Uh, it was not about one blowjob. It was about an ongoing string of accusations of sexual harrassment and abuse of power. These are serious allegations.
Bending over and taking it does not count as diplomacy, IMO.
Examples?
The Vietnamese were begging for relations with the US. You must be joking.
I do give him credit for that.
Actually, behind Harding, I think Ronny Raygun was one of the worst presidents we’ve ever had.
Supply-side economics
Iran Contra
Blockage of “unpopular” appointments
Extremely conservative federal judge appointment
Tax “reform”
And we loved him for it. Bush jr. is just back to the future
[quote=“Etheorial”] This is one reason that it so easy for the Republicans to make a big deal out of Bill Clinton getting a blowjob from Monica Lewinsky. They made it a moral issue. It wasn’t about perjury at first. That is incorrect. It was about the fact that the President, a married man, had sexual relations with a younger woman. No doubt it was irresponsible and foolish, but it didn’t deserve to become the circus that it did.[/quote]No matter how much the clintonista wish to obfuscate, it wasn’y about a blow-job - it was about lying to a Federal Grand Jury. Clinton was dis-barred in his home state for exactly this.
And he was impeached by Congress.
[quote=“Etheorial”]Mr. Clinton does know how to conduct diplomacy, and how to reserve military might for when it’s truly needed.[/quote]EXAMPLES PLEASE?[quote=“Etheorial”]He opened diplomatic relations with Vietnam in 1995, no small task,[/quote]Yes it was a very small task. I was among those who negotiated the opening of trage with VN in the early '90’s. Clinton* did jack squat in these negotiations. If he had there would have been a lot less lee-way given to the VN terms ut on the table. Example - Financial accountability for US $$$'s invested in VN. Assurances of propert ownership by US (and other countries) building in VN. Uniform rules for investment thru-out VN. Proper legal respites for investments in Viet Nam.
Need more?
By the way - none of these criteria are enplace as of today either.
Ever seen Saigon (HCM City) south of the river? Seen the building halted in midconstruction? Ever wonder why?
[quote=“Etheorial”]As far as other reckless and foolish American administrations, no doubt Lyndon Johnson’s comes to mind, although Richard Nixon’s was in many ways worse. Do you recall “Vietnamization?” That policy entailed massive bombing campaigns in Cambodia that devestated the country. Nixon didn’t care. He, like Johnson, never understood the nature of his opponent in the Vietnam War.[/quote]You really don’t know much about the VN War do you?
Check your history for facts.
[quote=“Etheorial”]And need I mention Watergate? That shook the faith of the nation in the government, and with good reason. The fact that the President had to resign shows just how implicated he was in it.[/quote]hoo huum…a blip on the screen of history. Then why is it that most of the world regards Nixon as one of the USA’s greatest Presidents?
[quote=“Etheorial”]I think we need to pay more attention to our leaders’ policies and less to their personal lives.[/quote] And yet you appear to be saying the exact opposite.[quote=“Etheorial”]Bush’s and Nixon’s commitments to their spouses didn’t result (or in the case of Mr. Bush) hasn’t resulted in good policy making.[/quote]Thank you for illustrating my previous comment in a most direct and somewhat creepy manner. This post of yours bears small relevance to anything being discussed here.[quote=“Etheorial”]The bombing of Cambodia resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians, and so has the campaign in Iraq.[/quote]You really don’t know much about the VN War do you? Do you know why Cambodia was bombed? Do you know what the reaction of NVN was to the Christmas bombings? Do you know who GIAP was?[quote=“Etheorial”]Not to mention the American soldiers who lost their lives as the result of the reckless policies Nixon and Bush pursued.[/quote]Two Presidents - 35 yrs apart, in amazingly dissimiliar positions - and yet you feeel justified in comparing them? pretty weird.[quote=“Etheorial”] Nixon seemed to think that it was worth it to devastate Cambodia.[/quote]Uhhh…Bubba…Cambodia was not devastated…I was there.[quote=“Etheorial”] After all, according to him, the South Vietnamese government was committed to democracy and needed our help to fight those Communist (but don’t forget nationalist) aggressors.[/quote]HUH? What the heck does this bit mean?..translator!..aisle 7 please!
[quote=“Etheorial”]Now, those Iraqis need us to help them create a democracy. Although they didn’t ask, we’re gonna help them, no matter how many people die.[/quote] Yes, they did ask. And we are not killing the good people…only the bad ones. Thats the way WAR works. Learn it!
I think Mr. Nixon and Mr. Bush are two of the worst presidents in American history, not because of their personal lives, but because of their careless, reckless, and ultimately disastrous policy-making.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]
Sudan? How many thousands died for that bombing?
Laos. Plain of Jars.
Clinton’s perjury was the central issue.
The bottom line on the Vietnam War seems to be this. 55,000 Americans died to keep North Viet Nam from overrunning the South and ushering in a Marxist dark age in Viet Nam, South East Asia and beyond.
Well, the ‘dark ages’ are here. North Viet Nam prevailed and did its worst. Was it worth 55,000 dead and a quarter of a million wounded to try to try to keep this from happening?
[quote=“spook”]
Well, the ‘dark ages’ are here. North Viet Nam prevailed and did its worst. Was it worth 55,000 dead and a quarter of a million wounded to try to try to keep this from happening?[/quote]
Why are you only counting US casualties?
[quote=“s.b.”][quote=“spook”]
Well, the ‘dark ages’ are here. North Viet Nam prevailed and did its worst. Was it worth 55,000 dead and a quarter of a million wounded to try to try to keep this from happening?[/quote]
Why are you only counting US casualties?[/quote]
Fair question. Because I’m addressing US supporters of the war as to whether it was worth it or not to try to avoid the current status quo in Viet Nam. I don’t think the million-plus dead in the middle and on the other side factor into that decision for them any more than non-U.S. casualties do currently in Iraq.
[quote=“Tainan Cowboy”]
You really don’t know much about the VN War do you?
Check your history for facts. [/quote]
I appreciate the fact that you served in the Vietnam War, but it’s unfortunate that you’ve bought into the right wing version of what happened.
I wrote a thesis on Vietnam in order to graduate from college, and I also read Nixon’s book on it from cover to cover. I’ve drawn my conclusions from lots of reading.
The US failed to accomplish its objective of preventing the North Vietnamese from unifying the country under a Communist government. Cambodia was a netural country that the US bombed, because the North Vietnamese were using it in their war effort. Nixon thought he could teach them a lesson. He thought wrong. If you want to argue that the bombing campaigns forced the Vietnamese to the negotiating table to negotiate a truce in 1973, I would argue that the “truce” and “Peace with honor” resulted in the North overrunning the corruption riddled American puppet of a state in little more than two years, and taking it for good on April 30, 1975, while Nixon and his cronies helplessly looked on.
No right wing revisionism can distort the facts: America failed to accomplish its objectives, and lost the Vietnam War. L-O-S-T.
Lon Nol, whom the US installed in Cambodia after getting rid of the popular and nationalist Prince Sihanhouk proved hopelessly inept, and sometimes launched into fits of tears and asked for help from spirits. Another anti-Communist warrior, right? He was unable to unify the people and his weak and ineffective leadership made it all the more easy for the Khmer Rouge to be welcomed as liberators.
If you want to try and argue that the massive American bombings of Cambodia did not in fact destabilize the country, I think you would have a very hard time doing it.
The Nixon administration did a horrific job in Vietnam and Cambodia. It was unable to prevent the North Vietnamese from unifying Vietnam under a Communist and nationalist government and it destabilized Cambodia and messed in Cambodia’s internal affairs, helping to pave the way for the Khmer Rouge.
Watergate a blip on the map? Another nice effort at right wing revisionism. Nixon was a lying crook, who got what he deserved. As for Mr. Clinton, well as you recall, the impeachment process failed, and he remained in office.
The blowjob was a “blip”: insignificant, unimportant and not related in any way to his policies.
Bush is another liar, just perhaps not as crooked as Nixon.
Your “good guy” “bad guy” rationale for war is right out of GI Joe. I’m not into blind flag-waving. And I don’t buy it.