GEORGE W. BUSH: This Is Why I Refuse To Criticize Obama

Business Insider ^ | 11/14/2014 | Colin Campbell

[SeekAndFind]

Former President George W. Bush has a simple explanation for why he almost never criticizes his successor: He feels it undermines the office of the presidency.

In an interview that aired Thursday night on Fox News' "Hannity," Bush insisted he would not attack President Barack Obama even though he continued to have strong opinions about national politics.

"I don't think it's good for the country to have a former president undermine a current president; I think it's bad for the presidency for that matter," Bush said, according to video posted by Mediaite.

[woofie]

I don’t think you will mind a link to an article critical of the Patriot Act in the Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/07/1214344/-Who-Stood-for-Constitutional-Liberties-and-Voted-Against-the-USA-PATRIOT-Act-in-2001#

From the above:

The USA PATRIOT Act passed the Senate by a vote of 98 to 1. Russ Feingold (D-WI), a strong civil libertarian who was unfortunately defeated in the 2010 election, was the sole opponent.

The bill passed the House by a vote of 357 to 66. Of the 66 constitutional defenders, 62 were Democrats, 3 were Republicans, and 1 was an Independent. Five of them—Tammy Baldwin, Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, Mark Udall, and Tom Udall—now serve in the Senate.
>>>>>

so I guess you can thank Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders for voting against it and the I guess the other 99 Senators and 357 Representatives who voted for it were also “statists” with G W Bush

[thorvaldr]

“so I guess you can thank Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders for voting against it and the I guess the other 99 Senators and 357 Representatives who voted for it were also “statists” with G W Bush”

You know that list had Mark Udall on it, right?
So you are going with some argument that, in general, politicians care about liberty and not just increasing the power of the state? You’re going to be pretty hard pressed to back that up. Find me some instances where the Washington insiders decided that reducing the scope and reach of government was the way to solve a problem.

[Toespi]

But when do decide that the Nation is larger than and outweighs, in importance, to the office of the Presidency?

[PieterCasparzen]

Both work for new world order, sticking to their respective playbooks.

[bert]

You are out of date, badly....

We are the GOPc, the conservative wing of the Republican party, that includes a vast spectrum of conservatives.

[minnesota_bound]

The democrats undermine the country day in and day out.
You could have stood up to them just once.

[First_Salute]

Bush has been obsessed with being labeled "meanspirited" but has no reluctance to bash conservatives.

Neither does he stand up for our Bill of Rights.

He was just to happy to crush the spirits of our neighbors who live along our borders and have kids in our military, fighting overseas ... by labeling us as "vigilantes" for our standing up - WITHOUT BUSH - to defend our land and principles of law.

The facts are, that Bush did almost NOTHING until the conservatives kicked his butt. On election night 2000, Bush wilted, and ONLY by the grass roots effort --- MUCH OF IT ROOTED HERE AT FREE REPUBLIC --- working around the clock, did Bush discover that *everybody else had not given up* ... as he was ready to ...

Later, when our kids were getting blown up in Iraq, we had to KICK BUSH in the butt until up-armored personnel carriers and vehicles finally were delivered.

Yet, Bush had to be KICKED IN THE BUTT again! To NOT QUIT on Iraq but increase --- "the surge" --- effort ... and no surprise, THEN, we actually began to gain ground in Iraq *years* after Bush had prematurely declared some "victory."

Maybe it's a good thing that Bush *is* keeping his mouth shut during The Regime of The One. As in, we may be, being spared from a bigger problem.

Still, it would be nice for Bush to at least stand up for our Bill of Rights and for our property rights and for principles.

[First_Salute]

There was no need at all for the Patriot Act.

A need for organizing for war, does not mean an attending need to establish a gigantic police state organ, mindless of the consequences if that police state organ is overtaken for Marxist-Leninist purposes ... which it has.

[Hot Tabasco]

Or course a statist would say that it’s bad to criticize the government.

NO, that's not what he said........But then again, it's obvious you wouldn't recognize class if it hit you in the ass...........

[Hot Tabasco]

Seems only fair to defend yourself.

For what purpose and to change whose minds? Libtards will forever hate him as they do Reagan and you won't change the minds of folks around here who hate him too.....

What's that old saying about wrestling with pigs?

History will sort things out and in the end, I'm confident Bush will come out on top.........

[alstewartfan]

Behind the scenes, Bush was furious when the conservatives and the people originally torpedoed TARP. I don’t remember exactly when, but Bush expressed at some point that conservatives cannot be satisfied.
Face it, the guy was an internationalist and progressive, and his failure to defend himself brought us Maobama. He didn’t defend the border guards or the Haditha 8. I do believe that he loves American troops in general, but when the going got tough, he abandoned the Haditha 8, not to mention Ramos and Compean. And he didn’t pardon Scooter Libby. Progressive legacy would not be kind, I suppose. I am sure that his wife had much to do with his Presidency turning into a disaster. Bob

[exit82]

Mr. Bush, likewise it is not good for a current President to constantly criticize a former President.

It’s bad enough you did not fight back at all during your eight years a President, but it is worse that you let Obama run all over you for the last six years when you were no longer in office.

How about you speak up now, since Obama is openly trying to ruin the country?

[huldah1776]

I think he does believe history will redeem him. The election did, and so will 2016 because these numbnuts in the administration are hell bent on destroying the nation and it is crunch time. I just hope Congress has a couple of visionaries who will be able to counter their plans before execution to minimize the consequences.

Speaking of which. Someone has to warn the Hispanic/Latino population that they are not all going to get social security numbers. We don’t need riots all over the place. Ferguson will be enough.

[Wuli]

As former Presidents, Bush 41 and Bush 43 are class acts compared to Carter and Clinton.

I can’t go look it up, but not long ago a columnist wrote an article about Truman and his attitude of how former presidents should conduct themselves. He was 180 degrees distant from any Democrat president who followed him, in his attitudes about presidential conduct, in and after their time in office. In that area he was the last Democrat president with class.

[huldah1776]

Well, I can see why he is not defending himself but since this administration took over, our military has felt betrayed and that they fought and died for nothing (which is not true in the eternal sense). Their rules of engagement were established during Bush and this current administration is stabbing them in the back on their out. He should defend his military at the least and admit Petraeus’ Coin strategy doesn’t add up.

[huldah1776]

Betrayal. Leaving them to bear the burden of this current administration’s absolute disdain has wounded them and we are losing them.

[huldah1776]

Will his silence be regarded as acquiescence in God’s eyes?

[nathanbedford]

As one who lives in Germany, I can tell you that the predilection of the people here to despise George Bush as a "cowboy" or as a barely literate American Neanderthal has only been confirmed by his silence. That means the world was ready to give Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize for being not George Bush which was easily recognized because he was black.

So Obama went around the world confirming what my neighbors here in Germany had always believed, that George Bush was dangerous, that he reflected the dangerous side of America, that America can't be trusted (there is a real movement here now to align with Putin) and that Iraq proves everything they always suspected.

The president the United States had a duty to defend his country and he has no right to shirk that duty just because his name is attached to policy. To put this in context, however, Bush's sins in this regard were those of omission while Obama's are clearly those of commission.