The Roanoke Times: RoundTable

Comments

# 1

[March 27, 2008 1:53 PM]

Henry

Craig Livingstone was the head of White House Personnel Security under Clinton. His previous experience in security was working as a bouncer before he joined the Clinton campaign. Someone tesified they saw him entering FBI information about Congressmen into a laptop. When he was asked who hired him, he responded "I don't know. I just showed up for work". No one in the White House would admit to hiring him and he was the head of White House Personnel security. Rumors are that Hillary hired him but she refused to discuss it. That's a whole lot worse than the Pentagon hiring some guy in Florida for Afghanistan

NYT is hiding both of these stories behind a login so it can't be that devastating.

# 2

[March 27, 2008 2:08 PM]

Dan Radmacher

Henry,

How long has Clinton been out of office? When will the right quit excusing every screw up by the Bush administration with, "But Clinton did something even worse"?

# 3

[March 27, 2008 2:58 PM]

Henry

Isn't Hillary running for President? Did she hire Craig Livingstone? Did she know about the 100 FBI files that were reportedly entered into a laptop?

I doubt Bush even knows this guy and you are busting on Bush for not vetting him. But Hillary knew Craig Livingstone. Who vetted him?

Will you be this interested in this kind of minutia when Hillary takes office? Somehow I doubt you will even care who arms the Afghans then. It's not that big a deal. Many of the Clinton White House folks couldn't pass a security clearance. That stuff happens.

BTW Craig Livingstone is working as a limo driver in DC now. Go figure.

# 4

[March 27, 2008 3:21 PM]

Gary

On March 26 at 11:19 am Henry posted: "If you say it enough times, people might think it is true." He may keep trying, but I don't think he will ever convince me.

# 5

[March 27, 2008 7:40 PM]

C Ramsey

Dan,

I think think the point of Henry's post was not necessarily to excuse Bush, but to highlight how hypocritical the media is in it's criticisms. You lambaste Bush for any and every perceived mistep, no matter how minor or serious, yet during the eight years of a veritable circus under Clinton, you in the media spent your time defending him or ignoring misteps and misdeeds.

It's not so much the constant attacks on Bush that are offensive, for the true intent of those is fairly evident. What's offensive is the blatant hypocrisy of the media. Anything a Republican does is a capital offense, but anything a Democrat does is dismissed as minor or irrelevant.

Like or not, Clinton's inattention to foreign policy helped create the problems we now have. Yet to hear you tell it, world history and international relations started with the 2000 election. Everything is Bush's fault. He is evil, corrupt, etc. Yet despite his "obvious' disregard of the Constitution, despite his "illegal and unnecessary" war, he hasn't been impeached yet.

I don't agree with every step Bush has taken, but I also take issue with the morally bankrupt society that blossomed under Clinton's inattention.

Thanks to Clinton, lying under oath is now viewed as acceptable as long as the liar believes it is about an irrelevant or personal issue.

The health care crisis that the media blames on Bush exploded under Clinton, and despite eight years of Clintonian 'utopia' and countless campaign promises from then aspiring First-Lady Clinton, health care went unaddressed under Clinton.

Thanks to the uber-permissive liberal influence, there is now actually a market for over the counter paternity tests. How sad is that?

Clinton spends eight years gutting the military and now the media blames Bush because the military isn't equipped to fight wars on multiple fronts.

Again, attack Bush all you wish, but for professional integrity's sake, take the blinders off where Clinton is concerned. Besides, if the national DNC is any example, it's time to refocus your attacks. It seems like lately the Dems are content to spend their time attacking each other.

# 6

[March 27, 2008 8:13 PM]

Josh

Funny how Hillary can claim experience from her husband's administration except, of course, when she screwed up. Then, it's "Why do you have to talk about past administrations?"

# 7

[March 29, 2008 12:44 AM]

Mary

C. Ramsey: Thank you. I have wondered so often, "Does any one but me really remember the Clinton years?"

# 8

[March 30, 2008 11:01 AM]

Blue John

Does anyone but me remember who controlled congress during the Clinton years?

# 9

[March 30, 2008 1:26 PM]

Josh

Yes, I do remember, BlueJohn. It was the republicans; you know, the ones who forced Clinton to accept the economics packages he originally opposed, then later took credit for.

# 10

[March 30, 2008 2:29 PM]

Blue John

Clinton has been gone for seven plus years. Bush has been in charge with a republican controlled congress during this seven year period. My question is why is the country in the current financial crisis? And I don't want to hear about how well the economy is doing based on the stock markets and current interest rates.

# 11

[March 30, 2008 5:25 PM]

Henry

What financial crisis? That's just a bunch of campaign rhetoric. Look at the facts.

# 12

[March 30, 2008 7:27 PM]

Blue John

Who was it that said "It's the economy stupid"?