I see your "Bush failing to secure the border" and I'll raise you one "Putz's Ice Cream" sign.
What a disappointment is/was GWB.
Posted on 11/14/2014 8:41:20 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Bill Clinton did it to Bush. He should be returning the favor.
Very true! 100% right
He could criticize without going into detail. ‘This president is not bad except he wipes with the Constitution.’,says former president Bush.
When the current occupant undermines the office so severely, not criticizing him is a far greater means of undermining that office than criticizing him.
I see your "Bush failing to secure the border" and I'll raise you one "Putz's Ice Cream" sign.
What a disappointment is/was GWB.
When was that? Sources, please.
+1.
That was his problem, he never fought back when the Democrats attacked him.
George Bush has personal integrity up to a point but he also laid the groundwork for Obama. Bush reportedly dissed the Constitution as a barrier to his expanded government programs and greased the skids for Obama.
Failing to criticize unconstitutional federal acts that harm America is misguided IMO. Criticizing the acts of those holding the office of President, Congress, or the Supreme Court does not “harm” the office itself, but it helps the American People to take a more objective view of the acts of those that hold those positions.
After all, these people are working for the American People who should make every effort to verify and scrutinize and verify what those in these powerful offices are doing.
Bush’s emphasis is wrong by elevating the rule of man IMO. The thing that should be held sacred are not the acts of those in office, but the Constitution, America’s rule of law and only legal bulwark of freedom from tyranny.
While Bush is right in tradition, it is not unheard of to do so.
TR was notorious for speaking out against both Wilson and Taft. The later he ran against in 1912.
There was a former president (name completely escapes me) that railed against Lincoln during the civil war in speeches.
Most of the rest did so only in private letters, only to be known after their deaths.
The existence of the Republic is in jeopardy. American citizens are frightened, angry and suffering. It’s his obligation to speak up.
What if Churchill never criticized Chamberlain.
His lack of defense of the war, and especially of our soldiers was despicable, and something America is still paying the price for that cowardice today.
Leaving soldiers, who he sent to war, to defend themselves is hardly classy. Closer to criminality.
“A man of class. . .”
We can all be comforted with that sentiment as we(he) allow our country to be deconstructed by Obama.
Not being seen with him or referring to him, IN ANY WAY, or even acknowledging he even exits speaks louder than not saying anything bad about him.
Amen to that.
Despite his latter day shortcomings, we went from W the ex-fighter jock and actual grownup, to a petulant little foreign traitor bitch on one disastrous day in '08.
Actually, absent Sarah, '08 was a gang rape of the American people by both political parties and the stupidest electorate on earth.
Or the facade of 'class' gives him perfect cover to not comment either way.
Is it just the President he excuses fro criticism? What about unconstitutional acts of Congress or the Supreme Court?
Again, Bush’s priorities are convoluted. We are a nation ruled by law not man. What should be revered aren’t the acts of fallible man, but the Constitution, our rule of law and only legal bulwark for protecting our God-gen freedoms from the tyranny of the the rule of man.
Does he really think that being “classy” will make Liberals hate him any less?
But there is no reason to suppose that a president who is acting in a domestic role should be above criticism. When he divides the spoils, when he distributes other people's wealth, when he decides that one race should be preferred over another, one sex over another, one class over another, one section of the country over another, he is nothing but a politician and should be so treated. In fact, the highest form of patriotism is to criticize a president when he is acting as a politician.
Even while acting as commander-in-chief, it is necessary for a healthy and effective military to criticize the president although it must be done in a respectful manner. There is no need to feign respect when criticizing a president for his domestic activities.
A president who is not being constantly criticized is a president who is likely to become a tyrant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.