I specifically used the word “decent” in referring to Bush 41 high above (being neither “good” nor “bad”). I actually said “very decent” and we can debate “very” but in the context of presidents (none of whom are perfect) I think “decent” is not for debate. He’s certainly better than a number of awful presidents including 43.
Put it this way: In an NFL owner’s luxury box as an invited guest, I could handle politely schmoozing with Bush 41 (yes, I recognize he’s dead), just like I’d tolerate the Cowboys for the sake of one game. In a luxury box with Bush 43 I’d be thinking “holy shit - there HE is, in the flesh,” and it’d be a very awkward three hours of me being extremely conscious of being in the presence of the human who did incredibly high volumes of bad things as the leader of our country.
And that’s sort of the point about how Ellen handled things.
so why not be nice to assad? or putin? the man started the war on the false pretenses - lied, his vice president made billions on the war, half a million people died, then after sadam we got isis. should we hate the man who achieved these things? i believe that we should hate such a man
We are on the same page: note my second beef w Obama.
I only list the drone program because I think it is even more organically Obama’s problem/decision.
And I just pointed out to Enkling the Younger that Jimmy Carter just fell and hurt himself, requiring like a dozen stitches? yet was up n out the next day working on Habitat for the Humanities.
Also, Jimmy helped start the Taliban/Mujahadeen… the truth just IS. sorry…
“To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
Kuwait was originally part of Iraq; it was split off by the Western colonial powers in order to divide & weaken the post-colonial Arab states.
Saddam Hussein rose to power after a Western-backed coup ousted an independence-minded Iraqi government.
Saddam Hussein remained in power with massive Western support, both for the sake of controlling the Iraqi oilfields and as a tool to punish Iran for its own moves towards independence.
Western powers actively supported Saddam’s brutal decade-long invasion of Iran.
Shortly before the invasion of Kuwait, American diplomats gave Saddam reason to believe that an Iraqi conquest of Kuwait would not be opposed.
The Iraqi army that was slaughtered on the Highway of Death was primarily composed of young conscripts, whose opportunities to resist enlistment in the military of a Western-backed despot were extremely slim.
The sanctions that accompanied the wars killed millions of innocent civilians.
…and we haven’t even got up to Shrub’s invasion yet.
I think I have a pretty good sense of what Bush 41 did. I even read up on some refreshers since earlier posts suggesting I should, and it was generally how I recall it. (The Clintons/Rodhams and Kennedys aren’t saints either.) I’m not idealistic or naive enough to expect a president to operate with 100% morality and ethics 100% of the time, and none have left office without some blood on their hands. Other folks have pointed out plenty of Obama’s shortcomings there. (Side note: Obama biggest failure IMHO was not appointing a justice in his final year.) I’m saying I’d given Ellen a pass if she made her point with 41, but not 43.
I’m also now saying (if you’re ready for some real noise to start up here), that I’d put 41 and Obama somewhere close on the spectrum of presidents in terms of quality: far from unblemished records, but generally put country first, and were respectable presidents. Neither was Lincoln or FDR, and neither was 43 or 45.
I’m also hopeful we don’t have any more Bushes or Clintons. Believe it or not, I think we’d have been worse off with Jeb (and the Bush cronies he’d have carried with him, like his brother) over Trump. And as much as I don’t like this Trump fiasco, I don’t pine for Hilary, Chelsea, etc.
If Poppy Bush had not put American troops in Saudi Arabia, there would have been no 9/11, no invasion of Afghanistan, no second Iraq war, no ISIS, and this ongoing thing between Turkey and the PKK would not be our problem, that’s ALL on HIM
He was a tremendously, mind-bogglingly bad president
William Henry Harrison did a reasonable job as president, although evidence shows he would have been worse if he hadn’t immediately died of typhus and pneumonia.
And letting a lot of other people fall through the cracks in the process. Infoshops and groups like Food Not Bombs do more for these people than the selective philanthropy of the left wing of capitalism. I have fallen through one of those cracks myself. Yes, someone got me out but not before a lot of damage was done, and I was not more deserving than the many others in a bad situation. I was lucky, nothing more.
Systemic change will always be better than a luck based system, especially when you take prejudice into account as a factor of bias.
I consider Ms. Degeneres flatly wrong on at least two levels:
As has been pointed out many times here and other places, everyone probably has a personal tolerance threshold. If a guy walks into a bar wearing a MAGA hat, I wouldn’t bother walking out to get away from him. On the other hand, if a clearly murderous sociopath like Dick Cheney walked into a bar, I’d escape as quickly as his SS goons allowed me to go. We all make choices about tolerance on the continuum between “difference of opinion” and “genocidal scum.”
Is “shunning” so bad when compared to the alternatives? I used to know a lot of people who thought that a difference of opinion (or even a difference of physical appearance) was quite sufficient justification for an ass-kicking. Personally, I prefer just to avoid those whose beliefs I find offensive. They might prefer the same thing if they knew how far apart we were. Walking out of a room seems far more civilized to me than physical violence.
Did any other talk show address this issue ? Or even joke about it ?
Or do they say quiet and wait, hopping no one notice they certainly do the exact same thing ?
Which is why they will do nothing to hold Trump accountable when he is no longer under the false protection of the JD memo about not being able to indict a sitting president, as Obama did with Dubya when he said “Leave that in the past.”
