Bush Sr and Clinton to Share Liberty Medal

• Bush Sr and Clinton to Share Liberty Medal - Democrat

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Again, GT brought the whole subject up about presidential integrity.  I just wanted to see GT's feeling about what Clinton did, but of course, GT justified Clinton's lies which was what I fully expected.  Again, Bush hasn't been proven to lie.  Like I have said several times before on this board I will be the first to cry uncle if Bush is proven to have lied by investigation and that doesn't include accusations and conjecture by liberal politicians, grieving mothers, or leftist bloggers.

Again, GT brought the whole subject up about presidential integrity.  I just wanted to see GT's feeling about what Clinton did, but of course, GT justified Clinton's lies which was what I fully expected.  Again, Bush hasn't been proven to lie.  Like I have said several times before on this board I will be the first to cry uncle if Bush is proven to have lied by investigation and that doesn't include accusations and conjecture by liberal politicians, grieving mothers, or leftist bloggers.

Clinton gave us 8 years of peace and prosperity DESPITE the opposition of the neocons throughout his administration.  Bush failed over and over again DESPITE having party control of both houses.  The leadership ability simply speaks for itself.  Looking forward to Hill and Bill in charge again. The neocon fanatics have destroyed themselves by their own hand. So be it.

Bill Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating.  George W. Bush has an approval rating of 28% and still falling.

Period! 

Obama Blows Off Medal of Honor Recipients... Not Exactly

Scott Isaacs on Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:10 AM EST

According to TSO who was at the “Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball”, this newly sworn-in President for the first time in 56 years blew off the ball (that’s 14 Inaugurations).

Some background on the ball;

The American Legion sponsors the ball, which recognizes recipients of Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military award. It started in 1953 for President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s first inauguration.

Event co-sponsors include 13 other veterans service organizations, among them the Military Order of the Purple Heart and the Paralyzed Veterans of America.

So where was our new President instead of honoring Medal of Honor recipients who by some miracle are still alive? According to Huffington Post, this was his schedule for Inaugural celebrations;

Later that day, the Presidential Inaugural Committee will host 10 official inaugural balls:

— Neighborhood Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.

— Obama Home States (Illinois and Hawaii) Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.

— Biden Home States (Pennsylvania and Delaware) Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.

— Midwest Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.

— Mid-Atlantic Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.

— Western Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.

— Commander in Chief’s Ball at the National Building Museum.

— Southern Inaugural Ball at the National Guard Armory.

— Eastern Inaugural Ball at Union Station.

— Youth Inaugural Ball at the Washington Hilton.

Unofficial balls include:

— Congressional Black Caucus Inaugural Ball at the Capitol Hilton.

— Creative Coalition Inaugural Ball at the Harman Center for the Arts.

— Recording Industry Association of America’s ball for Feeding America.

— BET’s Inaugural Ball at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel.

— Africa on the Potomac inaugural celebration at Crystal Gateway Marriott in Arlington, Va.

— American Music Inaugural Ball at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel.

— Inaugural Purple Ball at the Fairmont Hotel.

— Human Rights Campaign’s Equality Ball at the Renaissance Mayflower Hotel.

— Inaugural Peace Ball at the Smithsonian National Postal Museum.

— Impact Film Fund ball.

Mr. Wolf from Blackfive sends along this link to which Inaugural Balls Obama actually attended last night.

Source

Blackfive, which I read occasionally for military pieces, confirmed that President Obama did not come to the inaugural ball. So I became curious because the only two sources were two blogs and one source that consisted of initials. Therefore, I did what any rational person would do: I contacted the American Legion to get the straight story from the people who would know. I was put in contact with a very pleasant gentleman named Craig Roberts who is the American Legion's Media Relations Manager and after our conversation he e-mailed me this statement which I will include in its entirety:

In answer to your inquiry:

The American Legion, as it has on every inauguration evening since 1953, hosted the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Banquet & Ball on January 20th. The quadrennial event is co-sponsored with fourteen veterans service and military service organizations and honors recipients of the Medal of Honor. Forty-seven of these heroes attended this year’s event which was held in the Renaissance Washington DC Hotel.

President Obama was invited but did not attend. Vice-President Joe Biden did appear, however, and was very warmly received. The new President’s absence was understandable considering the unprecedented logistical challenges presented by the vastly increased number of visitors to this inauguration and the necessary attendant security measures. The American Legion, as an organization, does not feel offended or “snubbed.”

Thank you,

Craig Roberts

Media Relations Manager

The American Legion

1608 K Street, NW

Washington, DC 20006

202.263.2982 (direct)

First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Roberts for taking my call and taking the time to compose this statement so that I can share it on behalf of the American Legion. So to those fellow Obama supporters that think this ball did not happen, it did. It was omitted from the media outlets it was omitted from because of logistical challenges due to the extraordinary number of people that flooded Washington D.C. to see Barack Obama be inaugurated as the 44th president and it is not yet on the American Legion's website (as I type this at 8:30 A.M. on 1-23-09) because of some difficulties in updating the website. However, there will be media coverage of the event forthcoming.

I have found out also that the likely reason that Barack Obama attended the auxiliary balls that he did is because six of the balls that he attended were held in the same building. Therefore, attending those balls and the others that he attended were the most efficient with regards to security. It is no secret that President Obama has had questions surrounding his security, that is evident by observing that he was the earliest presidential candidate ever to get a security detail. If the Secret Service felt it prudent to guard him so early in the campaign can the reader imagine what the Secret Service feels is prudent now that he is the President of the United States?

The most likely reason that President Obama did not go to the "Salute to Heroes" inaugural ball is because it was held in the Renaissance Hotel which consists of 16 floors. There was an event called the "Illinois Party - Presidential Event" held at the Renaissance the night before that the then-President-elect did not attend either (I have a call in to the President's press office asking for confirmation of this information which was given to me by one of my sources for this story). Given the amount of time and resources it would have taken to clear a 16 floor hotel as well as protect it while President Obama was inside, I can only guess that he was advised by his Presidential Protection Detail not to attend either inaugural ball because of the building and the inherent problems in securing and then protecting it. The sheer number of people crowding the streets and staying in the hotel surely presented a formidable screening problem as well. But, there's your story... it's not as sexy as "Barack Obama Hates The Military" but it is the truth as best I can tell after talking to the organization responsible for hosting the event and doing some research and educated guesswork about why a security team wouldn't want to protect a principal in the Renaissance with more than 2 million extra people in Washington D.C.

Update: It would appear that, according to Stars & Stripes that Obama had some Medal of Honor recipients at an inaugural ball that he attended. This gives the number of living Medal of Honor recipients as 99, but I believe that two have passed away since that number was compiled leaving 97. There are 7 in this picture and there were 47 at the American Legion inaugural event. I'm curious if there were more at the event this photo was taken at.

Further update: I received an e-mail from Mr. Roberts today (which I would have gotten yesterday if I had not miscommunicated my e-mail address to him) with his original statement along with a new statement. I will include both statements in their entirety:

My statement on behalf of our National Adjutant, Dan Wheeler:

"The American Legion, as it has on every inauguration evening since 1953, hosted the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Banquet & Ball on January 20th . The quadrennial event is co-sponsored by fourteen veterans service and military service organizations and honors recipients of the Medal of Honor. Forty-seven of these heroes attended this year's event. President Obama was invited but did not attend. Vice-President Joe Biden did appear, however, and was very warmly received. From The American Legion's point of view, the new President's absence was understandable considering the unprecedented logistical challenges presented by the vastly increased number of visitors to this inauguration and the necessary attendant security measures. The National Adjutant of The American Legion states that, as an organization, The Legion does not feel offended or "snubbed" by the President's failure to appear."

Mr. Wheeler's message as of noon today (January 26):

"We extended an invitation as we always do. There are numerous Balls and we know he can't attend them all. Of course, we would have loved for him to make an appearance, but he didn't. It's a logisticalnightmare. He did meet with the troops at the Commander In Chief's Ball, and we are grateful for that. Our Ball wasn't about the President; it was about the Medal of Honor recipients and the veterans and families who were there. We are grateful that the Vice President appeared, and our guests were very appreciative.

"That having been said, there are much more important issues to dwell on, which we intend to do. We look forward to working with the new administration on ensuring full and guaranteed funding for VA health care services, and the very best treatment for our service people who have been wounded, and on the quality of life of all members of the Armed Forces and their families, as well as the maintenance of a national security force that will deter any enemy from considering an attack on America."
    

Now, what Americans need to understand is that that means every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina and our tax cuts, Clinton added. We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don't think it makes any sense. I think it's wrong.

Clinton also discussed bringing world leaders together to combat the world's chronic problems — including extreme poverty, global warming and religious conflicts — as well as the Hurricane Katrina recovery effort and Hillary Clinton's political future.

The interview follows:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. President, good to see you again.

FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you, George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We're here on your initiative, and I want to talk about that, but let's begin with Katrina. President Bush has brought you into the recovery effort, but he's not taking all of your advice. You say roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy. He says no tax increase of any kind. We're spending $5 billion a month in Iraq, probably $200 billion on Katrina. Something's got to give.

CLINTON: Well, that's what I think. I think this idea — I think it's very important that Americans understand, you know, tax cuts are always popular, but about half of these tax cuts since 2001 have gone to people in my income group, the top 1 percent. I've gotten four tax cuts.

They're responsible for this big structural deficit, and they're not going away, the deficits aren't. Now, what Americans need to understand is that that means every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina and our tax cuts. We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The president is not going to move. What do Democrats do?

CLINTON: They should continue to oppose it, and they should make it an issue in the 2006 election, and they should make it an issue in the 2008 election. And they should hope, to goodness, for the sake of our country, that the cows don't come home before we have time to rectify it.

I mean, sooner or later, just think what would happen if the Chinese — We're pressing the Chinese now, a country not nearly rich as America per capita, to keep loaning us money with low interest to cover my tax cut, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Katrina and at the same time to raise the value of their currency so their imports into our country will become more expensive, and our exports to them will become less expensive. And by the way, we don't want to let them buy any oil companies or anything like that.

So what if they just got tired of buying our debt? What if the Japanese got tired of doing it? Japan's economy is beginning to grow again. Suppose they decided they wanted to keep some of their money at home and invest it in Japan, because they're starting to grow?

We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don't think it makes any sense. I think it's wrong.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is there anything coming out of this initiative here that you can apply directly to Katrina and the poverty we saw revealed there?

CLINTON: Oh, yes, we have raised quite a bit of money for Katrina here. And former President Bush and I, you know, we were asked to raise money. We already have $90 million to $100 million. And what we're trying to do is make sure that our money goes directly to the poorest people who have been dislodged by working with church groups and others. We're working on some mechanisms now to do that, and we'll have some announcements in the next week or so.

But I think there will be a lot of money coming forward from the federal government. A lot of it will be necessary, you know, to build the infrastructure, rebuild the fabric of life and not simply in New Orleans but along the Gulf Coast.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The Gulf Coast.

CLINTON: Yes; you know, keep in mind, Mississippi was devastated. Everything from a mile in Mississippi was blown down, and Alabama, but we've got to do that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Excuse me; the problems of race that were tied to poverty here, and I know you don't think there's any conscious racism at play in the response, but we saw one more time blacks and whites looked at this event through very different eyes. What can President Bush do about that, and looking back, do you think there was anything more you could have done as president?

CLINTON: Well, I think we did a good job of disaster management.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the racial divide.

CLINTON: Well, I think we did a good job of that. For example, we had the lowest African-American unemployment, the lowest African-American poverty rate ever recorded. We had the highest homeownership, highest business ownership, and we moved 100 times as many people out of poverty in eight years as had been moved out in the previous 12 years.

This is a matter of public policy, and whether it's race-based or not, if you give your tax cuts to the rich and hope everything works out all right, and poverty goes up, and it disproportionately affects black and brown people, that's a consequence of the action made. That's what they did in the '80s; that's what they've done in this decade.

As much as you want to blame Bill Clinton......don't forget who held the reins for the last 8 years......who let them run amuck? Why was nothing done?

Check out the mortgage failures.
Tell me which failed more, prime or subprime
Tell me what is the rate of failures under the CRA or even Bush's ADDI (which i attack alll the time)
Once again, REALITY AND THE DATA doesn't fit ya'lls claims.

Basically what happened was.. we reformed bankruptcy laws.. so that people who ran into dire straights could not restructure.

We packaged the loans into commodity derivatives. These are sorta mirror bets on the loans. Sorta..as the same loan will be sold many times in many derivative packages.. that's why the housing derivatives are worth more than all the real estate in the US. Derivatives are actually not that bad.. when a market is stable and only has to deal with natural forces. The housing market was bubbled.. partially due to low interest rates that encouraged everyone to buy, even the rich, and partially due to the CRA and the ADDI.. which did add customers to the market (helping form the bubble was the extent the CRA and the ADDI had in this mess)

All it took was a few failures to pop the bubble..and make real estate prices drop,. and mind you, it was mainly prime loans (READ not loans given to poor people and not loans under the CRA) that failed. The derivative market.,.which like I said, is really mirrors of the same loans.. cause the defaults to explode with ten times the ferocity, because one loan could effect the price of dozens of derivatives.

Really the poor and even irresponsible people .. simply did not have the economic ability to cause this mess. Pool all their money together and waste it on hookers.. it would have zero effect without help from the rich elites and their magnifying packaged derivatives.

THE CRA and ADDI both had stricter requirements than loans you got from normal banks.. both required income data.. where many prime loans did not.. they also greatly limited you on how much home you could purchase..whereas private banks did not care if you tried to buy something you could not afford.
Don't believe me?.. Look in the phone book.. call your own housing authority - you can get a loan for 106% the purchase price of a home even today.. if you're poor enough.
 

Ask to hear the red tape and hoops you must go through.. Heck, it is probably easier to just get a real job and earn real money than go through the FHA.

Please share who they really are, since you seem to know.  I've been following this board for 4 years or so and I surely don't know who this poster is.  Whoever they are, though, they speak the truth about your postings, Observer.  You are not always the "lively" debater you claim to be when you utilize sarcasm, accusation and put-down so frequently.

I do notice that the posters from the Conservative board repeatedly accuse the posters on the Liberal board as all being the same person.  Dream on.

the same talking points.

x

I did it once and I was crucified for it.  Won't do it again.  Truthfully, and this is not meant to be mean, I don't think I would have much in common with most on this board at all. 

.

Disclaimer:  It will probably not appeal to the McCain supporters, so need for you make snarky remarks about it. 

I don't even know how I ended up at this site, but it has so many topics on it, instead of recommending a link just to one or two, I'll give the whole page.  Be sure to scroll down. 

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/ (although I don't consider myself a 'wonk' LOL)

Try the home page too:

http://thinkprogress.org/

One of my favorite political websites, that I've been going to every day (and causing me to spend far less time on this board) is Talking Points Memo:  http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Would anyone else like to share their favorite websites that are lib or nonpartisan?  TIA

Bush made frequent use of "signing statements" in order to get what he wanted, and not all of them were publicized at the time.  He would sign the bill and then add a little "P.S." that basically nullified it if Bush so chose.

If this vehicle is available to Obama, as well, then we may not know it for a while.

Some would see this as political from the get-go.  They would read this and dismiss it saying, oh those stupid Republicans.  It has not penetrated some of their conscious or subconscious thinking that there really is more to this than politics.  The stakes are more than high.  Historically, Muslims spread Islam barbarically and without mercy and were ony stopped from taking Europe by the Crusades.  They are ready to spread again, only this time, it is the United States they have their eyes on.  I found this article that I believe illustrates not only what will happen, but has a good understanding of what is happening now.

Preventing a Premature Exit From Iraq
By Ed Feulner
CNSNews.com Commentary
October 19, 2006

BAGHDAD (Jan. 21, 2009) -- Iraq's bloody civil war worsened today, when 10,000 heavily armed troops from the Shiite state of Shiastan pushed north from Najaf and Rumaythah. The attack threatened to trap three battalions of U.S.-backed Sunnis in the region.

The latest round of fighting has triggered a new wave of refugees into Kuwait and Jordan, the United Nations reported today. Millions of Iraqis have fled the country since American troops pulled out in 2006, a controversial withdrawal that al Qaeda celebrates as a watershed victory.

Word of today's offensive pushed crude oil prices to $210 per barrel, a new record, certain to cause problems for the newly inaugurated American president ...

All right, enough with the doom and gloom. The preceding paragraphs are fiction, but they reflect what's likely to happen if the United States pulls out of Iraq before the country is stabilized and able to function on its own. Unfortunately, some of our politicians want to do exactly that.

We believe that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin before the end of 2006, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid wrote in a letter both signed in August. Even if our task there remains unfinished?

As President Bush put it on Oct. 11, when you pull out before the job is done, that's cut and run as far as I'm concerned. And that's cut and run as far as most Americans are concerned.

Heritage Foundation experts James Carafano and James Phillips explained in a recent paper what's likely to happen if we withdraw quickly. Such a shortsighted U.S. policy would be a severe blow to the Iraqi security situation, Iraqi oil exports, U.S. allies in the region, the global war against terrorism and the future of all Iraqis, they write.

If we leave now, we'd leave the Iraqi army (with all its heavy weapons) up for grabs. That's likely to spark a civil war, as soldiers align themselves into religious and regional militias.

Under that scenario, we can expect Iran -- already a regional power -- to support the Shiite Muslims in the south, a move that would give Tehran control of most of Iraq's oil. Not that this would necessarily keep the oil flowing; as the civil war escalated, guerrillas would cut pipelines and blow up oil wells.

Right now, Iraq produces 2.5 million barrels of oil per day, and the country's government aims to increase that to 2.7 MBD by year's end. If production is disrupted, though, worldwide prices would skyrocket.

If we cut and run, Iraqi civilians would be the biggest losers. Millions would flee the starvation, disease and destruction that civil war brings. Meanwhile, al Qaeda would tout its role in forcing the U.S. out, providing a huge recruiting boom for the terrorist group.

This doesn't mean we should stay indefinitely. As they say, there are only two exit strategies from any war: A country can win and go home, or it can lose and go home. Either way, all our troops eventually will exit Iraq. What really matters is what they leave behind.

We've made progress in Iraq, and we'll continue to do so. Many of al Qaeda's senior leaders have been killed or captured and the group's popularity among the Iraqis is low. We need to keep training Iraqi forces and preparing them to stand on their own.

In the long run, only Iraqis can assure the success of Iraq. But if, in the short run, we cut and run, we guarantee failure -- for them and for us. We can avoid the bleak future outlined above. But we must steel our resolve to get the job done right.

(Ed Feulner is the president of The Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based public policy research institute.