1. Quite nice, you noted the usage of "elected" and didn't start off with menial name calling and bitching about other presidents being impeached. I don't care about Monica Luinski it is just that he lied so thouroughly under oath and all the other shit he did, the worst of it has already been mentioned, giving weapons tech to China. I think he might have also given tech to North Korea to appease them but I'm not sure.

2. Bush is horrid, he hasn't done much but work on foreign policy in damnedest way and "take the wind out from the behind the sails" of the democrats by taking their issues and eventually being in 75% complience. Unfortunatly he is probably going to run again and most likely win, leaving '08 open for someone new, and my geuss is Hillary Clinton is going be the democratic candidate and she'll most likely win. I'm also geussing this book is for one purpose only, so when a tough question gets asked she can just say "I covered that in my book" and then act as if she is going to ignore to question to not waste americas time, because being a democrat...she cares!

3. As for the WMD, no one denies Saddam had it in large quantities, its just that we have yet to find it so maybe he actually was telling the truth when he said he didn't have it. So that leaves a few options, he flushed it all down the toilet and can't report it so he can avoid enviromentalists wrath, he hid it really well (UN confirmed two mobile weapon labs, we've also found nuclear weapon parts), or he sold it. In any case taking down Saddam and the Baath party was a very good thing, Saddam since we free his people, Baath Party since we remove any future threat that could have arrisen provided of course we fic Iraq correctly.

There is a big difference between using faulty intelligence and being less sure than you claim, and perjuring yourself in front of a grand jury. Then again, "politician" is synonymous with "crook" for the most part.

Seretogis beat me to the point: Clinton lied under oath, Bush just lied. Not all that uncommon for any politician. Then again, lying about whether a BJ was sex or not and lying about starting a war that killed civilians are different matters completly.

he should have never had to answer a question like that in front of a grand jury. that's just totally absurd. it was the repulblicans playing a game, and had nothing to do with the actual case.

i judge a prez by his comptetence in the whitehouse, not the bedroom.

If he didn't want to have to answer questions like that under oath, in front of a grand jury, he shouldn't have done it. :)

and go to jail?

200 U.S. soldiers did not die because Clinton lied about his cock.

I don't think you understand. If the cost of firing 1 missle could save 200 000 children in Africa, the cost of firing a few hundred in Iraq is ridiculous. You could save all of Africa. If you are looking at the "greater good", the war was not the best use of money.

I judge a president by his actions.

I agree, what he does in the (bed)room is his business, I won't judge his presidential quality on that, but that doesn't negate the fact he flat out lied about it with the same finesse as all the other bullshit, such as crying when he saw a black church being burnt down by racists. That ended up on the front page on a number of Newspapers in a severely promotional way.

So this war was a universally detestable 'thing' that was a direct result of a lie(s) from the big bad Bush?

That is an amazing article. Excellent read. I'm bookmarking that.

They have 15 billion dollars to spend thanks to your evil imperialistic leader, lets see if we can save all of Africa now (we can't/won't, I'll bet we don't even begin to make a dent in the problem that is Africa).

Now that Saddam is out of power, he won't be slaughtering his people, invading other countries, nuking Israel, and selling nukes to terrorists that he likely harbors, furthermore, we'll have a base in the middle east to secure oil pipelines, and help bring peace to the entire region itself. Then lets see how many people we save in Africa by giving them money to misuse, against the amount of people that would have died if we had not acted.

I'm voting for Clinton. Bush was never elected President...

can't read the whole thread so take my post with a grain of salt if you are so inclined.

bush, doing as well as anyone could with these situations
clinton, north korea, if you don't follow that, dont' even bother in this thread

Yes he was.

No actually he technically wasnt. Al Gore won the popular vote but after a long deliberation Florida (whos governor is GWB's brother Jeb Bush) decided to send their electoral college votes towards Bush so thats why he won. And i agree with this:

Clinton by a country mile.

Bush, and his idiotic entourage(?), are as scarey a sight in the pinacle of earthly power as any i've ever seen.

Last night in the Blair/Bush press conference... Goodness me...

Bush is _such_ a moron.

"These are bad people" - referring to the uncharged, untried prisoners held in _barbaric_ conditions on guantanamo(?) bay.

Fair, unbiased military tribunals anyone?

If this is what you really think, you need to read up on what happened.

Clinton is one of the best presidents ever. He deserved alot more blowjobs than he got.

Why the FUCK are people still arguing about Clinton?!! LIVE IN THE NOW! We've got problems with our CURRENT president. Focus on HIS dumb ass.

Clinton Sucks.
Bush sucks, but to a lesser extent.
When has the popular vote ever determined who was president?

I have to admit that if Gore were president, he would have caught Osama Bin Laden. All he would have to do is broadcast a speech of his throughout Afghanistan and bin Laden would have turned himself in from sheer boredom. :D

Clinton by far, even though he drifted to the right a wee bit.

The Mike Hersh article really sums up my long list of comparisons between Bush and Clinton. All else aside, Clinton was more a man of the people and a thinker. His greatest error, even though at most other times in history or in other nations of the world it wouldn't have been a big deal, was his sexual escapade while in the White House. Admittedly stupid. If you've read any of the biographies on Bush, you will be horrified at the contrast between these two men. As far as I'm concerned, the Bush presidency is really in the hands of Karl Rove.

I dislike Bush because he destroyed all the plans and programs Clinton pushed for. environment, education, social change, etc..

Bush's rating is ONLY up because in a bad situation he did what any president HAD to do!

Then you know so little of him I care not enough to aid you in any way but point you in the right direction.
www.teoma.com

Clinton. I don't give a shit if he lied. Wouldn't you lie at first if you were caught getting a blowjob from an intern? The economy was good when Clinton was in office. I could always find a job when I was in college. People blame him for the current economy. Thing is Bush is doing jack shit to fix it.

Hmmm... Should you care to peruse Article II Section I of the United States Constitution you will find that technically GWB DID win the presidential election. Your thoughts on the validity and current effectiveness of the electoral college are another matter for perhaps another thread...

I would rather my president lie about his personal life then national security

I voted Clinton. I know the politics are above me, but I felt his administration kept us informed. Bush needs to speak to the public more. Explain why things are happening.

regardless if all the scandalous stuff that happened during clinton's term, many good things happened. We stayed fairly peaceful, the economy boomed, and we even managed to propose a plan to eliminate the national deficit. Now, after an expected 200+ billion dollar surplus, we're looking at a 400+ billion dollar deficit. uh-oh! Billy boy has my vote

I don't care much about the war, even though I think it's a sad use for our country's time/money. What I really look for in a president is how they handle domestic and environmental policies.

Guess who I voted for.

Kadath has it right Clinton is long gone, what history writes about him is still undetermined. He was a draft dodger, perjurer,
and I think he feel asleep at the wheel on terrorism.

Bush with his simple mannerisms has only been in office 2.5 years. Let's see after 5.5 more how he did.
I do know that he will not sit back and let terrorists dictate how the US is involved in world affairs.

Reconmike has his information.

I'll say this now that had sept. 11 not happened GWB probably wouldn't give a rat's ass about terrorists

And i'll say it that had 9/11 happened to ANY other president the same response would've been the same.

Even the biggest of retards would know what to do had something like that happened. And yes even clinton would've went to slam down the terrorists.

it really irks me to think that people acutally believe that just because one person is of "another" party or whatever (the other side) would mean they wouldn't do the obvious

i have to go with Clinton just on the basis of how many treaties Bush has broken.

No to mention the whole destroying what was left of the UN's power thing...

The whole Clinton destroyed the military is stupid. At the end of Clinton's term our military was TEN TIMES as large as the next closest nation (GB), and a larger budget than the entire G8.

While Bush's budget increases are supposed to be for the war against terrorism, most of the money is going to Cold War type weapons, such as...

JSF - $250 billion
Missile Defense Development - $158 - $238 billion
Attack Submarine - $ 65.7 billion
F-22's - $ 68.9 billion

er...which ones?

Don't know much about the that topic do you...

Really?

How about the USS Cole? The first WTC attack, embassies, Clinton didnt do squat he was to worried about giving people my money.
And how he looked in the eyes of the people.

i can name a couple off the top of my head.

the ABM treaty which the missle shield would violate
geneva convention with the treatment of the "illegal combatents"

Bush.

Leadership is impossible with out trust.

Oh, and the "Clinton" economy? It was all about the Republicans in the Senate in the 80's and the House in 90's. The Dem's may be all about trying to help people, but they don't have an economic "pro business" bone in their bodies.

For business, as with most everything, less government is better.

Thanks for listening.

I'll admit I voted along party lines.

Both have their strengths and weaknesses like anyone. I think that Clinton was more succesful at letting his staff make decisions on their own where as Bush has staff that are much more extreme conservative than the majority of the american public and their decisions stand out more.