Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Bush, Clinton appear on stage together in Canada

World May. 30, 2009 - 02:16PM JST ( 16 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

16 Comments

0

teleprompterMay. 30, 2009 - 04:49PM JST

I reckon most true Canadians like Bush.

Clinton is more Quebecois you could say.
0

jonnyboyMay. 30, 2009 - 04:53PM JST

a lot of americans don't seem to realise how overwhelmingly popular clinton was (and still is) overseas
0

teleprompterMay. 30, 2009 - 04:57PM JST

a lot of americans don't seem to realise how overwhelmingly popular clinton was (and still is) overseas

I was in Japan for much of his presidency. Among the expat community where I am America was just as despised (envied) as ever. That was the pre-Internet era. I think his dog got more ink than any European politician did.
0

some14someMay. 30, 2009 - 05:12PM JST

I reckon most true Canadians like Bush.

and not so true Canadian were protesting and throwing shoes at Bush's posters and chanting Jail George Bush?
0

teleprompterMay. 30, 2009 - 05:35PM JST

“Nothing I am saying is meant to criticize my successor,” Bush said. “There are plenty of people who have weighed in. Trust me, having seen it first-hand. I didn’t like it when a former president criticized me, so therefore I am not going to criticize my successor. I wish him all the best.”

Class act. Puts Dems like Carter to shame.
0

MadvertsMay. 30, 2009 - 06:05PM JST

Heh.....it, was a career decision.
0

HopflyMay. 30, 2009 - 06:59PM JST

" It's one of the two or three greatest regrets of my presidency."

I'll bet another one is getting caught with monica.
0

SuperLibMay. 30, 2009 - 07:17PM JST

Clinton said the U.S. could have saved 250,000 or 400,000 of the 800,000 people who died had he sent about 20,000 troops.

Maybe. But Clinton would also have to deal with an airstrike or two going astray. Some wouldn't have defined the operation by hundreds of thousands saved, they would have defined it by a few hundred innocents killed, the fact that it's just another country the US invaded, the fact that the US used forced and didn't let diplomacy take it's course, etc. Maybe troops would still be there now so people would start talking about Vietnam, the cost of the operation, the distraction from other issues, etc.

It's easy to look back now and say, "we didn't do anything and hundreds of thousands of people died" but in reality doing something would change the situation to, "The US attacked and killed X number of people." Doing nothing doesn't get us involved with the blame game.
0

yabitsMay. 30, 2009 - 07:45PM JST

Some wouldn't have defined the operation by hundreds of thousands saved, they would have defined it by a few hundred innocents killed, the fact that it's just another country the US invaded, the fact that the US used forced and didn't let diplomacy take it's course, etc.

And some people are just so worried about what "some" others are going to say about it that they can't do the right thing. Fortunately, most real leaders are better than that. Once they collect enough of the facts, they don't sit around wringing their hands and worrying what their critics will say.

When the US military is used to do the right thing, as was done by GHW Bush in Somalia, Clinton in Kosovo and Haiti, and GWBush in Liberia and after the tsunami in Southeast Asia, criticism is muted at best.

Unfortunately, the US military has all too often been used to do some very wrong things.
0

Den DenMay. 30, 2009 - 07:49PM JST

Proof that both parties are the same. Different faces, but behind the scenes it is the same companies and country pulling the strings.
0

JoeBigsMay. 30, 2009 - 07:55PM JST

Den Den at 07:49 PM JST - 30th May Proof that both parties are the same. Different faces, but behind the scenes it is the same companies and country pulling the strings.

You are just figuring this out?LOL

BTW most ex-Presidents buddy up most of the time, they are in a very elite club.....
0

WolfpackMay. 31, 2009 - 01:03AM JST

It was a shame that Clinton was so consummed with anger after he left office that he continually sought to undermine President Bush. W will be a much more constuctive ex-President than Clinton and Carter ever were. He will not try to cling to the power he has lost. Clinton and Carter have never gotten over the fact that they aren't the most important people in the world anymore.
0

VORMay. 31, 2009 - 01:34AM JST

Both Bush and Clinton are no longer relevant. Who cares what they are doing? My gawd, is it really news these two are sharing the same stage for an evening?
0

SuperLibMay. 31, 2009 - 02:07AM JST

Yabits: When the US military is used to do the right thing, as was done by GHW Bush in Somalia, Clinton in Kosovo and Haiti, and GWBush in Liberia and after the tsunami in Southeast Asia, criticism is muted at best.

Most people know nothing about those engagements because they can't really blast the US. That's the way it works. I'm not saying that Clinton should have done nothing, just spelling it out in real terms about how it would have been presented.