democrats appear bent on destroying every element of the fabric that has united us as Americans.

Clinton's vicious attack is even worse in the context of his wife's Presidential bid: it is fair to assume that he was motivated not only by partisanship, but by his own desire to re-occupy the White House, and, most likely, wield once more the levers of power.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
HAW..HAW...HAW!

Very like the mule's daddy, Jack.

Now Daisy has gone from glee that Clinton is throwing stones to questioning the article and whether or not Bush should have thrown stones. I am guessing you have abandoned the glass house approach?

First, no "glee", just observation about criticism, not throwing stones. I have "questioned" the article's & Joseph_Botwinick's interpretation that criticism is a violation of protocol and whether it matters in view of what is being criticised. Finally, I haven't questioned whether Bush should have "thrown stones" because there is a distinct difference between Clinon criticising his successor's actions and Bush's attack dogs telling lies about his predecessor.

I have not abandoned the glass house approach, I've pointed out to Bushies that they are living in one.

Nobody cares anymore about the trashed offices. Ancient history. But, I am guessing that the liberals are still smarting from all of those elections they have lost in the last four years.

The offices were not trashed; that was a lie, rather a pointless lie that many people still believe. You dismiss lies let loose by one president as unimportant, but blast another for telling the truth. That says something interesting about your values.

The elections weren't lost, they were stolen.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by carpro:
Another opinion on the subject:

Uncharted Territory, Once Again

In recent years, the Democrats have violated many of the tacit conventions of civility that have enabled our political system to work for more than two centuries.

What a crock of spin! The masters of the smear are whining because the loyal opposition dared to criticise? Notice they are not denying the substance of the criticisms. That is the most telling point.

Yesterday another barrier fell, and once again, we entered uncharted waters: former President Bill Clinton launched a vicious attack on President Bush on ABC's "This Week" program.

He criticised the President's actions; he did not attack the man.

This has never happened before. Until now, both parties have recognized a patriotism that, at some level, supersedes partisanship. Consistent with that belief, former Presidents of both parties have stayed out of politics and have avoided criticizing their successors. Until now. The Democrats appear bent on destroying every element of the fabric that has united us as Americans.

I suppose he is relying on Americans' notorious ignorance of history in supposing he won't be challenged on that one.

In 1918, ex-President Roosevelt challenged Woodrow Wilson's sweeping crackdown against dissent after the American entry into World War:

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149
May 7, 1918

Clinton's vicious attack is even worse in the context of his wife's Presidential bid: it is fair to assume that he was motivated not only by partisanship, but by his own desire to re-occupy the White House, and, most likely, wield once more the levers of power.

Truth is truth no matter the motivation. Again, note the methodology at work: attack the messenger, not the message. Hmmmm.....

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Daisy:

a pointless lie that many people still believe. You dismiss lies let loose by one president as unimportant, but blast another for telling the truth. That says something interesting about your values.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34764-2002Jun11?language=printer

White House, GAO Debate Vandalism
Report: 2001 Damage Was Possibly Typical

By Mike Allen and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, June 12, 2002; Page A01

A government investigation, prompted by Bush administration charges that aides to President Bill Clinton vandalized the White House as they left, found at least $19,000 in damage but concluded it may have been typical of recent outgoing administrations.

The 217-page report was released yesterday by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, capping a dispute that began in the first few days of the Bush administration when officials found evidence of pranks and vandalism.

The GAO based its damage estimate of at least $19,000 on the funds needed to repair or replace 62 computer keyboards, 26 cellular phones, 15 television remote controls, nine historic doorknobs, two chairs with broken arms and one presidential seal.

"Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks occurred in the White House complex during the 2001 presidential transition," concluded the report, which had been commissioned by Rep. Robert L. Barr Jr. (R-Ga.). "Incidents such as the removal of keys from computer keyboards; the theft of various items; the leaving of certain voice mail messages, signs and written messages; and the placing of glue on desk drawers clearly were intentional acts."

 

[El_Guero]

Carpro

You don't think that the Dem's will pay the tax burden they placed upon the unsuspecting public?

 

[carpro]

Democrats love to spend everybody's money but their own.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by carpro:
Democrats love to spend everybody's money but their own.

If this is true, Bush makes a very good democrat!

 

[El_Guero]

Terry

That hurts ... but is so true of all politicians ...

 

[Daisy]

Thanks, carpro, for the link to the vindicating report.

...

The report said "some of the same types of observations that were made concerning the condition of the White House complex during the 2001 transition were also made during the 1993 transition," when Clinton was taking office. The report said that the GAO was "unable to conclude whether the 2001 transition was worse than previous ones" but that career government employees recalled similar conditions in 1989, when President Bush's father was inaugurated.

Investigators were unable to corroborate some charges by the new Bush administration, because in some cases it was impossible to determine whether the damage was intentional and in other cases it was uncertain who was responsible.

...

But Clinton administration officials contended that Bush officials had wasted government money by provoking a report that turned up scant evidence of vandalism. They estimate the report's cost at $200,000. Jennifer Palmieri, who worked in the Clinton administration and now is press secretary of the Democratic National Committee, said the White House had embarked on "a failed pursuit to embarrass Clinton."

Of course, what was reported the year before:

Leading the cry against the trashing of the White House was the Fox News Channel. Virtually every major Fox personality reported it as fact, often expressing their own personal outrage. Guests on the channel chimed in, condemning the Clintons and their staffers. Consider the following reports:

--Brit Hume (1/25/01): "By the way, the reported vandalism in those White House offices now includes power and phone cords cut... trash dumped on floors, desk drawers emptied onto floors, pornographic pictures left in computer printers, scatological messages left on voice mail, and cabinets and drawers glued shut. And the Washington Times reports that the presidential 747 that flew Bill and Hillary Clinton to New York on inauguration day was stripped bare. The plane's porcelain, china... and silverware, and salt and pepper shakers, blankets and pillow cases, nearly all items bearing the presidential seal, were taken by Clinton staffers who went along for the ride. The Washington Times quoted a military steward as saying that even a supply of toothpaste was stolen from a compartment under a sink."

--Sean Hannity (1/26/01): "Look, we've had these reports, very disturbing reports -- and I have actually spoken to people that have confirmed a lot of the reports -- about the trashing of the White House. Pornographic materials left in the printers. They cut the phone lines. Lewd and crude messages on phone machines. Stripping of anything that was not bolted down on Air Force One. $200,000 in furniture taken out."

--Fred Barnes (1/27/01): "Now, you know what else helped Bush have such a good week? It was the contrast with the Clintons' sleazy departure from the White House, which is a hot story in itself.... You had the trashing of the White House itself. We don't know how much, but the typewriters, the voicemail, the graffiti on the walls and so on, reflecting, I think, a real bitterness that they should not have reflected, at least in that."

--Bill O'Reilly (1/26/01): "I mean, the price tag right now is about $200,000, so that's a felony right there."

--Oliver North, radio host (1/26/01, "Hannity & Colmes"): "There's an awful lot about this whole administration that never looked right to many of us. And of course, their closing act in this whole thing, which was basically trashing the White House, you know, pillaging what was available on Air Force One.... We should expect from white trash what they did at the White House."

--Paula Zahn (1/26/01): "All right, but this is the White House, for God's sakes. We're not talking about people living in a fraternity."

--Sean Hannity on the Clintons (2/6/01): "I'd be more willing to cut them some slack and say it was an honest mistake and they weren't involved in the moving if Air Force One wasn't stripped, if they didn't trash the White House, if they didn't set up this -- the equivalent of a bridal registry, if he wasn't taking advantage of the taxpayers."

linkie

I suppose all that trash talk was just a frat-boy prank of the incoming administration, but it cost the tax-payers a bundle.

But radical rightwingers sure do love to spend other people's money if they can embarrass the Democrats.

 

[carpro]

Obfuscation, Daisy.

The GAO concluded those acts took place. You said it was all a lie.

You were wrong.

 

[OldRegular]

I really don't understand why women are so eager to defend Clinton. After all, as Monica's father initially and correctly said, he is a misogynist.That is a woman hater for those who don't have a dictionary.

Bill does have some unusual talents though and should be recognized for them:

1. He can shed tears out of one eye, the one facing the camera!
2. He is loyal to himself.
3. ?
4. ?

By the way Monica was not 21, more like 18. But age never made any difference to Bill.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

OR,

Have you ever watched Donahue? This might answer some questions about why women defend HRH William of Hope. Speaking of which, last night I was watching my DVD of SNL best of Phil Hartman and he did this great skit about Phil Donahue where he was talking with abused women who still loved their abusers. Absolutely hillarious. If you get a chance to rent this or buy it, watch it...you will split your sides laughing.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by carpro:
Obfuscation, Daisy.

On your part

The GAO concluded those acts took place. You said it was all a lie.

I said it was a lie and for the most part it is. The Bushies tried to make out like the outgoing administration totally trashed the offices and stripped Air Force One bare, while the report says that any damage was minor and ordinary AND the GAO was unable to determine who had done the damage. It may have been the Bushies themselves, out of spite.

You were wrong.

No, you are.

 

[One View]

As I recall, when Bush took office, he chose not to have any investigation into what may or may not have happened when Clinton left the White House. In fact, I've never heard Bush say anything bad about Clinton or question anything Clinton did.

So you, Daisy, are quite wrong.