exactly. I don't give a $hit about his ego, particularly when 1000s of soldiers LIMBS have been blown to bits. This notion of protecting your party before your country is treacherous.
Gerald Ford: "Iraq war wasn't justified"
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
exactly. I don't give a $hit about his ego, particularly when 1000s of soldiers LIMBS have been blown to bits. This notion of protecting your party before your country is treacherous.
You read my mind. One could sumise that they are treasonous.
uscitizen
Villified User
You mean we are supposed to pay experienced people more attention than Rush, coulter and their ilk ? Amazing concept
bob
a member named bob
whos the coward then ? the reporter on ford ?
bob
a member named bob
thats kinda what i was thinking.. but i guess there is a tape of the interview.. well atleast that what i heard, it would have looked alot better for the reporter if that was relesed
Sorta. Difference is he kept it short of kicking the French out and taking over. France was there, we gave them some equipment and advisors, we did not escalate. That was not Eisenhower... He knew the failures of political wars.Yep Eisenhower accelerated the Nam situation, so why would he pick on the next president that also accelerated it. Eisenhower was a straight up war kind of General, Nam was a different beast. Kind of like Bush and Iraq....
And yes I agree Nam was ALL rubbish
Invading a country for US Rubber or Exxon are both wrong.
bob
a member named bob
well where are they ?
uscitizen
Villified User
Eisenhower did escalate our involvement in the manner of equipment and such.
That is involvement.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
It seems he disagreed with the emphasis on WMD, not the war itself.
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/483757p-407239c.html
Once again, Eisenhower kept us from joining into the fray. He knew the result of politically controlled war.
I see you are still pretending that Eisenhower could never find any fault in anything Kennedy did and therefore his silence was due to agreement. Your argument is total rubbish and you know it. This is weak in an extreme and a desperate attempt to equate the two is silly. They had different viewpoints and reacted differently to situations. Clearly Eisenhower could have made "suggestions" in the newspaper, and he being formerly President as well as a successful General would have been listened to. That he chose not to is not because of agreement... that is such a weak argument that this thread is simply becoming the Ministry of Funny Talks....
Ahhh... But I think that Ike was alive for LBJ. In fact I know that he was.
Damocles: “I still say I doubt that Reagan would trash a sitting President. He didn't with Clinton even when he had faculty.”
Clinton had barely been in office a month, when Reagan tore him a new asshole:
LOS ANGELES TIMES SECTION: Section A; Page 23; Column 4; Editorial Desk
HEADLINE: There They Go Again
BYLINE: By Ronald Reagan; Ronald Reagan, President from 1981 to 1989, heads the Reagan Center for Public Affairs.
DATELINE: LOS ANGELES
BODY:
Less than one month ago, our nation showed the world the strength of our democratic system with the peaceful transfer of Presidential power from one elected citizen to another and, incidentally, from one political party to another. While it is no secret that I would have preferred a different scenario that day, I have great respect for our constitutional system and would like to support our new President.
I had every intention of holding back any comments on the new Administration until it was well in place and its policies became clear. Unfortunately, the policies are already becoming alarmingly clear. With campaign promises dropping like autumn leaves, I can't refrain any longer.
"First, we're going to raise the taxes on the people that did well in the 1980's," the Clinton Administration says. Did I hear that right? I'm afraid so! Do they really believe that those who have worked hard and been successful should somehow be punished for it? Is success in the 1980's, or any time for that matter, supposed to be something we as Americans are to be embarrassed about?
I hate to confuse their economic thinking with a few facts, but if they were to look at the 1980's, they would find that America experienced its longest period of peacetime economic expansion in our history. They would find that America led the world out of a global economic recession and that our economy was the envy of virtually every other nation. They would see that we created nearly 19 million new jobs for Americans of all income levels. And it may shock the Clinton Administration to discover that most of the economic gains of the 1980's were made by low- and middle-income citizens, not the wealthiest Americans.
Earlier this week, President Clinton said, "I know we have learned the hard lessons of the 1980's." I didn't realize they were so hard to learn. The fundamental lesson of the 1980's was that when you cut taxes for everyone, people have the incentive to work harder and invest, to make a better life for themselves and their families.
If the new Administration doesn't want to look back as far as the 1980's, maybe it will at least look back at the summer of 1992. Candidate Bill Clinton was promising that, if elected, he would provide a tax cut for the middle class. Now, in less than one month of his Presidency, that promise of a tax cut has not only been broken but it has been reversed into a tax increase for middle-income workers.
During the campaign, Bill Clinton said he would tax only the very rich. Last week, he defined this category as those making $200,000 a year. On Monday, the definition came down to $100,000 and now the "very rich" seems to be anyone making $30,000 a year.
Somehow, as the Administration raises everyone's taxes, it wants us to take comfort in knowing that others are getting theirs raised even more. Unfortunately, that kind of "comfort" doesn't put food on the table of the hard-working middle class, buy new shoes for the kids or make it easier to pay the mortgage, let alone put some money aside for savings. The fact is, every dollar the politicians take back to Washington means less spending power for average Americans and more opportunity for the Federal bureaucracy to waste money.
We must also listen for the sound of the other shoe to drop: the Clintons' health program. This will almost certainly involve proposals for another round of taxes later this year, and you can bet those won't be levied on a handful of millionaires.
In the Middle Ages, it was believed that alchemists could turn base metals into gold. Now it appears that alchemists in President Clinton's Administration hope to turn a huge tax increase into economic growth. Alchemy didn't work then and it won't work now. Taxes have never succeeded in promoting economic growth. More often than not, they have led to greater economic downturns.
In his campaign, candidate Clinton described himself as a "new Democrat," implying that there would be no more tax-and-spend dogma, no social engineering, no class warfare pitting one group against another. This week, however, he has begun to sound like an "old Democrat." That's the kind who does not understand one simple fact: the problem is not that the people are taxed too little, the problem is that the Government spends too much.
Until President Clinton and the liberals in Congress accept that principle and act accordingly, I'm afraid we are headed for a repeat of the late 1970's. And that is something we can all live without.
No one can dispute that the enormous budget deficit is a major threat to the economic security of our country. But let us remember that deficits are caused by spending. By the very terms of our Constitution, only Congress has the power to spend.
For more than four decades, one party, the Democratic Party, has controlled the House of Representatives. The solution to the deficit problem is not to ask heavily taxed working Americans to "sacrifice" even more.
It's the big-spending liberals controlling the Congress who need to show some restraint and "sacrifice" a few of the pork-barrel measures they've been slipping past the taxpayers for far too long. Only when the Clinton Administration and Congress summon the will to put the brakes on Federal spending will they get the deficit under control.
While I'm flattered that President Clinton admits to taking a page out of my communications plan, I wish he'd use it to sell an economic program of growth and expansion, not the failed liberal policies of the past.
Just as positive signs of economic recovery are appearing, Mr. President, please don't blow it. Although it goes back well before the 1980's, may I offer you the advice of the 14th century Arab historian Ibn Khaldun, who said: "At the beginning of the empire, the tax rates were low and the revenues were high. At the end of the empire, the tax rates were high and the revenues were low."
And, no, I did not personally know Ibn Khaldun, although we may have had some friends in common!
Reposted at http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_24_atrios_archive.html#116737329684618004
Clinton had barely been in office a month, when Reagan tore him a new asshole:
LOS ANGELES TIMES SECTION: Section A; Page 23; Column 4; Editorial Desk
HEADLINE: There They Go Again
BYLINE: By Ronald Reagan; Ronald Reagan, President from 1981 to 1989, heads the Reagan Center for Public Affairs.
DATELINE: LOS ANGELES
BODY:
Less than one month ago, our nation showed the world the strength of our democratic system with the peaceful transfer of Presidential power from one elected citizen to another and, incidentally, from one political party to another. While it is no secret that I would have preferred a different scenario that day, I have great respect for our constitutional system and would like to support our new President.
I had every intention of holding back any comments on the new Administration until it was well in place and its policies became clear. Unfortunately, the policies are already becoming alarmingly clear. With campaign promises dropping like autumn leaves, I can't refrain any longer.
"First, we're going to raise the taxes on the people that did well in the 1980's," the Clinton Administration says. Did I hear that right? I'm afraid so! Do they really believe that those who have worked hard and been successful should somehow be punished for it? Is success in the 1980's, or any time for that matter, supposed to be something we as Americans are to be embarrassed about?
I hate to confuse their economic thinking with a few facts, but if they were to look at the 1980's, they would find that America experienced its longest period of peacetime economic expansion in our history. They would find that America led the world out of a global economic recession and that our economy was the envy of virtually every other nation. They would see that we created nearly 19 million new jobs for Americans of all income levels. And it may shock the Clinton Administration to discover that most of the economic gains of the 1980's were made by low- and middle-income citizens, not the wealthiest Americans.
Earlier this week, President Clinton said, "I know we have learned the hard lessons of the 1980's." I didn't realize they were so hard to learn. The fundamental lesson of the 1980's was that when you cut taxes for everyone, people have the incentive to work harder and invest, to make a better life for themselves and their families.
If the new Administration doesn't want to look back as far as the 1980's, maybe it will at least look back at the summer of 1992. Candidate Bill Clinton was promising that, if elected, he would provide a tax cut for the middle class. Now, in less than one month of his Presidency, that promise of a tax cut has not only been broken but it has been reversed into a tax increase for middle-income workers.
During the campaign, Bill Clinton said he would tax only the very rich. Last week, he defined this category as those making $200,000 a year. On Monday, the definition came down to $100,000 and now the "very rich" seems to be anyone making $30,000 a year.
Somehow, as the Administration raises everyone's taxes, it wants us to take comfort in knowing that others are getting theirs raised even more. Unfortunately, that kind of "comfort" doesn't put food on the table of the hard-working middle class, buy new shoes for the kids or make it easier to pay the mortgage, let alone put some money aside for savings. The fact is, every dollar the politicians take back to Washington means less spending power for average Americans and more opportunity for the Federal bureaucracy to waste money.
We must also listen for the sound of the other shoe to drop: the Clintons' health program. This will almost certainly involve proposals for another round of taxes later this year, and you can bet those won't be levied on a handful of millionaires.
In the Middle Ages, it was believed that alchemists could turn base metals into gold. Now it appears that alchemists in President Clinton's Administration hope to turn a huge tax increase into economic growth. Alchemy didn't work then and it won't work now. Taxes have never succeeded in promoting economic growth. More often than not, they have led to greater economic downturns.
In his campaign, candidate Clinton described himself as a "new Democrat," implying that there would be no more tax-and-spend dogma, no social engineering, no class warfare pitting one group against another. This week, however, he has begun to sound like an "old Democrat." That's the kind who does not understand one simple fact: the problem is not that the people are taxed too little, the problem is that the Government spends too much.
Until President Clinton and the liberals in Congress accept that principle and act accordingly, I'm afraid we are headed for a repeat of the late 1970's. And that is something we can all live without.
No one can dispute that the enormous budget deficit is a major threat to the economic security of our country. But let us remember that deficits are caused by spending. By the very terms of our Constitution, only Congress has the power to spend.
For more than four decades, one party, the Democratic Party, has controlled the House of Representatives. The solution to the deficit problem is not to ask heavily taxed working Americans to "sacrifice" even more.
It's the big-spending liberals controlling the Congress who need to show some restraint and "sacrifice" a few of the pork-barrel measures they've been slipping past the taxpayers for far too long. Only when the Clinton Administration and Congress summon the will to put the brakes on Federal spending will they get the deficit under control.
While I'm flattered that President Clinton admits to taking a page out of my communications plan, I wish he'd use it to sell an economic program of growth and expansion, not the failed liberal policies of the past.
Just as positive signs of economic recovery are appearing, Mr. President, please don't blow it. Although it goes back well before the 1980's, may I offer you the advice of the 14th century Arab historian Ibn Khaldun, who said: "At the beginning of the empire, the tax rates were low and the revenues were high. At the end of the empire, the tax rates were high and the revenues were low."
And, no, I did not personally know Ibn Khaldun, although we may have had some friends in common!
Reposted at http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_24_atrios_archive.html#116737329684618004
I'm sure Damo simply didn't realize that Reagan ripped Clinton after he had barely even been in office a month. I didn't realize it either: but I sure wasn't buying the rightwing talking point that Carter is the first ex-president ever to publically criticize a sitting president. I knew that had to be bullshit.
I suspect there are other examples of former presidents slamming a sitting president.
I suspect there are other examples of former presidents slamming a sitting president.
Not disingenuous, just unclear.... Reagan took office long before I could vote and I am certainly no expert on his every move.
It was never my intention to say that no ex-President ever did this, it was that they did not on such strong issues before this. Pretending that he was a "coward" because he waited until after his death to say that we should have invaded because Saddam was Evil rather than the whole WMD thing is just silly as hell.
He was pretty clearly not against invasion, just basing it on WMD as the reason he thought was a bad idea. At least read your articles.
Amazingly I agree more with Carter on this issue than I do with Ford. And I don't really agree with either. I think the end-run on the protections of our constitution with the whole idiot "War Powers Act" puts our kids in danger. Every war fought under that Act has been a boondoggle mess, detrimental and not positive for the US.