GWB vs. Clinton, whos the better president?
 

Just wanted to see what you guys thought about this. Personally i think that aside from personal matters and taste in women (look at lewinski..) Clinton was a far better President. He brought the U.S. out of the deficit Bush Sr. had left and made sure international relations were good. Just today the newspaper printed alarming statistics that showed popular opinion of the U.S. has nearly halved since the war. For example, France went from 62% to 31%, Britain went from 83% to 48% and Germany fell from 78% to 25%.

Thoughts?

I think this could divide across party lines, but I am going to vote for Bush only because he brought the country together during 9/11, and did an excellent job with that nightmare.

I am not too big on his policing the world policies, but I can respect it more than the passiveness of Clinton (well, besides bombing Iraq to divert attention from the Lewinsky thing)

Clinton. No contest.

As the TS stated, Clinton pulled the country out of a deficit and turned it even into a 6 billion dollar surplus.

Dubya managed to turn it into a deficit in no time. Starting two wars that were totally unnecessary and ignoring international treaties and conventions.

Although, I loved *that's my Bush* which wouldn't have been possible without dubya.

Nyenrodian, as much as I dislike Bush... I think you're totally wrong.

Clinton did not do anything special to pull the country out of a deficit; with the economy soaring, deficits were turning into surplusses all over the world. Bush took over when the economy was starting to go down, hence he "turned the surplus into a deficit", like every surplus worldwide turned into a deficit again.

"It's the economy, stupid", not the president in charge - you only notice results of current programs years down the line.

Anyway - I dislike both of them. Clinton was a lying bastard, while Bush is too stupid to lie.

Even if the economy was soaring it takes a good president and mostly staff to guide the economy. If you let it loose completely the booms will be high, but brief. Clinton extended it for a long time. Together with his staff and the FED of course.

Bush is just an ass hole.

Do you have any links to back that statement up? Even if it were true, would you prefer an asshole for president, or a slimey crook that lies straight-faced to his wife and the American public? :D

I'd prefer Clinton over Bush, even if Clinton was 6 feet under.

Go-go gadget logic.

I'm sorry, but imho Bush is the worst president you've had in ages. Especially his foreign policies are terrible. He was doing badly before 9/11. and after 9/11 he was doing even worse.

9/11 was one of the few things he handled right.

IMHO, 911 was easy... clearly defined problem with a clearly defined solution... removal of Al-Qaeda.

A monkey could do it...



... wait a minute... a monkey did do it.

Clinton, hands down.
Far as I can remember, he always tried to calm things down before settling a dispute. He was reaching out to other countries, not just telling them what to do.

Bush, after killing support for abortion hospitals, dragged the nation into a war that no body wanted over weapons that were never to be found and is now found trying to shove his shoe into his face because soldiers are dying every day.
I mean, I don't even know what it means when a country just says 'O no, we're not bankrupt at $290 billion, but at $360 billion' (I don't remember the exact figures)
-The government may spend $400 billion more this year than it takes in, dwarfing the previous record, the $290 billion deficit of 1990. To accommodate the imbalances, Bush signed a bill Tuesday adding nearly $1 trillion to the federal borrowing limit -- a record boost exceeding the total debt the government had accumulated in its history through 1980. Yet the resulting $7.38 trillion debt cap will probably suffice only until sometime next year.

More info can be found at:http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/

I'd still prefer Clinton, he had a personality and was more fun to watch.

p.s.:I had the 'Bush: wanted for terrorism' poster in my window during the war.

And we have a winner. I agree with this 100%.

Where is "none of the above?"

I prefer Bush, if not only because he actually makes use of himself. I really think Clinton was asleep behind the wheel, and I never cared for his crippling the military.

Excuse me? I may be a rookie but who do you think made the military that this admin uses so strong? Even bush said that!

No contest. Bush is the better president. Previous posts stating that the 90's economy was due to Clinton are wrong. A solid foundation must be laid in order to have the growth we saw. I would have to give the Reagan economic policy the credit.

Those that say Bush is responsible for the current economy are flat out wrong. The economy made a turn during 2000. Lets see...who was president then???? Clinton!!! Clinton killed the growth in the economy, not Bush. Plus 9/11 kicked the economy while it was down.

Honestly, neither has been a great president. Neither is/was a leader.

As for the military, Reagan made it strong. That is a fact even democrats see. Clinton, along with most previous democratic presidents, cut military spending all while deploying the troops all over the world. This is a horrible thing to do. It stretches the military too thin. Yes, Bush has sent the military all over, but he also raised military spending to give our troops what they need.

Clinton was lousy. Bush is so so.

Bush did have a hand in turning surplus into deficit. It costs billions of dollars a month to wage a war, money that could have been spent on schools, healthcare, and other programs to help not only the American people but those worldwide. Consider this, one tomahawk cruise missle costs about $1 million to build. One dose of nevirapine, a drug used to combat passing on AIDS hereditarily costs about $5. Thousands of children in Africa die each year due to AIDS from their parents when money spent killing people could have been spent saving people.

As for raising military spending, Bush seems to subscribe to the NRA school of "Its better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it." Clinton realized that its a waste of money to maintain thousands of tanks, planes, and warships during peacetime. Look at Canada, (my home country ;p). We have a rather small army/navy/air force but we don't need a huge one in spite of the fact Canada's landmass is rivaled only by that of Russia. So why does Bush feel the military constantly needs to be expanded?

By the way, wasn't Bush the only leader ever to lower taxes during a war???

I don't think you understand the concept of killing to save lives. It is a bit of a paradox, but think how many people Saddam would have killed if we allowed him to continue running his country the way he was, regardless if he had nukes and decided to nuke someone, or sell the information/nukes to terrorists/rogue nations.

I'll tell you what, it would have been a hell of a lot more then the casualties we caused. Also, Canada doesn't need a large military force because you have America there to protect you.

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is brought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"

- Gandhi -

To say that Bush's economic policy has nothing to do with turning the budget into an enormous deficit is GROSSLY naive.

I don't think you understand the reason WHY Bush invaded Iraq. Let me give you a hint, it was not because there were WMDs, or to help the Iraqi people.

I'm not saying Saddam was a good leader, but he hasnt done anything lately to warrant attack other then the so-called attempts to acquire WMD. All of the massacres he committed were in that past and when he was still an ally of the U.S. So if they wanted to take him out for that why didnt they do it before? As for killing to save lives, whos lives have they saved? At first the iraqi people welcomed the Americans as liberators but lately that has degenerated into mindless looting and fighting in the streets of Iraq. An average of 1 U.S. soldier is lost per day and most likely, many more Iraqi people. Senator Kennedy has termed it "a shooting gallery" and civilians are caught in the crossfire.

As for Canada, yes America is there to protect us, but no one in their right mind would randomly attack Canada. We have done nothing to antagonize anyone and the world sees us as a peaceful nation.

Bush by a long shot. Clinton helped disable the military, which made terrorist braver. He gave miltary weapon specs to china, which in turn sold them to countries who hate all americans. Bush brought us through 9-11, and is setting up our military, economy and other factors up for the long term, which i'm sure who ever is in office next will be credited for. Most decisions made today don't have an overall effect till later, just look at how regan helped clinton look good.

First terrorist are not what you call in the "right mind".
second canada also has no real power in the world
even if you did antagonize someone, i doubt they would attack, because the USA has your back.
i wouldn't recomend becoming france.

I find GWB hilarious and terrifying in equal measures.

Trouble is, he'll win a second term.

God Help America.

No shit?

Clinton is the only elected president to have been impeached for good reason.

You echo my thoughts exactly.

This link is perfect for this thread:

http://www.mikehersh.com/article_61.shtml

You can glean from that how I voted.

Here is the article that hiredgun linked above.



Never send a Bush to do a President's job
By Mike Hersh
May 29, 2003


How good was the Clinton Presidency? History's pending verdict becomes clear when we ignore the hysterics and contrast Bill Clinton's success against two failed Bush presidencies. Bush I and Bush II - gloomy bookends before and after the eight great Clinton years.

Look at the Clinton record. The best economy ever. Real wages up, unemployment down. Housing up, poverty down. Stock market up, crime rates down. Progress toward peace in strife-torn areas like Ireland, the Balkans, and the Middle East which knew bitter conflict dating back decades, even centuries. A true Golden Age. Just wonderful!

Right wingers and some in the media resent President Clinton for his talent, his genuine compassion, and his self-made success. He not only kept the campaign promises he made, he even fulfilled those Reagan and Bush I made and broke. All without breaking a sweat. Grace under pressure.

I'd love to see psychiatric studies explaining why petty people hate such a good and great man so much. It can't be because he taxed them more, because he only raised taxes on the top 1.2% or so richest - and his policies made even those wealthy few much wealthier.

Sexists, racists, gay bashers and other haters hate Clinton because he dared to value people they hate - gays, minorities, and women - as much straight white males. But that can't explain the animosity among the elite media. Perhaps it was envy after all?

When history forgets the right wing hysteria and smug hypocritical media sanctimony, it will mark William Jefferson Clinton among the greatest Americans of our time if not all time.

A true heir to FDR, President Clinton is a leader who accomplished so much against great odds. He overcame ruthless enemies who revile him with lies to this day. Despite the spite of vicious minds, America and the world miss Clinton's smart, sensible leadership more with each passing day.

Why? Because Bush so badly fails to fill Clinton's shoes. Clinton strode confidently. Bush stumbles and falls like a small child trying to walk in his daddy's wing tips. Bush's economy - flaccid and flailing as his father's before him - replaced Clinton's eight years of record expansion.

Just as Clinton's sound fiscal policies and widening opportunity replaced Bush I's stagnant, backward, failed approach, Bush II replaced Clinton's success with unfairness, folly and failure.

Clinton gave us record surpluses. Bush threatens to break his father's record for the worst deficits in history. The smart money on Wall Street has already voted with its investment capital. Their verdict on Bush's Voodoo Enronomics? No confidence.

Don't blame Bush? Can't credit Clinton? Maybe not for everything, but consider this one fact: Clinton's policies helped to create 22 million net jobs in eight years. During six years under two different Bushes the economy failed to create even one net private sector job. Not even one!

The record shows how well the economy did with Clinton's policies, and how badly the same economy did just before and after with a Bush in office. The same holds for the successes President Clinton achieved after Bush I's international failures, and how quickly hard-won progress toward peace crashed and burned under Bush II's notorious neglect.

Bush the elder delayed US recognition of the former Soviet states, and sat on the fence, hapless and impotent as Yeltsin stared down the tanks.

The Balkans burst into open warfare and ethnic cleansing under Bush I who did nothing to help anyone. Even Bush I's triumph, the Gulf War, resulted from his inept attempts to "bring Iraq into the family of nations."

The Bushes - like all Republicans - at best clean up part of their own messes and kick the can down the road leaving others to fix problems they create - Somalia, Iraq, Bosnia, North Korea and more.

Contrasts most stark: Bush I stood back confused and befuddled as crises raged, but Bill Clinton plunged ahead and fostered peace. Clinton partnered with Yeltsin, and helped prevent Russia from backsliding into tyranny. Clinton's leadership, against harsh Republican opposition, quelled the Balkan crisis.

I could go on about Bush I's failures domestic and international forever, but this article is mainly about the current Bush's failures at home and abroad vs. President Clinton's successes. However, noting how bad Bush I failed helps illustrate how well Clinton succeeded by contrast.

Clinton almost solved the Palestinian / Israeli conflict, but failed. He couldn't do it all, after all. Rather than build on this progress, W. Bush's announced a non-policy and let the Middle East languish.

The conflict exploded for lack of a steady hand directing the sole Super Power. Bush's negligence, lack of will and lack of ability presents a stark contrast against Clinton's engaged, informed and impassioned leadership in matters foreign and domestic.

That's what we need in a President. Engagement, knowledge, and passion to help us get where we have to go. That's leadership. When we examine the failure by both Bushes, we see profound lack of leadership.

We look at the endless litany of Bush failures versus our stellar economic and international performance under Clinton's leadership and realize success is no accident. America floundered both before and after the Clinton Presidency. History will give due credit - and blame - to the men who set the domestic and foreign policies.

We don't have to wait for the history books to know neither Bush measures up to the Clinton standard. This is how we know America didn't, doesn't, and never will look to AWOL Bush for leadership.

On 9/11, Bush hid. It took him 2 days to gather himself to go on national TV. We the people were eagerly awaiting leadership, but by then it was too late for Bush to matter.

We'd already gotten the leadership we needed from others like Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton who rushed home from Australia to press flesh and slap backs in NY City.

Think about this: Bill Clinton made it back from the other side of the planet and still beat Bush to Ground Zero by days. By the time Bush got there, rescue workers had sectioned off the area.

Bush still shirked and shunned even firemen and police. He blathered empty platitudes from a distance through a megaphone. Americans know what a President should do, and Bush didn't do it. President Clinton did. He strode into the crowd, comforted those missing loved ones and in every way acted as a President should act. People flocked to President Clinton, as they do where ever he goes around the world.

In Bill Clinton we see a President - honor, dignity, the whole thing. AWOL Bush in stark contrast was and is a scared little boy. He hides behind security and confines protesters to "First Amendment Zones." To emphasize, Bush refused to approach or shake hands with the NYPD and NYFD at ground zero, much less the public!

Bush is afraid to face the American people in person, and only clumsily, reluctantly faces us on television. We react accordingly. Let's look at the facts. By the time Bush addressed America two days too late, we'd lost all interest in him.

TV ratings show Bush's "leadership" wasn't the most watched in its time slot. That honor went to an episode of "Survivor." Did Bush come in a close second? No. The next most watched was the comedy "Friends."

Well, what about #3? Again, no. On 9/13 two days after the terrorist attacks, more Americans watched a cartoon called "The Family Guy" rather than look for "leadership" from AWOL Bush!

The so-called leader of the free world addressed us in the aftermath of the worst attacks on American soil, and Bush finished fourth in viewer interest behind a hokey "reality" show, a sitcom, and a cartoon.

Leadership? What leadership? Bush went on the air to talk to America in a time of crisis, and most Americans said who cares what you think, Mr. Bush? They watched people eating bugs, Ross and Rachel and a cartoon which was off the air soon thereafter!

That's not just sad, it's pathetic. Pathetic describes Bush pretty well. I watched Bush. He was not a leader. He was befuddled and blinking, and he still hasn't kept his promise to bring the terrorists to justice. I should have watched the other cartoon.

If President Clinton went on the air it would have been on 9/11, not two days too late. He would have explained the situation, captivated our attention, and provided real leadership.

Remember Clinton's speech after the Oklahoma City bombing? He said what needed saying, brought us together, and led. That was a real President. George W. Bush? A leader? A real President? Not even close. And America knows it. The moral of the story: Never send a Bush to do a President's job.

to everyone who blames the economy on bush, i recall the economy going to shit months before he won the election. maybe consumers didn't notice, but if you are a business owner you sure did.

and his reasons matter why?

This just in... It was the Clinton administration that made the victory possible in Iraq. The Bush administration has absolutely nothing to do with the current capability of the U.S. armed forces.

Uhh.. how do you figure that?

Clinton wasted military resources bombing aspirin factories and delayed the ABM system nearly to death. In his last year in office, he proposed a $12b funding increase for 2002-2007 which was a last ditch attempt to look something other than anti-military. This, after giving China our weapons technology.

My friend, there is much more to the military than Tomahawk missiles and anti-ballistic missile systems.

It's people. I'd have to look at the retention figures, but I think it's safe to bet that the majority of the current military personnel served when Clinton was in office.

Im all for Clinton, at least he was amusing in a good way. Plus Bush has pretty much gotten rid of every environmental act this country spent the last 30 years implementing. But I forgave him after all the WOMD he found after invading Iraq. O wait... Course you shouldn't listen to me since I pretty much beleive that there are no such things as countries anymore, really only corporations. The lobbyists pretty much have the power here. But the general masses all need someone to follow/ blame/ praise so that is why we somehow elected this retard. O wait, we didn't elect him. Hmmmm

O yeah, militarys budget needs to be slashed in half at least( I personally after reading Machevilli's Prince coud now take over the entire world with only a small team of navy seals, a sack of potatoes, McGeyer, and Ron Jeremy, course thats another thread all together), and communism and socialism had the right idea. anyone else I didn't offend let me know and Iwill respond to their wishes :)

Yeah, like allowing oil drilling in protected parts of Alaska, right?

I vote Bush by a hair. The policies Clinton PASSED were very successful. However, some of the ones that were shot down in the House and Senate were extremely foolish. One good example is the Family Medical Leave Act. The version that originally passed is a good idea because it encourages women to take adequate leave from work during and after pregnancy. This leave is not paid since you aren't working. It's fair to the employee since she keeps her position and doesn't start at square one, and fair to the company because they're not paying for a three month vacation. Clinton tried to change that to make it a PAID leave at employer expense and that was shut down. Imagine what could have happened: Employers silently excluding women 21-35 just so they don't go bankrupt. Small businesses just don't have a billion dollar bank account, and the funny thing is that big businesses don't either.
(Not when 3000 women out of 20,000 employees goes on paid FMLA in one year)

let's not forget how Bush bailed out on the Kyoto agreement to do something about global pollution and bailed out of the nuclear disarmament program.
America has been one of the most influential countries for decades (or more), but only since Bush has it started to disengage itself from the rest of the world and create animosity towards itself.
No one gets away with being so arrogant as to tell other governments how to run their county. Especially when you're making such an total craphole out of your own country.
I've never resented any public figure as much as him.

Would that be because he put the 'ass' back in 'assistant', or because he lied about it?
If it is the latter, how about some proof about them WMD's we've been hearing so much about?

And is it just the newscoverage (or me), or is Bush really doing next to nothing for the U.S.? All I hear is about foreign policy.

okay, i'll stop rambling...

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.

The own U.S. gov't didnt believe in the terrorist threat until 9/11. 9/11 was as much a wakeup call for the regular citizen as the government. The fact the FBI and CIA and other intelligence organizations along with teh gov't not being able to get along to percieve the threat was already a big enough problem.

Had 9/11 not happened Bush probably woudln't give a shit about terrorists nor would most people here. Its that simple.

And if you want to be really technical, before Clinton the other presidents didn't care about the issue all that much as well.

The wave of terrorism started catching on late 60's to 70's and they became ever more rampant late 70's into 80's. Hell the U.S. said it would never deal with terrorists and we ended up dealing with Iran, Iraq, and other Middle East states that many wish to label as 'terrorist states.'

How many here honestly gave a rat's ass about the embassy bombings in Africa. Most people said "oh shit that sucks, ugh too bad people died" and what not - and a few weeks later they don't even care about it.

Had the 1st WTC event occured during the time of Bush Sr. i doubt much more would've been done other than what Clinton did - getting the direct culprits.

Honestly, how many before 9/11 and the Cole ever heard of Al-qaeda?

All of a sudden after 9/11 everyone knwos of al-qaeda and all of a sudden every bombing is linked to them.

Mass hysteria people - 9/11 was as much a wakeup call for the gov't as the country - you can't blame terrorists on Clinton who himself can blame it on Bush Sr. or Reagan who then can blame it on Carter then Ford / Nixon and what not.

Well you can, we got a warning from another country about not taking Osama, Clinton didn't care, Osama was available to us on a silver platter, Clinton didn't care and declined. I doubt Bush would have passed that opertunity.

1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy is destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead.Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shi'ite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.

1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Two Libyan intelligence officers were tried under Scottish law in The Hague; only one, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, was found guilty, in Jan. 2001.

1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center; killing six and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and nine others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

1995
April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 persons were killed, including 19 children and one person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly two years earlier. (See Miscellaneous Disasters.)

1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. Thirteen Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.

1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near two U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. Four men, two of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.

2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole was heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. Seventeen sailors were killed in what was apparently a deliberate terrorist attack. Prime suspect thought to be Osama bin Laden, or members of his al-Qaeda terrorist network.

2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed two commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; two more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 3,038, including the 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism .)

A timeline I found of terrorist attacks against america and american intersets.

It seems the brunt is during Slick Willies watch.

http://www.mediamonitors.net/espac1.html

Some nifty information.

kinda funny that you listed OK city with other terroristic attacks by al queda and related groups

Whoa whoa whoa Oklahoma city was defenitely not related to Muslim terrorists - terrorist no doubt but that one was so unexpected from ANOTHER american i doubt any damn president is responsible

these were just bombings as well, numerous hostages and hijackings and what not occured during the 80's

I hate to bring this up because I like Reagan but one of the things about his administration that I did in teh end not like was the entire dealing with Iran thing - give em their weapons and ask for lower terrorist activities against the U.S. I would say though that it factored into the entire deal.

Not to mention the Cold War at the time made many groups realize it couldn't get what it wanted not with the Soviet Union and United States still at odds - no point in ruling over a parking lot.

And I say again, had GWB or Bush Sr. been running the show at the time, not much probably would've been done simply because those situations seemed so random and no one really believed it was a calculated ordeal.

The reason 9/11 woke up so man ywas because it was so surreal - suddenly a -coordinated- attack that killed thousands made people realize it was serious.

And yes it woke up the gov't and would've woken up anyone at the helm unlike any other event.

The argument that it was Cliton's fault can be said to go all the way back to Reagan, then Carter, then Ford, Nixon, and keep going if you have to.

Sure shit happened under Clinton but the wakeup call should've occured long ago during the hostage crises of the 80's and also the one of '79 to '80 - not to mention long before in Munich, and all over Israel. The U.S. long ago already shrugged it off as nothing - or a foreign affair - hell even Clinton launched missiles against percieved threats - but who the hell would know that Al-Qaeda and what not is supposed to be the great network of the world. Now that blame can't fall on a man because those events happened, if the damn inteligence cant tell him I doubt you anyone would suddenly wake up one night and say "oh i got it, there gonna attack so-and-so because there just has to be a great terrorist network that doesn't exist right now"...

Historical analysis is good, but you have to remember what the goal was.

Up to the fall of the Berlin wall, the primary US goal was to stop the spread of Communism. Fortunately, we were successful. Unfortunately, we were then left with situations like Iraq, like Palestine/Isreal, like Iran, like N. Korea, etc. that are really just the baggage left over from the successful strategies utilized to win the Cold War. They aren't pretty, but each has to be looked at in the broader context. They have to be dealt with, but what's worse, nuclear annihilation or chasing down Saddam or Bin Ladin?

Fortunately, we are now dealing with them.

Thanks for listening.

Xell101: pulling out of the ABM? not signing Kyoto? rejecting the International Criminal Court? Just off the top of my head.

And if your going to say he didn't "break" them, then fine. The fact still stands that Bush kept us out of or by his actions made them cease to be.

Anyone who has looked at the economic figures concering the budget and its relation to gross domestic product would know that Clinton was by far the better president. The years that Clinton was in office are the only ones in the LAST 20 YEARS that show ANY (and I do mean ANY) marked improvement, and it is a quite impressive movement. Then Bush came into office, and we're facing a record deficit on top of a slow economy. Some may claim it was just a fluke that the years the economy was up was the Clinton years, but that is being fairly blind to the facts.


MB

:lol: :lol: :lol: :crazy:

Re: GWB vs. Clinton, whos the better president?
 

Damn straight. But, the whole taste in women thing, Clinton has the same taste in women as any other man in this world, its just that he had to deal with what was around. like trying to make fine wine with week old grapes from safeway.

Inflammatory comment removed

1: Clinton destroyed and demoralized the military in every possible way you can imagine... He gave away our nuclear secrets to china because he was being payed to by the Chinese.... Another thing was he allowed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” towards gays and personally it pissed off my father who is an Armed Force member because he disagreed as well as the rest of the men stationed where he works.
2: ABM-Treaty only leaves millions of people being exposed to nuclear attack. Scrapping the Treaty with the now-debunked Soviet Union was excellent because no such country existed anymore. Plus the plan was to extend it to all of the NATO allies and any country that are under the threat of nuclear attack such as Taiwan, South Korea.
3: Kyoto Protocol was idiotic. Clinton signed the Protocol without congress approving it first.. Plus if you read the Protocol, it forced all major businesses to cut down and regulate their pollution. Plus we're still trying to understand if Global Warming exist.. So far over 500 expert scientist disagree with "Global Warming" because they concluded that the atmosphere has the capability to recycle itself.. As for the business concern.. Business would be spending whatever profit and revenue to keep their pollution down and chances of the business still running are at absolute 0%. It only destroys the Economy.. Afterall, most businesses in the United States are indiviually owned. 2nd thing is that it exempted developing nations such as China which is ironically in the trillions now on their economic strength.. Do they need to follow it? Yes but the exemption made the protocol stupid.
4: Clinton claimed that he was responsible for the economy. Well if you didn't know.. Reaganomics that GWHB continued was working at the end of his term and then Clinton claimed it.. Also in 1998 the economy went up higher because of the Internet Age which eventually collapsed in 2000.
5: Clinton was horrible at law enforcement including pardoning people that didn't deserve it. Two examples: Waco and Marc Rich
6: Terrorist attacks: 1st WTC Attack - He said he would bring those responsible to justice. Saudia Arabia Barrack Bombing - He said he would bring those responsible to justice. African Embassies Bombing (Kenya and Tanzania) - He said he would bring those responsible to justice. USS Cole - He said he would bring those responsible to justice.. You know what he did. Absolutely nothing. But as for the embassy bombing.. He just bombed an aspirin factory. Geez that’s revenge isn’t it?
7: Clinton lied under oath which is ironic because that’s the purpose of the executive branch. To enforce the laws of the land… But didn’t happen..
8: He failed in Somalia which GHWB sent troops to and expected Clinton to fix properly. He refused to let the Rangers and Delta Force have heavy gun support with AC-130 and Heavy Armor Tanks instead giving them Humvees and Black Hawks. The result – 18 Soldiers dead and thousands of Somalis. Had he given them the armor. The whole situation would have been prevented.
9: Rejected the extradiction of Osama Bin Laden in 1996 by the Saudis but he “had no evidence” versus Bin Laden.
10: Allowed NAFTA and GATT which affected our economy and Unions later in the future.
11: Drug Law Enforcement was completely destroyed and was not working. He poured more money into the “Drug Wars” and what we got in return was an expanding folly. The result: We have the biggest prison system and the richest illegal drug market in history.
12: North Korea: The 1994 Nuclear Accords sounded like a good idea but the problem was we had no means of making sure the North Koreans were agreeing to the treaty. Now it’s come back to bite us in the ass today. Hwang, a defector from North Korea said he believes they already have nuclear weapons. As well as testimonies from the IAEA stating “North Korea does not abide by the nuclear safeguard agreement of the NPT.” and “as a result of obstacles by and lack of cooperation from, North Korea, IAEA inspectors have so far been unable to verify the DPRK's assertion that it has frozen its nuclear weapons programs”
13: Haiti: He put Marines there to implement democracy as well as putting an embargo/sanctions on Haiti. Most of those who fled Haiti were economic refugees. When Clinton put an embargo on Haiti, the economy crumbled and more people fled. A better policy might have been to end the sanctions and encourage economic development in Haiti. Some of the $3 billion spent on the invasion/occupation could have been better spent on this. With jobs and food, Hatians would have been less likely to risk their life in leaky boats on the trip to Florida. Sure they would have had a corrupt government that would have siphoned off some of the aid. But the lot of the common man would none the less have been better. With economic development and the growth of a middle class, chances for real democracy and the rule of law would have improved. As for national security interests in Haiti, there are none. The flood of refugees was no reason to invade. If it were, most of Central and South America would be under occupation now. These are economic refugees and the problem must be solved economically. In the end, where are we? What was accomplished? They are still poor, still fleeing although not in as great a numbers, and still racked by violence.

Anyways I got plenty more bitch about it.. This is enough examples


Btw Zeld... 1st WTC Attack was during clinton's time not Bush...

Brilliant. Start with the ad hominem. Really brilliant. At this point, I know perfectly well that you have nothing of value to say, but since I'm in a good mood, I'll cheerfully tear it apart anyway.

Clinton tried and succeeded to reduce the size of our military force because quite frankly, we had no need for a force that could fight two major regional conflicts at once. Saved billions doing it, too - and as you've see, the military that HE molded has done just fine in Iraq and Afghanistan, thank you. And your whole point about gays in the military, by the by, is nothing but rampant homophobia. Can't handle someone a little different from you? Tough. Nobody's making you stick around. The only important word in the long description of any randomly selected American soldier is: American. What else matters?

And what have we done about nuclear missiles? We've spent billions upon billions upon a second-gen "star wars" program that works worse, if possible, than the original did. ABM may have been outdated, but there's nothing wrong with getting the UN, the IAEA, and NATO together to put together something new. Would have cost LOTS less than this new missile shield that doesn't work.



Stupid is in the eye of the beholder. Kyoto was a treaty much like any other, with strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately for the current administration, it was strong on dealing with corporate polluters. Therefore, it had to go. But I get the feeling that, considering that EVERY industrialized nation of the world has signed the treaty save one, that maybe there's something of value in the Kyoto protocol. Oh, extra credit if you can figure out who the lone non-signatory is. And, for the record, global warming exists. The report on the topic that this administration commissioned said as much... to which Bush replied that we need more science. You see, Bush only likes science if it agrees with his personal beliefs. But I can assure you, global warming is real.

Maybe when you get older you'll realize that "the economy" is chiefly a byproduct of how the consumer feels. If consumers are happy and comfortable and confident and EMPLOYED, they'll spend money, companies will make money, employees will get paid more, and they'll buy more, and so on. Clinton made the country feel quite good, in large part by knowing when to intervene to stop bad business from happening, and when to stand back and let things grow as the market willed. Clinton, quite frankly, deserves most, if not all, of the credit for our economic strength because he put the country in a place where it could grow and succeed. Okay, it got a bit out of control, but it was Bush who turned a correction into a recession. Oops.

Sure. So tell me, why hasn't Ken Lay been arrested yet? He's an executive, for the love of God. It's not as if he could run very fast. Bush's idea of law enforcement is to start pulling things out of the Constitution that he finds inconvenient, like the First and Fourth Amendments. You could say that's being tough on crime. You could also say it's making crimes out of previously legal activities.

Bush hasn't brought anyone to justice over 9/11. Where's Osama? Where's Mullah Omar? Why was anything mentioning Saudi Arabia pulled out of the 9/11 Senate report? Long story short, if Clinton was soft on terrorists, then Bush is an outright collaborator.
Just about what I'd expect for someone whose family fortune is based, in part, on the sale of munitions to the Nazi regime in World War II.

Yep, Clinton lied about getting a hummer from a slightly overweight intern. Bush has lied about just about everything else. How about those WMDs, hmm? And that nuclear material from Niger? What about those trailers? Clinton lied. So does Bush. Politicians lie. Difference is, one set of lies cost American soldiers their lives. One set didn't. You get bonus points if you can guess which is which.

We've also failed in Afghanistan and Vietnam. That's what America gets for thinking it can intervene anywhere on a whim. Heh. And here I thought conservatives were supposed to be non-interventionist...

The President can't break the law. If he had no evidence, then he couldn't extradite. Whereas Bush has no trouble putting people in Guantanamo Bay and denying them access to anything remotely resembling due process. Secret intelligence courts, for God's sake?!

Whereas Bush "affected our economy" by sending millions upon millions of jobs straight down the crapper. Pot... kettle... c'mon, sing along.

Quote:

11: Drug Law Enforcement was completely destroyed and was not working. He poured more money into the “Drug Wars” and what we got in return was an expanding folly. The result: We have the biggest prison system and the richest illegal drug market in history.

One man's illegal drug is another man's medicinal substance. Clinton correctly realized that it is impossible to win the "war on drugs" with a Reagan-era mission statement. Better far to target the worst drugs and let the small stuff be for a while. Besides, decriminalization of marijuana would be a great way to up tax revenue. And guess what? State voters agree. But then, since when did Bush and Ashcroft give a rip about the will of the voter?

North Korea *does* have nuclear weapons. As do we. As does France, England, India, Pakistan, and a whole bunch of former Soviet FSRs. The World Has The Bomb. The point is to make it outmoded, not try futilely to keep people from ever getting it. What, do you think we're the only people who should be allowed to explore the possibilities of atomic science?

Oh, and if nukes are the issue, then why didn't we invade North Korea instead of Iraq? We know the Koreans have the bomb. Iraq had nothing of the sort.

Quote:

13: Haiti: He put Marines there to implement democracy as well as putting an embargo/sanctions on Haiti. Most of those who fled Haiti were economic refugees. When Clinton put an embargo on Haiti, the economy crumbled and more people fled. A better policy might have been to end the sanctions and encourage economic development in Haiti. Some of the $3 billion spent on the invasion/occupation could have been better spent on this. With jobs and food, Hatians would have been less likely to risk their life in leaky boats on the trip to Florida. Sure they would have had a corrupt government that would have siphoned off some of the aid. But the lot of the common man would none the less have been better. With economic development and the growth of a middle class, chances for real democracy and the rule of law would have improved. As for national security interests in Haiti, there are none. The flood of refugees was no reason to invade. If it were, most of Central and South America would be under occupation now. These are economic refugees and the problem must be solved economically. In the end, where are we? What was accomplished? They are still poor, still fleeing although not in as great a numbers, and still racked by violence.

Another example in the case for non-intervention, plain and simple. We're not the world's grandmother. And I daresay that our democracy-building experiments in Iraq and Afghanistan are going *so* very well. Not.

Pity all your examples are either wrong, hypocritical, or both.

God, I love Republicans. They quote FOX News at me and all I have to do to shoot them down is respond with the truth.

You thought I was a republican? Man you thought wrong... More inflammatory comment removed

Clinton I say again did nothing with the current military.. Today's military isn't Clinton's military... Nor will those that served under him give him credits for it... They will give GHWB and Reagan alot of the credit. The current weaponary we have today are still the same that we had in the 1980's and early 1990's. What is new that Clinton did? So tell me.

Also today is 2003 which means Bush has been in office for 2+ years and on average most of the United States military are at the average of 21-25 which most signed up during the Bush adminstration for the GI Bill which puts them through College.. My friend signed up in April 2001 and currently is serving in South Korea. How old is he you ask? 23...

I am the son of a current United States Armed Force member who has served his country since 1981. Nor will he give respect or salute to his former Commander-In-Chief. He holds the most upper respect for Ronald Reagan and his quote "Peace through Strength" which successfully worked and destroyed the Soviet Union itself. Today Russia is still on it's reconstruction phase but who said it'll be done in a day..


The ABM Treaty only answers to the threat of nuclear attack from rogue states such as North Korea, Iran, and perhaps China. I don't fucking care what you think about China.. but I don't trust the communist government there. My friend who works for Boeing is a mechanical engineer for the Anti-Ballistic Missile System and he's a brilliant rocket scientist (meaning science is a knack for him, nothing to do with rockets). He moved from Vancouver, WA to the burning Arizona desert because that's where they test the missile defense system as well as out in the Pacific Ocean. Today we are seeing progress as the Missile System get advanced and are seeing products.. Example: YAL-A1
http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...ndex.html#abl1 and they already have the prototype ready... Consider this project as a benefit to those companies working on the project and a boost to our military morale in the building up of our defense. You have to remember that we are to give the best we have to offer to our military in the world...


Now back to Kyoto.. Obviously you don't have a degree in climatology neither in business. You have to know that the economy is dependent on mostly individual businesses. When you kill the supplier which are the major polluters. They all suffer and what do you get.. Economic breakdown and depression. Hence

Listen to this

"Originally Introduced at the 1992 U.N. Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and backed by U.N. bureaucrats, the Kyoto "global warming" accords (never ratified by the U.S.) would require America to dramatically cut CO2 emissions.

That would mean radically curtailing every imaginable industrial activity - from production of electricity to use of cars and trucks to farming to manufacturing. However, Second and Third World countries such as India and China, which have far more polluting industries, would be exempt.

The net effect: U.S. manufacturers would be forced either to bankrupt themselves by complying or to leave America, taking millions of jobs with them and plunging the West into poverty. At the same time, global pollution would actually increase!"


Now on to the economics.. You do have to remember that corporations started cooking the books back to 1997. Now what's the problem here. Where's the SEC in all this. The purpose of the SEC is to kick the companies ass and make sure they're paying their debts off, not ripping off their shareholders, making sure there is no foul play and so on.

Another thing. Why did clinton launch his Anti-Microsoft campaign when we were faced by terrorist attacks over time? Today we're still debating with Microsoft and to no avail.


Now to Kenneth Lay. He has the right to a fair trial and the right to be quiet. If you can build up a case against him with him pleading the fifth. Then they can do so. You know it was the Bush Administration's SEC that tried to build the case against Enron's staff. The problem is the shredding of documentations which fails to build a case on. As for the rest. There are people in jail now for cooking the books such as Andrew Fastow the Chief Financial Officer of the company.


You think Terrorism is an easy task. Boy you are fucking wrong dude. "Oh geez searching the global is easy! He's in Antaratica under a pile of snow, We'll just come there and easily slap the cuffs on." As for Clinton. Yes he was soft on terrorist but I don't have the same view on Bush or should I say Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld is not the man to fool around with because everyone thinks he's joking but he's not. This is the man that served his time in the United States Navy and knows what the fuck he's doing. As for Gitmo Bay, you do realize that those aren't people that aren't being picked out at random from Afghanistan. They are people that are defined as illegal Combatants that does not respect the rules of war (Rules of war as in No CW, BW, or NW for one's gain except for defense and etc). If you want to know what illegal combatant is. Go read the Geneva Convention Charter which defines Legal Combatant.


1 Fucking Sentence and Blair is already defending his own intelligence community for allowing that statement through... And you think that searching Iraq is a piece of cake too? Dude.. Do me a favor and let's say your bike got stolen in Texas. Go try to find it in the state of Texas. Since that Texas is the size of Iraq. Besides I don't trust the french, germans or the Russians nowadays dealing with those weapons anymore.


Afghanistan isn't over for your fucking information.

Vietnam was a whole different aspect because the soldiers were demoralized by the politics going on back home. Plus they were denied capability to attack the North Vietnamese Capital which would deliver a blow to their power control system. Just like we did in World War II and Korea. You attack their factories, supply lines, point of access for reinforcement. You are more likely to choke the enemy and prevent him from winning.. The only problem was politics back home denied that. Go look it up. I gaurantee you that you'll find results.


Yes the president can bend the rules just as every adminstration can.
Now on to Osama Bin Laden. You do remember the captured of Yousef? Who was supplied by Bin Laden and failed a plot to kill 4,000 people by blowing up 12-Bound Airliners. Now where's the problem here dude? We had prior evidence that he was plotting to kill Americans. We had the proof to hold Bin Laden. Defending American Citizen comes first for the government.


Okay you know that 37 million people are already abusing a controlled subtance. You know what that is. Alcohol. With 1 million drunk driving cases a year. You get me. A YEAR! I think one too many controlled subtance is enough. Cocaine is way worst than alcohol and I will not tolerate it.


Now. You do remember the Non-Profileration Treaty? Surely this has somehow eluded your brain. North Korea agreed and signed it and during this period was in violation of what they signed. Now does that show a great sign of trust? I think not. Same concept applies to Iraq.


With the war over for 2 months now in Iraq and democracy on the way. You are idiotic to think Iraq can be rebuilt in a day. It takes time and adjustment. Germany in this case. It took one fucking decade to get Germany back on track when the country was completely devestated after WWII.

Afghanistan is the same example..

Still more inflammatory comment removed

Again with the ad hominems as a lead. Your intransigence awes me, sir. At any rate, to paraphrase... "Republican is as Republican does."

Um... what changes did George II implement? How is this "his" force structure? The military is almost totally compliant to the Clinton-era design of a smaller, more mobile military.

It. Is. Clinton's. Force. Structure.

By the way, are you a military spokesman? Is it your intent here to speak for the entirety of the service? I doubt it. Which makes your sweeping generalizations somewhat inappropriate. Not to mention that it matters little who they credit for the military... it matters who actually constructed it. That, by the way, would be the Big Dog his own self.

...

(stuff about service member ages)

You miss the point entirely. It matters not who's in the army. It's a volunteer army and as such has turnover rates higher than any conscript army in the world. The point here is force structure.

(son of a preacher-man stuff)

That's nice. You're not the only one with parents who served. Personally, I consider your paternal unit's unwillingness to render honors to his former C-in-C a disgrace. Mind, that's just my opinion, but then, I'm a service kid, too.

So tell me, how does Dad feel about saluting a guy who got a politically-motivated sweetheart chance at the Texas Air National Guard while the rest of the country's youth was dying in Vietnam, then skipped a drug test and physical, got his flight status revoked, and *then* went AWOL for well in excess of a year?

Hmm.

But it's not about military service, right? It's about getting a hummer.

(Stuff about Reagan being intelligent)

Reagan was, pardon my language, a freaking lunatic, a senile old fruitcake, a downright poor statesman, and a reckless brinksman who felt no compunctions over carrrying the world to the very brink of a nuclear war in order to bankrupt the Soviet Union. Oh, and he lied about Iran-Contra, too - and then pardoned Ollie North. Marc who?

(Stuff about ballistic missile tests)

Not one of those tests has yet worked, at a total expenditure of TRILLIONS (that's thousands of billions) of American taxpayer dollars. Not one of the tests has yet been a success. Don't tell me future programs. Remember the V-22 Osprey? Yeah, that was supposed to be great too.
Show me a *working* ABM system, and THEN tell me how that's gonna stop the guy with the suitcase nuke. In short, Star Wars/ABM is an utterly inappropriate response to current world conditions. It's nothing more than a big payout to military-industrial complex campaign donors.

(Stuff about Kyoto)

So according to your logic, we should let businesses pollute all they want because they're employing people? Way wrong answer, dude. See, there's that whole Global Warming thing again, which as I pointed out before, is real. Unless you're George II, in which case, reports from your very own hand-picked science panel which state that global warming exists and is a danger.

So tell me again why Kyoto was such a bad idea, if we're the only industrialized nation on earth not signatory? Yep, we need to cut CO2 emissions. Yep, corporations are the big polluters. I fail to see how those two statements mean we should be the only industrialized nation on earth not signatory to the treaty. Unless you're trying to make the point that business profits should take priority over... oh... 100 million people on both coasts in the United States alone. Or how it should take priority over... oh... a worldwide climate shift on a scale not seen for millions of years.

Business über alles, hmm? It'll cost businesses money, so we can't do it. Great logic. Really great logic.

*applause*

(Stuff on corporate malfeasance)

Corporations, my good son, have been cooking books for time immemorial. It's a climate of deregulation that allows them to do it. Somewhere, some knucklehead free-market conservative decided we should limit oversight over corporate earnings reporting. Guess what happened? Enron. See, when you have deregulation, that pulls the SEC's teeth. They can't do anyhthing, they can't even ask to look at the books anymore. That's why the onus has fallen upon corporate whistle-blowers, because we've deregulated to the point where corporations are very nearly running the world. The SEC only comes into play now when there's evidence of market fraud. That's why Andersen-izing your corporate ledger is so popular now, because it takes years and years and years for the effects to become apparent. It's the dumb ones, like ImClone, who get caught for such low-rent corporate crimes like insider trading.

(Clinton and Microsoft stuff)

Clinton's DOJ filed, litigated, and WON its antitrust suit against Microsoft because Microsoft was a predatory monopoly, buying those companies it could not muscle out of business, and pulling pretty much every geeky dirty trick in the business. I can guarantee you, I know *all* about that stuff. I was there. Funny bit, this: Clinton's DOJ won its suit, and moved to the remedy phase of antitrust litigation. Strangely enough, once Bush took office, the DOJ changed its tune and played softball.

Business über alles. Good thing Microsoft doesn't sell oil or electricity. Bush might have had Gates coronated instead.

Here's a note to George II: Just because there are terrorists abroad in the world is no excuse whatsoever to ignore things on the domestic front.

(Kenneth Lay stuff)

To get his fair trial, that requires that George II's DOJ actually attempt to prosecute him. There's a veritable mountain of evidence against him. In fact, he was either called to testify or indicted, one of the two, then fled the country - and that was just about the last time you heard about any legal action regarding Kenny Boy. I'm waiting eagerly for Ken Lay's fair trial, but somehow, Bush and Ashcroft don't seem all that eager to prosecute their good friend and campaign donor, Kenneth W. Lay.

(Terrorism rant)

Yeah, yeah, yeah... the 'War On Terra' (catch the pun?) is a difficult thing. But then, if Bush is such a steely-eyed-rocket-man-with-the-codpiece-of-three-men, then why hasn't he gotten the job done? Why hasn't Rumsfeld, who's such a badass in your view, gotten it done? Oh, yes, Rumsfeld served. Pity Bush didn't. But what am I saying, the real question is,

Where the bloody blue hell is Osama?

Dead or alive. Yeah, right.

(Guantanamo Bay stuff)

Congratulations, you know that the military installation there is called Gitmo. So do I. No applause for you. But there's that nasty little bit about nobody being able to stop Ashcroft from naming ANYONE an "enemy combatant". See, all he has to do is go before a secret intelligence court and promise cross-his-heart-hope-to-die that so-and-so is a nasty terrorist sympathizer. And then he gets to go ahead and scoop that person up, regardless of evidence, regardless of the veracity of Johnny Fundamental's claims. And off they go down to "Gitmo" to be subjected to sleep-dep and interrogations and other such horrors.

So much for that fourth amendment, eh? By the way, as far as the Geneva Accords go, we might as well abrogate those, too. That whole thing about posting pictures of combatants and killing civilians, you understand. Trust me, the last thing you wanna wrap yourself in is the Geneva Conventions.

(The Famous 16 Words)

It's a great deal more than 16 words, dude. What about those weapons labs? What about that "He has the weapons, we know where they are"? What about 45 minutes from being able to turn us all into slightly glowing piles of carbon sludge? What about the fantasy connection between Iraq and Al-Quaeda (refer to the just-published Senate report on 9/11).

You see? It's more than sixteen words. It's an entire house of cards built on a foundation of lies.

(more rambling about the military here. Omitted for brevity and coherence.)

I've preserved this part verbatim, though, because it's just *such* a spiffy little bit of rhetoric, I expect to see it in every university debate team's manual of style within a few years. Such a gem.
Republican is as Republican does. And man, are you doing.

Cheers!

What Clinton did was not to f*ck up a winning hand. Take a long look at the previous century and examine economic growth trends by presidential administration then tell me who is better for business a D or an R? (be prepared to show your work as I have lots of numbers to back up my stance)

Trickle Drown theory rehashed by tired old men from his daddy's (and Raygun's) admins didn't work before and it certainly isn't working now. In my opinion it was never intended to work as it was a ruse to strangle the the federal government into downsizing.

Not a bad idea unto itself but, like Iraq, there was/is no plan after initial victory. The resulting chaos has allowed anyone with the time in grade up on the Hill to push through pork of unprecedented scope.

I actually remember when R's were the fiscally adept party.

Barry Goldwater where are you when you're needed most?

2Wolves

Great work rookies, lots of good discussion goin on here. Glad to see you decided to join us over here at tilted politics rather then meandering over to tilted news and continuing the bitching :D

2wolves

Trickle-down/supply-side economics was, if I recall correctly, an idea sketched out by some Republican functionary on a cocktail napkin at one of those Beltway dinner parties.

I guess the problem with it - and yes, it's a smokescreen designed to limit the scope and effectiveness of government - is that when you decrease tax revenue and increase military spending, you can't increase overall revenue. It's just fiscally impossible. How to hamstring the government in one easy lesson.

2Wolves

ViriiK,

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...litics.shtml#1

Without attacking the source can you deconstruct the reasoning and impune the research?

Think of it as a life lesson.

2Wolves