Bill Clinton Rescues US Journalists in North Korea

[moelarrycheese 0]

Way to go president Bill!

[William33 110]

How much money was transferred for their release? Or do we actually believe that numb nuts (Kim Jong Il, who is actually ill ) needed a "state level visit" to do the right thing?

Either way, I am happy for the outcome.

[GaryC 7]

[William33 110]

[mendeleev 68]

Thank God. Good work President Clinton!

i thought obama was president

So you concur that President Obama was born in the US and is the current President? That's change I can live with.

I made a mistake in protocol. Evidently he should be referred to as Governor Clinton?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ess=104x2340220

I believe it is not improper to refer to a former President as President. Good job slick Willy!

not true.....

This approach is traditional for every office for which there is only one office-holder at a time. So, witth officials such as Mayors, Governors or Presidents ... only the current office holder is addressed as Mr. Mayor, Governor, or Mr. President ... formers are not officially addressed that way.

That's not to say that a friend might not call a former Mayor "Mayor Smith" unofficially, socially, and as a courtesy ... but officially it would be incorrect.

With offices there are many at the same time ... Senators, Admirals, Judges, etc. ... and so it's not disrespectful to a single current office holder.

To explain the correct form I would say "using the title of her former position is flattering to the former official and he or she may not correct you, but not respectful to the current office holder. There's only one "(name of the office)" at a time."

-- Robert Hickey

Former Presidents of the United States are directly addressed as "Mr. (Name)", not as "President (name)", and they are identified as "the former President of the United States".

You will hear the media say "President Clinton" so the listener can be clear who is being discussed.

"The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton" .... is correct when you are using the FULL NAME in writing because once elected, officials are addresses as "The Honorable" for life. And that's the correct form for formal introduction -- like from a podium before his speech to the audience -- but you wouldn't address him that way in conversation.

-- Robert Hickey

link

Tricky ####### demanded and got called President Nixon through the Frost interviews! Gerald Ford was routinely called President Ford in the news media until he died ...

[Marilyn. 340]

http://www.hulu.com/watch/87467/nbc-today-...to-clinton-team

(vid will only work in the US)

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Thank God. Good work President Clinton!

i thought obama was president

So you concur that President Obama was born in the US and is the current President? That's change I can live with.

I made a mistake in protocol. Evidently he should be referred to as Governor Clinton?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ess=104x2340220

I believe it is not improper to refer to a former President as President. Good job slick Willy!

not true.....

This approach is traditional for every office for which there is only one office-holder at a time. So, witth officials such as Mayors, Governors or Presidents ... only the current office holder is addressed as Mr. Mayor, Governor, or Mr. President ... formers are not officially addressed that way.

That's not to say that a friend might not call a former Mayor "Mayor Smith" unofficially, socially, and as a courtesy ... but officially it would be incorrect.

With offices there are many at the same time ... Senators, Admirals, Judges, etc. ... and so it's not disrespectful to a single current office holder.

To explain the correct form I would say "using the title of her former position is flattering to the former official and he or she may not correct you, but not respectful to the current office holder. There's only one "(name of the office)" at a time."

-- Robert Hickey

Former Presidents of the United States are directly addressed as "Mr. (Name)", not as "President (name)", and they are identified as "the former President of the United States".

You will hear the media say "President Clinton" so the listener can be clear who is being discussed.

"The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton" .... is correct when you are using the FULL NAME in writing because once elected, officials are addresses as "The Honorable" for life. And that's the correct form for formal introduction -- like from a podium before his speech to the audience -- but you wouldn't address him that way in conversation.

-- Robert Hickey

link

Tricky ####### demanded and got called President Nixon through the Frost interviews! Gerald Ford was routinely called President Ford in the news media until he died ...

Charles is just in love with Ms. Manners.

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

At a luncheon, I noticed that several people called Mr. Nixon "President Nixon." Because this is an election year, I'm sure there are people who would like to know the correct way to address an ex-president.

Gentle Reader:

Yes, and some of them are probably running for office.

The rule is that there is only one president of the United States at a time; therefore, the title does not accompany anyone out of office. Many lesser titles do, however, so a former president generally uses his last such title. The proper address is Senator Nixon, as it is Governor Reagan and Governor Carter.

So why do we seem to have so many Mr. Presidents running around?

Miss Manners ...

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1030916.html

I agree former president is technically correct, but pretty damn picky, and I would address any living former president as President Bush, President Bush Lite, President Carter, President Clinton et al as such if I ever met any of them in person.

[Ban Hammer 13,366]

Tricky ####### demanded and got called President Nixon through the Frost interviews! Gerald Ford was routinely called President Ford in the news media until he died ...

so?

I agree former president is technically correct, but pretty damn picky, and I would address any living former president as President Bush, President Bush Lite, President Carter, President Clinton et al as such if I ever met any of them in person.

then you can enjoy being wrong

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Thank God. Good work President Clinton!

i thought obama was president

So you concur that President Obama was born in the US and is the current President? That's change I can live with.

I made a mistake in protocol. Evidently he should be referred to as Governor Clinton?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ess=104x2340220

I believe it is not improper to refer to a former President as President. Good job slick Willy!

I think the captured journalists in questions referred to him that way in a news interview - Bill should have demanded they spend 6 months in the hard labor camp for such an inexcusable breach of protocol

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Charles Krauthammer is convinced the release of Euna Lee and Laura Ling from North Korea came with a high price. He doesn't have any proof, evidence, or anything substantive to bolster his claims, but Krauthammer nevertheless feels comfortable drawing conclusions about the negotiations.

"Well, it's the return of hostages in exchange for stuff. And we will learn about that stuff.... There probably was an apology [offered by President Clinton in Pyongyang]. [...] "[T]here was obviously a quid pro quo.... [North Korea] probably has gotten stuff that we haven't even heard about and we may never hear about -- aid in food and oil. All of that stuff will happen quietly in the future. "But it was a hostage ransom. No question at all."

Now, I'm not in a position to know what, exactly, was involved in the closed-door negotiations. Neither is Krauthammer -- he used the word "probably," shortly before making categorical observations about "obvious" events he insists happened, just because he says so.

North Korea and Krauthammer have said there was an apology involved; Obama administration officials said there was no apology. In a fairly short segment, Krauthammer used the word "stuff" four times -- reinforcing the notion that he's making observations without any real evidence -- but the official reports suggest he's wrong.

Either way, I was thinking along the same lines as Michael Crowley: "[A]t minimum, clearly we would have preferred not to give Kim what was undeniably a propaganda coup. But hostage negotiations are never easy, and I wonder whether Krauthammer -- were he in a position to free those women himself -- would simply let them rot. After all, even the right's cherished embodiment of American machismo, Ronald Reagan, was willing to trade arms for hostages."

Right. Krauthammer believes there's "no question" that yesterday was a "hostage ransom." There's no available evidence to suggest the U.S. paid a ransom, but if this is a point of concern for Krauthammer, the Iran-Contra Affair must make the Reagan administration look especially outrageous to the Right Wing columnist.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[Teacher Mark 53]

"[T]here was obviously a quid pro quo.... [North Korea] probably has gotten stuff that we haven't even heard about and we may never hear about -- aid in food and oil."

The nerve.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Mr. Saigon

[Craneman 2]

"[T]here was obviously a quid pro quo.... [North Korea] probably has gotten stuff that we haven't even heard about and we may never hear about -- aid in food and oil."

The nerve.

Were they not in Korea illegally?

Subject to Korean laws.

Our citizens in other countrys are not subject to local laws?

[chri'stina 190]

It's very good that this is the outcome.... But I can't help but wonder if the same effort would have been put into rescuing people that weren't employed by Al Gore. People with money and power obviously can get things done. I am very happy they were released but wonder about all the other Americans around the world held captive.

Edited August 6, 2009 by chri'stina

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Charles Krauthammer is convinced the release of Euna Lee and Laura Ling from North Korea came with a high price. He doesn't have any proof, evidence, or anything substantive to bolster his claims, but Krauthammer nevertheless feels comfortable drawing conclusions about the negotiations.

"Well, it's the return of hostages in exchange for stuff. And we will learn about that stuff.... There probably was an apology [offered by President Clinton in Pyongyang]. [...] "[T]here was obviously a quid pro quo.... [North Korea] probably has gotten stuff that we haven't even heard about and we may never hear about -- aid in food and oil. All of that stuff will happen quietly in the future. "But it was a hostage ransom. No question at all."

Now, I'm not in a position to know what, exactly, was involved in the closed-door negotiations. Neither is Krauthammer -- he used the word "probably," shortly before making categorical observations about "obvious" events he insists happened, just because he says so.

North Korea and Krauthammer have said there was an apology involved; Obama administration officials said there was no apology. In a fairly short segment, Krauthammer used the word "stuff" four times -- reinforcing the notion that he's making observations without any real evidence -- but the official reports suggest he's wrong.

Either way, I was thinking along the same lines as Michael Crowley: "[A]t minimum, clearly we would have preferred not to give Kim what was undeniably a propaganda coup. But hostage negotiations are never easy, and I wonder whether Krauthammer -- were he in a position to free those women himself -- would simply let them rot. After all, even the right's cherished embodiment of American machismo, Ronald Reagan, was willing to trade arms for hostages."

Right. Krauthammer believes there's "no question" that yesterday was a "hostage ransom." There's no available evidence to suggest the U.S. paid a ransom, but if this is a point of concern for Krauthammer, the Iran-Contra Affair must make the Reagan administration look especially outrageous to the Right Wing columnist.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

That's the only way to wring controversy out of that story - OMG, we shouldn't have negotiated with that terrorist regime! Oh the irresponsibility!!!

They really need some new contributors on Fox News - the people they have now are either - Vicious (Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter), out of date (Krauthammer) or using every story as a springboard to shill for book sales (####### Morris).