Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Integrity

I came across this news story this morning. I think it illustrates perfectly what I've been saying all along.

"Thirty-six hours after ex-president Bill Clinton bashed and trashed his son on everything from his handling of the Hurricane Katrina crisis to the Iraq war, former president George H.W. Bush says he still likes Clinton.
Appearing during commercial breaks on ABC's "Monday Night Football," the president's father was asked how he and Clinton managed to get along.

"I like him," Bush 41 said, despite the verbal thrashing Clinton administered to his son on ABC's "This Week" the day before.

Given two more opportunities to comment on his relationship with Clinton, Bush Sr. declined to say a single negative word about his successor.

Mr. Clinton, on the other hand, demonstrated no such graciousness when asked on Sunday about the Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina."


Both Bush 41 and his son have integrity.

Clinton bashes Bush. Kerry bashes Bush. Former President Carter bashes Bush.

"Given two more opportunities to comment on his relationship with Clinton, Bush Sr. declined to say a single negative word about his successor."

See the difference?

Do you think maybe the 2 Bushes don't have reason to bash Clinton? Has Clinton always conducted himself with decorum and grace? How about Kerry?

Remember the 2004 Presidential campaign? Who was slinging the mud and who was talking about the issues?

Think hard.

When the 527 groups were squabbling with each other, Kerry went right along with the accusations that Bush had gone AWOL from the national guard during Vietnam.

Bush praised Kerry's service in Vietnam and thanked him for his service, while publicly rebuking the very 527 groups that were attacking Kerry on his behalf.

See the difference?

Now George W. Bush has twice enlisted the aid of Bill Clinton to help with recovery efforts in the wake of the Tsunami and hurricane Katrina, without having to remind the world that Clinton committed perjury while in office, which was an impeachable offense.

No, Bush has had nothing to say about Clinton that isn't positive.

What a stark contrast! Do you know what the real difference is?

What is it called when someone steadfastly refuses to bash the ones who bash him out of respect and courtesy?

It's called integrity.

25 comments:

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

And having class.

Toad734 said...

I think the real lesson here is that it's just really easy to bash Bush.

Erudite Redneck said...

Clinton shows respect for PEOPLE, but feels no compunction about tearing into the most inept presidential administration since Grant's. He speaks truth to power, which is more -- way more -- than can be said about anyone in the White House today. Hell, Hoover failed in the face of the Depression -- but at least he did so on principle.

--ER

Mark said...

It's easy to bash anybody, Toad. What is hard is to have class and integrity.

I see you always take the easy road.

Dang, that was too easy!

jgaoehals14962 said...

Mark,
I had something wonderful to say, but then I read ER's comment and it's causing me to stoop to the level of Clinton/Carter/Kerry... You have to hand it to ER, he certainly has a way with pushing our buttons. :)

OK, back to my Bible study... O, that was it...
Romans 12:19ff Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is MIne, I will repay," say the Lord. "But if your enemy is hungry, feed, him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but over come evil with good.

I think Bush 41 is living that out. Which is a reminder that we too should do likewise.
God bless

Erudite Redneck said...

Interesting. If that verse had anything to do with the topic. Criticism ain't hate. It's American.

--ER

jgaoehals14962 said...

The point of the verse is that they do not respond to the criticism, which I feel is baseless, because they know that there is One in whom they trust more than themselves to get even, so to speak. They are rising above the criticism, again, which I think is baseless, and showing their fruits by showing kindness to those who are their enemies.

Another way to understand it is why should Bush 41 respond at all? It would do no good but stir up more criticism. It would bring him down to the level of Clinton, Carter and Kerry, etc. BTW, it wasn't until Clinton got out of office that ex-presidents started bashing sitting presidents. Former presidents tended to act in a gentlemanly manner towards those in office. Wait, the recent attacks by former presidents didn't start with Clinton, they actually started with Carter towards Clinton. But the point is that they usually and respectfully delcined to enter into the fight.

FrenziedFeline said...

Ditto to what Wordsmith said.

I beg to differ with ER. The type of criticism going on is out of hate. (Maybe not for him, though.) Personally, it's been enough to almost make me swear off political discussions any longer. I just don't have the energy to keep screaming into the wind. I'll stick with ER's (and others lefties') generic posts. ;)

Jaymeister said...

How about comparing apples to apples? Has Clinton said anything negative toward Bush 41 during their recent partnership? No, he hasn't. Plus, I do remember Bush 41 saying some unkind things about Clinton and Gore during the 2000 campaign. So neither of them is above politicking, and both have shown respect for each other in recent times. Those are the only criteria you can use for comparison.

Jaymeister said...

Check this out for instances of Bush 41 criticism of Clinton.

Jaymeister said...

Oops. Let me try this again.

Mark said...

Yes, how about comparimg apples to apples? I said George W Bush doesn't bash Clinton. I never said George H W Bush didn't.

Clinton bashed George W.

George W. has not bashed Clinton in fact, he has complimented him in asking that he align with his father for help in the current crisis in the Gulf.

When I daid Bush Sr. declined to say a negative word about Clinton, I am quoting the news article in reference to the current relationship between the two. Not the past.

Jaymeister said...

Sigh.
I was hoping I wouldn't have to spell it out for you like this, but apparently I do:

Bush 41, upon leaving office, criticized the current president of the time (Clinton). Clinton, upon leaving office, criticizes the current president (Bush 43). That's a wash.

Neither Bush 41 nor Clinton are saying anything bad about each other at the present time. That's a wash.

W, as president, isn't bashing his predecessor (Clinton). But Clinton, while president, didn't bash his predecessor (Bush 41). That's a wash.

As for W. and Kerry, remember that the president has plenty of people to do his bidding for him so he can keep above the fray. The 2008 election will be more of a test case to compare campaign tactics, since there won't be incumbents involved.

Francis Lynn said...

Dems show no dignity, no respect. No aplomb with Carter/Clinton. Dems are only good for potty mouth trashing.

tugboatcapn said...

The comparison is an easy one.

On the one side you have Statesmen and Gentlemen.

On the other side you have Politicians and Elitists who are losing their power and influence.

Hatred does not win elections, guys.

And hatred is not Americanism or Patriotism either.

tugboatcapn said...

Jay, what you guys don't seem to understand is this:

You have all screamed so loud and for so long about how dumb / evil /dishonest /misguided /corrupt/ugly /politically driven /uninformed /nasty /racist /uncaring /underhanded /stupid /misleading /hateful /warmongering /etc /ad nauseum President Bush is, that nobody who isn't screaming along with you can hear you anymore.

You are just becoming more and more ridiculous, and more and more irrellevant.

Erudite Redneck said...

Re, "On the one side you have Statesmen and Gentlemen."

Name some. I can't.

--ER

Mark said...

...or won't?

Jaymeister said...

Thanks, tugboatcapn, for addressing my point directly and engaging in dialogue rather than rhetoric. (sarcasm)

BRUISER said...

"George Bush Hates Facts People."

tugboatcapn said...

Jay, I neither adressed your point, nor engaged in rhetoric.

I made a point of my own.

And your little attempt at sarcasm was cute. Keep practicing and you may eventually get good at it!

Mark said...

Now that was funny Bruiser.

Mary said...

What I find particularly sleazy about Clinton's "criticism" is that it's not meant to be constructive. It's meant to be destructive.

He's not speaking out for the sake of the country. He's speaking out to satisfy his own selfish needs.

He has a legacy to protect...I mean, create. Clinton wants to elevate his place in history by tearing down W., as well as aid Hillary.

Other former presidents have been far more restrained when it comes to criticizing their predecessors because they put country ahead of themselves.

Clinton's behavior is unseemly. Same old, same old.

Anonymous said...

Jesus loves you Bruiser!

Erudite Redneck said...

OK. Here's one: Colin Powell. And he's been shamefully treated.

So, you got me. BushCo. has one statesman-gentleman.

--ER