Questions in Search of Answers

  1. In the last few days in this sub-heading, I've noticed a plethora of posts by those who do not support our current president, his policies, and question his past. This is the US, and many of the points raised are valid. (Just because my answers are in conflict with the poster's answers in no way detracts from the validity of either the question or the debate.) However, there have been questions raised by myself, Susy, and others that have gone largely unanswered by the GWB detractors. So, here's a thread to ask those specific questions. One rule to this thread: If you are going to come in, bash Bush and his policies, but not answer or even attempt to answer the questions, please don't respond.

    In this forum, everything but GWB's parental lineage has been questioned. Of course, we'd have to begin with the questioning of his current policies towards Iraq. Many of you have called him an aggressor, unjustified, and having no right to say the things he's saying, and do the things he's doing. Yet, as pointed out by Susy, in his own words, Bill Clinton believed EXACTLY the same things as GWB. Looking through the archives, I can't find one of you saying his position was wrong. Is it only wrong when it is a Republican who says it, or is it only wrong when the president has the courage to back up his rhetoric with action?

    Some of you have pointed to his service in the National Guard during Vietnam as a sign of his cowardice, his unwillingness to lay his own life on the line. Yet, again, looking through the archives, not one of you called Bill Clinton a coward, or accused him of having a silver spoon in his mouth. Yet, he avoided the draft completely, running off to England, becoming a Rhodes Scholar. By all accounts, he was a poor choice for the honor, at best. Rarely attended classes, did poorly in the classes he did take, and by accounts of those who knew him there, spent most of his time there high, bad mouthing the US. He didn't even have the courage to stay here and protest. Why did none of you bring these facts up?

    As to the failed successor to the throne, Al Gore, he spent a short time in Vietnam, AS A REPORTER. Accounts of those who knew him there say everywhere he went in country, he was surrounded by a guard force, because we couldn't have anything bad happen to the son of an important senator, with his own bright political future to look forward to. Yet, not one of you is outraged at this man with a clear silver spoon in his mouth, even through his adult years. He had daddy's protection, but somehow that's OK. Why is that?

    You all point and make innuendo about Enron and our current president. You accuse him of backroom politicking to save his friends. You offer no proof, and nothing beyond innuendo has ever come forward, proof is sadly lacking of his involvement. Yet, at least one of you has said you hope "another Bill Clinton comes forward" so that you could vote for him. Yet you don't decry his involvement in Whitewater. Even giving him the greatest benefit of the doubt, even if nothing he did there was illegal, his, and his wife's involvement, took advantage of the downfall of the S&L industry, but that's OK. Or look at what Hillary did in Travelgate. A long time staff in a White House office is fired on obviously trumped up charges, so she could bring her own friends in. Obvious cronieism, yet none of you seem at all worried about that.

    Before saying "this is old history, let it drop," answer the questions. Why are you such strong proponents of a double standard? Why was Clinton, a convicted perjurer, who lost his license to practice law, such a great president? Why was using his position of power to gain sway over a 23 year old intern acceptable? Why is his cowardly rhetoric "noble," but the same statements from our current president, backed up by action, somehow immoral? In short, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore are clearly guilty of EVERYTHING you accuse the current president of, but when its them, its OK. You can't prove even one of your assertions about GWB, call him 9 kinds of stupid, and accuse him of everything we KNOW his predecessors did, and he is somehow, by virture of the accusations, an evil man?

    So, ball's in your court. Can you do more than try (and fail miserably) to ridicule me?

    Kevin McHugh
    •  
  2. 68 Comments

  3. by   sjoe
    As the saying goes "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

    You don't expect prejudiced people to be logical, in addition, do you?

    I'm afraid your consistently accurate and well-thought-out posts are often lost on people mired down in self-righteousness, knee-jerk sentimentality, and groupthink.
  4. by   Sleepyeyes
    I don't support our president's stance on going to war with Iraq because he has not found any hidden weapons of mass destruction, the very criterion used to justify a war.

    Of course, if they find something like GW promised was there, I'll have to change my mind.

    You who respond regularly to these threads are all very articulate and very well-read, but please remember that the majority of Americans are neither, and they were pretty much divided 50/50 during the last election.

    PS I couldn't stand Clinton. Don't like philanderers, especially ones who do their philandering in the Oval Office.
  5. by   Q.
    Originally posted by sjoe
    As the saying goes "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

    Wasn't the quote foolish consistency?

    Great thread, Kevin.

    Seriously kids - let's have a nice discussion on this, k? MY personal questions I'd like answered are with regard to Operation Desert Fox. Did you oppose those actions, especially because we did so unilaterally? Did you believe Clinton's assertions then of the connection b/t Hussein and his support of terrorist networks aimed at the United States? If so, why? If not, why?
  6. by   Q.
    Originally posted by Sleepyeyes
    I don't support our president's stance on going to war with Iraq because he has not found any hidden weapons of mass destruction, the very criterion used to justify a war.

    What do you consider weapons of mass destruction? Nuclear?
  7. by   kmchugh
    Originally posted by Sleepyeyes
    I don't support our president's stance on going to war with Iraq because he has not found any hidden weapons of mass destruction, the very criterion used to justify a war.
    Sleepy, there's something here I'd like to dispense with immediately. Even if you don't accept that SH has WMD, that's not the issue, not even remotely. It is well known that he has had them, and used them in the past. Part of the cease fire agreement, part of most the the UN resolutions violated by SH, and the crux of 1441 is not whether or not he still maintains them. The issue is one of not being forthcoming with proof that all stockpiles have been destroyed. A condition of the ceasefire was not weapons inspectors who had to play hide and seek, let's see if we can find anything. The condition was inspectors who would be given fully open access to the entirety of the WMD programs in Iraq, allowed to witness destruction of said WMD's and that these inspectors would be freely given, not forced to search for, proof that Iraq was in compliance with all terms of the cease fire, as well as all terms of subsequent UN resolutions.

    Kevin McHugh
    Last edit by kmchugh on Mar 16, '03
  8. by   Sleepyeyes
    So how's he supposed to prove that the stockpiles were destroyed?

    Forgive me if I sound stupid, but do they really keep paperwork on all that stuff? And why would SH--especially SH--keep that kind of documentation lying around?
  9. by   kmchugh
    Originally posted by Sleepyeyes
    So how's he supposed to prove that the stockpiles were destroyed?

    Forgive me if I sound stupid, but do they really keep paperwork on all that stuff? And why would SH--especially SH--keep that kind of documentation lying around?
    Actually, yes, records of destruction had to be maintained. And no, you don't sound stupid. The US also has had to keep records of destruction of our WMD's, partly from treaty (START, START II) obligation, and partly to maintain tracking records of WMD's. Records kept help prevent loss to, shall we say, undesirables.

    Kevin McHugh

    Edited to Add: And none of this is really the point of the topic, which is the double standard applied to GWB as opposed to Clinton/Gore.
  10. by   rncountry
    Kevin, I'll try to answer some of your questions.
    There is much about GW's conservative policies I do not like. Some of the more far right policies I think are too far out there for me. Such as hamstringing jury trials for those that have suffered medical imcompetance. Maybe if I had not taken care of a stepdaughter who was terribly damaged prior to birth I would feel differently. But Samantha ended up born with so many problems directly related to a physician who did not bother to read a stress test for 3 days. The physician had ordered the test because the baby had quit moving and she obviously felt there was enough of a problem to look further into it. Yet did not bother to read the results, nor have someone else read them if she was busy. The result was a resident who after those three days did notice it, had my husbands now ex wife come to the hospital immediately after the results were in and an emergency C-Section was performed, before my husband could even get to the hospital. And this was after 3 days of the mother calling the office to try to get someone to tell her what the results of the test were. The end result was a child who never walked, who never talked, who was G-Tube fed and required round the clock constant care. I took care of Sam the last month and through her death. She was 15, and had lived much longer than anyone had believed was possible. It was a soul crushing time. When Sam was 6 years old is when my husband and the now ex sued. They did so only because they could not continue to provide all the needs that Sam had, along with two other children. My husband has told me that the delay also had much to do with the hope that physical therapy etc... would help Sam become more independent. But instead she got worse over time, not better. Without the trust fund that was established for Sam there would have been so very much she would have lacked, including the ability to even get out of bed as she became older and heavier. They couldn't afford a hoyer lift, and for years it was ok until she became too big for anyone but my husband to be able to pick her up, and since he was working two jobs to be able to provide for his family he was not there much to be able to get her up. Are there many frivilous lawsuits? Yes, but it should be up to lower courts to see them for what they are and to throw them out. Everyone should not be punished for the misdeeds of some. That is to me, kindergarten thinking. Not any different than managment that comes down on everyone instead of dealing with the few who can't manage to do their job appropriately.
    I dislike the Patriot Act immensely. To me it throws out the 4th amendment to the constitution. I don't like people being in the current administration that were involved with Iran-Contra, they were criminals then and they are criminals now. No one, I don't care who they are, should be able to subvert the laws that congress passes. If they are poor laws then work to have them changed, we have a wonderful constitution that has held for over 200 years for a reason.
    I don't like back room politics regardless of who they come from. Regardless of what adminstration is in place I think the American people need to guard against that type of activity, or own founders warned us of it. It is up to the American public, by virtue of a republic by the people to keep our politicans honest. If we do not it is too easy to Tammany Hall in the White House.
    I think we are at a pass in history in which we had best piss or get off the pot in terms of terrorism though. I can go back into time to 1979 when the Iranians took our people in the embassay hostage, and from that point on point at various adminstrations both democratic and republican that have failed in their responsiblity to protect the citizens of this nation. I still cringe when I see or have to hear Jimmy Carter because he was so very ineffective in the Iranian hostage crisis. I don't care if the man won a Nobel Peace Prize or not. Yes, the American people want peace, we always have. But we have done little more than played games with those who have repeatedly targeted the citizens of this country for over 30 years. There comes a time for our own safety and freedom that we have to do something. This point of view is a sea change for me. I had to quit blinding myself to my fundamental dislike of the majority of George Bush's politics to be able to see a bigger picture right now.
    No, I don't like most of what GW stands for. I deeply believe that a civilized country that purports to live within Christian ideals should take care of our elderly and those who seriously cannot take of themselves. It may be hard to sort out who can and who cannot, but the country who has lead the world in freedoms and put a man on the moon should have the intellectual capacity here to be able to do so. I have lobbed various bombs against GW and his families politics because I really dispute so much of the fundamentalists right politics that I feel will not enhance the ability of Americans to have the freedoms our ancestors fought and died to have. I don't care if those limits come from the right or the left, I will speak out and act out my beliefs.
    Your right in that neither Clinton or Gore were lily white, but neither is Bush. And perhaps some of what is going on as far as "well look at Bush, he did this, that or the other thing," is a reaction to all the evil and sometimes inaccurate things that have been said about Clinton and Gore. There are those on the far right, such as Rush Limbaugh, that seem to have no ability other than to get out flame throwers against people who do not think the way they do, and the knock down bloodying politics that have resulted from that is why we are where we are now. When I see people cheerleading Oliver North, who deliberately subverted the laws of congress, it makes me very upset. To me people who think he is such a hero have no concept what could happen to this country if we allow people like him to subvert the constitution. And what I think of the person who gave him a TV show!
    In some ways, the Republican party is now reaping what they sowed.
  11. by   pickledpepperRN
    Kevin:
    Are these the questions we must answer in order to post on this thread?

    1. Is it only wrong when it is a Republican who says it, or is it only
    wrong when the president has the courage to back up his rhetoric with action?

    2. Regarding criticism of Clinton why did none of you bring these facts up?

    3. With regard to Al Gore Yet, not one of you is outraged at this man with a clear silver spoon in his
    mouth, even through his adult years. He had daddy's protection, but somehow that's OK. Why is that?

    4. You all point and make innuendo about Enron and our current president. Yet you don't decry Bill Clintons involvement in Whitewater. Or look at what Hillary did in Travelgate. None of you seem at all worried about that.

    5.. Why are you such strong proponents of a
    double standard? Why was Clinton, a convicted perjurer, who lost his license to practice law, such a great
    president? Why was using his position of power to gain sway over a 23 year old intern acceptable? Why is his
    cowardly rhetoric "noble," but the same statements from our current president, backed up by action, somehow
    immoral? In short, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore are clearly guilty of EVERYTHING you accuse the
    current president of, but when its them, its OK. You can't prove even one of your assertions about GWB, call
    him 9 kinds of stupid, and accuse him of everything we KNOW his predecessors did, and he is somehow, by
    virture of the accusations, an evil man?

    6. Can you do more than try (and fail miserably) to ridicule me?
  12. by   donmurray
    I still have a question in search of an answer, but it was declined.
  13. by   pickledpepperRN
    Originally posted by donmurray
    I still have a question in search of an answer, but it was declined.
    Now I am feeling curious and dumb.
    Can you ask the question?
  14. by   kmchugh
    Originally posted by rncountry
    I think we are at a pass in history in which we had best piss or get off the pot in terms of terrorism though. ...

    No, I don't like most of what GW stands for. I deeply believe that a civilized country that purports to live within Christian ideals should take care of our elderly and those who seriously cannot take of themselves. ...

    Your right in that neither Clinton or Gore were lily white, but neither is Bush.
    Helen

    I clipped some of your post to come down to what I saw as the most salient points of your arguments. On the first point, terrorism, you are correct that we are at a point where we had better piss or get off the pot. But, as an added bonus, we are at a unique point in history where we not only better do this, but are in a position to be able to do so. Terrorists can no longer hide behind the Iron Curtian, forcing us to choose between starting WWIII or leaving them in East Germany. And, I believe (as I gather you do) GWB is doing that.

    As to your second point, I agree, and have said so before. History often judges a society on how it treats its least fortunate, those least able to care for themselves. Often, we as a nation do poorly in this arena, as well. However, things were no better under Clinton than they are now. And frankly, GWB's comittment to African AIDS victims concerns me, in light of the stories out there, like the one you related. Perhaps that money could be better spent on our own sick, disabled, etc. But, as you also pointed out, there are abuses of the system as it exists now, and these must be addressed. If we can do that, how much money could be freed for those truely in need?

    As to the malpractice issue, I can see both sides. While incompetent physicians SHOULD pay for lifelong care of their "mistakes," we must be careful where punitive damages are concerned. There are places in this country where certain types of physicians are no longer practicing, simply because the malpractice premiums have reached astronomical levels. This leaves these areas grossly underserved.

    But, it is your third point that I wish to discuss for a moment. Of course, no one is lilly white. Not even me :chuckle. But, what I wanted to know was why some people seem so ready to give Clinton and Gore a pass on things they have been proven to be involved in, while damning our current president for those exact same things, but without the proof. They can point and accuse all they want. But they have no proof, and are willing to overlook the same crimes when it has been proven that the Clintons were involved. That is my primary question. Why the double standard?

    Kevin McHugh

close