If you think Bush is bad, look at this...
 

All over this board there are threads and posts accusing bush as the most criminal president we have ever had. It appears the people posting these positions have forgotten, or chosen to ignore historical facts, so that mr bush can be painted as a corrupt, criminal dictator. Where this hate comes from, I'm not entirely sure. But I found a website that clearly lays out the indictments and crimes of the Clinton administration and I'll post them here for all to see. Of course someone is going to attack the source as some right-winged rove invented lie machine, but in actuality this is just something the MSM doesn't want to talk about. They are perfectly happy to demonize bush and ignore actual facts and grind their collective axe. So here it is, just to remind you that bush isn't the super-criminal he is purported to be, because if he is, how would you describe bill? BTW, there are some pretty interesting facts in this bullet point. Pick out your favorites and lets discuss.

http://prorev.com/legacy.htm

good post stevo. It amazes me that there are still democrats out there that continue to believe they did the right thing in not convicting clinton of lying to a grand jury, even though it was done on national tv. If the dems can't figure out why alot of americans abandoned them after that........oh well.

So by comparison Bush's war in Iraq is just a walk in the park?

I feel no need to defend Clinton one way or the other. I am more concerned with the here and now and a contest to see who is worse does little to fix or address the issues and concerns that exist today.

It just shows the dirty tricks that all sides in the political game of US politics play. It is quite disgusting, and America should be ashamed to be so rife with criminal activity at the very top of its administration.

Is it any wonder that foreign countries find it hard to swallow American foreign policy, when its leaders are such well documented fraudsters and criminals?

Don't think this is limited to Bush and Clinton - corruption and elitism (i.e. being above the law) in the US government's corridors of power is evidently rife, institutional, you might even say, and I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon.

Thanks for the post stevo - I think this is a really important aspect of the US, and the way the US is perceived around the world that doesn't often get brought to the attention of the people within the country.

No. This has nothing to do with Iraq and isn't even meant as an attack on Clinton. I'm merely pointing out that the effort to make bush out to be some master criminal that should be tried and hung is disturbing and I felt the need to remind everyone what the last president did. And while the wrongs of one do not negate the wrongs of another, I feel that a lot of the animosity toward the current administration is quite overblown and out of proportion when our past president's administration is consitered. But of course when Clinton was prosecuted it was just a right-wing conspiracy attack, but when bush is attacked its because of legitimate reasons, since the guy is such a criminal. Do you get where I'm coming from here?

Here's what it all comes down to: it's OK if my guy does it, because the policies that he is trying to implement are right and good. The other guy, I hate his policies, so whatever it takes to bring him down and slow down his implementation of bad policies, so be it.

Unfortunately, I find myself thinking this way. I don't like it.

Fair enough and I agree. I think zen_tom puts it best.
I see this extending into other corridors of power as well (Enron for example).


Ultimately, I don't think it is anything new. We now have an increasingly aggressive media as well as increasingly agressive prosecutors. Since Watergate, there has been a growing (and I'd argue healthy) lack of respect for governemental institutions.

The key is finding a balance between oversight and needlessly hassling.

Whoa, whoa, hey buddy, why don't you try posting some of your opinion instead of these huge long articles. Honestly! Who has time to read on the internet?

Its definately nothing new and it happens all over the spectrum. But I think you hit the nail on the head with watergate - since then, the media has felt empowered, that they were able to topple an administration, and now I think they see watergate as their posterchild, their ultimate goal with any republican administration.

But its funny in a way. Watergate is always mentioned, always brought up. It was a republican administration that was brought down and that is a big black eye. What's funny is what happened before watergate, the Pentagon papers that basically laid out kennedy's and johnson's true involvement and knowledge about vietnam. But the democrats aren't demonized for this, the media basically forgot about it come watergate. Just a side note I suppose.

More to the point, which is the bigger story? Past crimes or the crimes of a sitting President?

If it bleeds it leads.

I suppose the bigger story would obviously be current events. But we should keep them in context to past events and use caution when demonizing one man and ignoring the faults of another. Even then to call bush a criminal is wrong, imo. I have faith in the man and believe his heart is in the right place and, for the most part, makes the right decisions. he is not error free, I don't know of any person or president that ever was, but because he may or may not have executed poor judgement, does this make him part of a criminal conspiracy? I don't think so. The man appointed brown to head FEMA, its hard to say how much of what happened with the katrina response can be contributed directly to that (hell, blanco won't answer questions about katrina and asked the senate not to question her on it), and even still is that worth losing faith in the man and calling for impeachment? I don't think so either. Bush is always going to have detractors and people looking for anything they can to make him out to be a criminal. That doesn't mean he is.

Appointing Brownie to head FEMA is cronyism or incompetance rather than ilegal activities.

My demonizing Bush doesn't revolve around the illegality of his actions, or even that his actions are heartfelt. I just believe him to be wrong in his decisions and actions.

For me, it is more about his foreign policy than domestic (as I pay more attention to this).

I don't have a list but do remember that one of his first acts upon getting into office was to pull International funding for the AIDs crisis unless the organization had an abstinence only policy (i.e. no birth control). I feel that this was short sighted and insesitive to reality.

His policies haven't gotten any better, IMO.


I don't hate the man. I just don't like his politics.

Though to be truthful, I don't like the way he presents himself and speaks either. I just try not to let that colour my judgement of his actions.

but I've never accused you or even thought you hated the man. I've always perceived your views as your own opinion.

Here's what sticks in my craw about this situation:

Nixon--Resigned when proven to have commited a crime.

Reagan and Iran-Contra (to his subordinates): "Give them everything they ask for."

Clinton: "Deny, deny, deny."
" I never had sex with that woman."
[My words here] "Hillary, have you got all that Whitewater and Rose
Law Firm stuff shredded yet? Be sure not to give them anything until the
statute of limitations is up."

I've seen Bush make his share of, for lack of a better word, "misstatements," but I haven't seen one yet that I was convinced was an intentional lie. I've seen him make mistakes out of ignorance ("Nobody anticipated a hurricane in New Orleans") and on misinformation (WMDs), but Hillary, Bill, and Kerry agreed with him at the time, based on the available information.

I think history will give us a clearer picture of whether he "lied" or not.

Basically. Why aren't the same people who keep yelling "Bubba!" going on about Nixon, Iran-Contra and Tea Pot Dome?

It's just more partisan bickering, why can't we get past this and focus on what is affecting the world today and tomorrow?

Corruption isn't just limited to US officials. Many other countries have just as big (if not bigger) problems with corruption in the government. US corruption might get more headlines, but that doesn't make it any more prevalent. I know there have been allegations fairly recently against Chirac and Berlusconi for corruption.

I personally tend to think that with the current nature of politics across the western world, if you look at any administration close enough you will find things that could be considered corrupt and/or illegal.

I know, I was just heading off other who take this tactic...

That's rather simplifying things. It isn't like he didn't try to get out of it. I'm not arguing that he ultimately did the right thing, just that he didn't go quietly (where are those few minutes of tape again?).

Good point. I think the adage that power corrupts is quite apt. I don't think zen_tom was ignoring this, just addressing the OP and it's US centric position.

Personally in this whole situation it's pointless to point fingers accusingly, but it's not entirely unfair to just lay out the facts of government life.

There's corruption. All administrations have it. The Clinton administration did, the Bush Admin does, etc. It's just a testament that you can't look at Bush and declare him the worst president in history for being the most corrupted president in our history, when it's simply not true.

But in regards to all the fact, while it does show that it is corrupt, it's also a sign that our judicial system is in working order as all of the indictments, etc. are on there, it must surely mean that it was pursued in the court of law to give the writer basis for including those in his list of facts, to even if they are corrupt, there's still means and ways to remove corruption from power.

obviously blame for some of the great fiascos of the past 50 years would have to be shared by the entire political class--vietnam, iraq, etc..
perhaps if we thought about this kind of history long enough, we might conclude that there is something rotten about the system as a whole.

seriously--you would think that there must be some point past which incompetence and falsification and the squandering of thousands of lives would become an issue for the order that set all into motion--and by an issue, i mean a legitimacy problem, not just for the individuals in charge at a given time, responsible for a particular fiasco, but for the american political order as a whole.

better this way, i guess--"my guy is more venal than your guy"
the order itself is always neutral in this game.
problems are always generateed by individual bad eggs.
kind of like how stalin thought about soviet industry--the system is perfect--what goes wrong is explainable by the actions of a few million bad eggs.

do we get to stick our tongues out at each other too?
say nyah nyah, make finger antlers for ourselves and wag them at each other---that kind of thing?
what more is to be accomplished by this kind of thread?--except maybe wondering how it is that similar kinds of corruption seems to emerge in almost every presidency--maybe the problem really is systemic.

but if that is true, how are arguments across versions of conservative politics (rep/dem) not simply diversion?

My point would be that Clinton didn't resign. He continued to embarrass himself and the nation.

Well I looked at it, and I still think Bush is bad. :)


I disagree with the implicit logic that:

--past badness somehow excuses present and future badness;

--what person A does is somehow ethically relevant to what person B does independently;

--anything so complex as the ethical history of a government can be quantified by a few bullet points (I guess it's Powerpoint's world now . . . . we just live in it);

--every time a Bush minion is indicted, that can be "ethically erased" by pointing to a similar fate of a Clinton minion;

--etc.

I'd make those points fly in one by one, but I don't think TFP has a Powerpoint engine yet ;)

I think its frustration on both sides. I think everyone here sees many problems with the system and the corruption it fosters. But how do you begin to solve those problems when one side is willing to ignore them when their party is in power? There is plenty of this going around today, as there was in the Clinton administration as well. I'm to young to remember much before that.

Arguments like this become diversions because people usually tend to see more evil commited by the other party rather than their own. It soon becomes a pissing contest about wich side is worse. So far this thread hasnt turned into that. good job!

If nothing else, I hope this thread lays to rest the popular rebuttal used by Clinton lovers/Bush Haters: "All clinton lied about was a blowjob". Hardly.

mm: in your world, clinton was more an embarrassment to the states than bush is? when exactly did clinton lead the united states into a war on false pretenses? did i miss something?

How many more times do you plan to ignore the statements of Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Robert Byrd, John Kerry, and others, all of whom stated that Iraq had WMDs? I'll post all of them again if you like, but it seems you're the only one who continues to need reminding.

It also appears not to have embarrassed you when Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory because he was distracted by getting a blowjob.
And maybe you missed this European parade float:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y25...bill-float.gif

The US was damn lucky we didn't need to form a coalition during the Clinton years.

But I know, BUSH SUCKS! BUSH SUCKS!

IT"S PRETTY DAMN SAD ANDF SAYS where this country is headed when you have partisans say.... "you think MY president is bad...... "

WTF happened to wanting to better the country and not compare who's worse, or has more criminal acts or has more scandals or whom he surrounds himself with?????

I could write this long, drawn out conclusion of why I disaree with you stevo, but I'll keep this short and sweet. And the following phrase might even be familar to you....

Nobody died when Clinton lied

Yes, you can go on and on about Kosvo and the rest, but Clinton did not directly cause the death of 2000 American soldiers with his lies. Others thought that Iraq had WMD's too. But Bush was the only one who called for a war. No one else.

That's a fact.

The man you voted for twice is an idiot who appoints his buddies to top level position in government when they don't have a fucking clue as to how to go about doing their jobs. And when the shit hits the fan, SAVE US KARL SAVE US!!!!!!!

Live with it.

Actually I think the sad part is that we have a government thats as corrupt as it is. Dont really think its sad when people point it out.. thats a good thing.

Ditto, Sprocket. The argument that "my guy isn't/wasn't as bad as your guy" solves nothing.

We have company !!! I'll leave it to readers to google the conservative credentials of Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, and what it means to be a "John M. Olin fellow", and "a research fellow at the Independent Institute, and senior
research fellow at the Hoover Institution."

Both of these pieces were written by:
I am always impressed by the commitment of the "converterted".......Dr. Roberts' further comments on the same linked page as his above article, could have been written by.......me !! I am looking forward to having an easier job of it, here, as credentialed conservatives speak their minds, on in the name of the truth, and I feature their writings in future posts..........

Bob Barr, former Georgia congressman who prosecuted Clinton in his senate impeachment trial. evidently thinks enough of Paul Roberts' opinion about Bush, to post this on his website, I predict that those who still vehemently support Bush, and even those who view him as the "lesser of two evils", will find themselves, if they look for signs of it, "surrounded" by both "Ted Kennedy and John Conyers" democrats, as well as by "Bob Barr and Paul Craig Roberts" republicans.

I forsee the day......suprisingly soon....where the majority of the links that I post here at TFP politics, will be from conservative oriented websites, and thinktanks, and news services, because, as Dr. Roberts wrote, "Barr believes that truth matters".

I have renewed confidence that many more former Bush supporters believe the same............

[Edit: Response toned down.} Factually untrue, even though you put it in a large typeface. The people at the pharmaceutical plant, David Koresh, Randy Weaver's wife and son, and quite a few others that you choose to ignore would correct you, if they were still around. Especially some soldiers who died in Mogadishu.

In October 1998, John Kerry sent a personal letter to President Bill Clinton stating: "I urge you ... to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

In 1998, in addition to Kerry, 13 other Democratic senators signed an identical letter: Carl Levin of Michigan, Joseph Lieberman and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Robert Kerrey of Nebraska, Dianne Feinstein of California, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson of South Dakota, John Breaux and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii and Wendell Ford of Kentucky. (Eventually Clinton began the bombing of Iraq - on the same day that Monica Lewinsky began testifying to a grand jury of her affair with him.)


Interesting how you missed that. But understandable, since you missed this the first 50 times anyone said it here: Bush put it to a vote. You need to review the vote more (including Hillary Clinton's), and ease up on the caffeine.


Yeah, they couldn't all be Arkansas geniuses like Joycelyn Elders. Or James Lee Witt.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=19

I think we should all be ashamed of ourselves and our government. Instead of pointing fingers or saying "you think that's bad look what they did" we should all be mad as hell that any elected official broke any law. This shouldn't be a pissing contest on which side is worse. Instead of defending our own particular favorite political parties elected official when he breaks a law BOTH sides should be equally aghast and demand something be done about it immediately. Unfortunately I believe that both sides use this knit picking "look what they done" to distract the American people from things that really matter. To often our elected officials are doing "what's right" for themselves and their own particular political party while pointing a finger at the opposite party to distract from their own transgressions and we the American voting public fall right into their trap. I believe we are living in a pathetically sad period of American politics with no hope for any future improvements. There is so much finger pointing right now between the parties that nothing can get done other than investigating the other party. What's right for America seems to have taken a back burner somewhere while the United States only gets better for the wealthy while we argue which party or which president broke more laws. Pathetic!

Agreed, which is why I don't give a damn if de Lay is booted, provided he's guilty. And why I think it should be illegal for any politician to accept "gifts" from anyone other than family members.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who are not as egalitarian as I. If these people could demonstrate facts that prove Bush lied, rather than that he spoke on the basis of inaccurate information, I'd say kick him out.

Instead, they just blindly repeat their mantra: Bush lied! Bush sucks! Sometimes they put it in a large typeface to try to make it more authoritative.

That's pathetic, too.

We will see how Clinton v2.0 will do, when Hilary becomes the next president.

(which to be honest I seriously do not want).

Argg don't even say it. Brrrr. I can't talk.

mm: given that the debate about the iraq war has been recycled here again and again with no appreciable movement from either side--tho in this case, i think the only meaningful movement would come from conservatives, who have no choice by now but to concede that the case for war was false from the beginning and deal with the concsequences of that, both political and psychological---i am not interested in going through all of it again--but think about it--the unsc did not believe the bushcase for war. there was ample evidence from the outset, available even to folk like us, that the administration was lying at the worst, cooking the books at best, to justify a rush into an unnecessary (and costly) war.
that the american political class as a whole initially bought the administrations argument can and should stand as yet another indictment of the system as a whole--but i also i suspect that a reason for the initial credulity was that folk like kerry etc. were in a position like you seem to still be in--they wanted to assume good faith from the white house--however, unlike you, most of those folk have had to reconsider their positions---they, like you, were wrong. unlike you, folk like kerry actually faced having been decieved by the administration. you have not.

it seems to me that the sole function of these recurrent "yeah but what about clinton..." threads are indices of the extent to which conservatives who continue to support the administration--a dwindling number, btw--seem to be doing so because they cannot deal with the dissonance that thinking critically about what george w bush has done would entail.

but again, this type of conversation is, in fact, diversionary. the problem is the system as a whole.

Now that is something I can get behind.

While this is a reasonable opinion, I still have a problem with your last sentence. The question was not whether Iraq had WMDs, but whether they had destroyed them. Meanwhile, the Iraqis were still shooting at us, and the UN had dumped the situation into our laps. Had Saddam cooperated with the UN weapons inspectors, there would have been no war.

So I have to question your statement regarding the "ample evidence" of the administration's either lying, or cooking the books.


It would be helpful if you could provide evidence of the deliberate deception the administration perpetrated on Mr. Kerry, et. al.


Again, hard evidence that he deliberately lied would settle the disagreement. As of yet, the worst that can be documented is that he acted on bad information. Until worse can be proven, it would be senseless for the Republicans to compete in the political arena under the "Marquis of Queensberry" rules, while the Democrats proceed to kick them in the balls at every opportunity.

No argument there.

This "comparative review" notion--"well, Bush isn't as bad as Clinton" rings hollow with me. Why would a supporter of Bush think that comparing him favorably to Clinton is beneficial? That's like someone saying "I'm not as bad as the town drug dealer or shady used car salesman." How about using a better yardstick for measuring, like how one stands up against the Boy Scout volunteer or the school teacher that tutors on her time off?

This kind of thinking is worthwhile to me for one reason, though. I keep a mental scorecard on pundits. If one was critical of Clinton for bombing Iraq and making statements about how scary Hussein was in 1998, then that one has standing to be critical of Bush in 2003. Otherwise, they need to shut up. Likewise, if someone is supportive now of Bush on something--immigration, let's say--but harps on the next Democrat for not closing the border, then I have no interest in listening to them.

In other words, cheerleaders don't interest me. Anyone that is carping on Bush for being a criminal and didn't support the removal of Clinton during his impeachment is a hypocrite, and unworthy of my time.

Thank you. This is pretty much where I was going with this. None of this was meant to excuse any political figue, only to expose the doublestandard libs show when they cry for bush's head, but excuse everything clinton.

But the flip is also true: Anyone that thinks Bush is always right and Clinton was always wrong is no better than the reverse.

That is true. But I believe in supporting the president, no matter what party he is affiliated with. I was less enthusiastic toward politics during the clinton era but I wasn't calling for his impeachment. Bush has made some decisions I question, but I also feel that I voted for him to make those decisions for me.

I just have a problem with this... all leaders must be held accountable for their actions. Carte blanche is a non-starter for me.

I'd like to think that this would be exclusive of their political affiliation.

support for a president and holding a president accountable are not mutually exclusive.

When nixon lied none died either, but no democrat will ever mention that so why would a conservative say the same about clinton

Well now that depends. You can't be supporting a president AND wanting to see them brought up on charges of wrongdoing. Those who wanted to impeach Clinton were NOT supporting him. Those investigating Reagan during Iran Contra were NOT supporting him.

Blindly saying that you support someone simply because of the office they hold and not because of their actions in that office is setting a dangerous mindset for democracy. I support the president when he has EARNED that support. Sending troops to Iraq to die in droves for a lie does not earn that support. Appointing an incompetent to the head of the agency responsible for keeping his citizens safe in an emergency does not earn that support. Continuing to vacation while his citizens suffer in the aftermath of one of the worst storms ever to hit the country does not earn that support.

That's not to say I don't support some of his decisions. I supported his decision to invade Afghanistan because Afghanistan was harboring the terrorist who hurt us. That was a good decision. Had he actually followed through and finished business in Afghanistan I would have supported that. I did not, however, support the decision to get distracted by Iraq, which had not attacked us, and in consequence ignoring Al Qaeda, which had.

I didn't support Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal - although I must say that was a rather silly thing to go after him on. So he cheated on his wife? So the hell what? That's between him and his wife. Frankly, I'd have supported him much more if, in answer to the "did you sleep with Lewinsky" question he'd quoted LBJ and told his interrogators it was "none of your goddamn business".

I also did not support Clinton in his response to the first bombing of the WTC, also by bin Laden. I thought we should have gone after him then. Lobbing a few dozen cruise missles at a pharmaceutical factory was not an effective response. I did not, nor do I to this day, support his "close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears and hope the bad people go away" strategy to dealing with terrorism.

That said, I did not support the Clinton persecutors who wanted to find out what he did to women with his cigars while helping to bury the growing terrorism problem. Frankly I think a situation that puts the lives of our country's citizens at risk is far more important than phallic smokes. Had we worried less about Clinton's personal life, however titillating, and more about catching those who had already hurt us and obviously were out to hurt us again, we might have averted 9/11.





I think I've sufficiently demonstrated that I am not one of those who thinks President X is always wrong while President Y can do no wrong. I also agree with AVoiceOfReason that justifying Bush's actions because "well gee Clinton screwed up too!" is bullshit. What Clinton did is history. It's irrelevant when considering the ramifications of what Bush did. Frankly, if your best defense is "clinton sucked, so there!" then you must know you are supporting a sinking president and that you have no real argument left with which to prop him up.

How about you support the office of President, but don't necessarily have an all resounding support for the current administration that extends further then your support for the government office.

I agreed with much of what you wrote, but this point caught my attention as something that should be addressed. Clinton's affair with Lewinsky was not just between him and his wife--it is that, but so much more is riding on it than that. Clinton was in a spot to be blackmailed, and would do anything to keep himself out of hot water. How do I know that? Go back to Gennifer Flowers getting a job in state goverment after becoming his girlfriend. Add to that what Paula Jones said about her getting work, and how Vernon Jordan was trying to get Lewinsky a job in New York. He also threw a bunch of supporters under the bus, including his own wife. He was a desparate man, and was taking desparate measures.

Now, suppose instead of talking to a patriot in Linda Tripp, Monica's buddy was in tight with the ChiComs or the Russians. Word gets to Clinton what they know and what they want to keep it secret. Then what?

I know, there's some supposition there, but it's only to illustrate the point that the private lives of the President (and many others in national security positions) is not merely a matter between him and his family and his God. A guy putting himself in the position to be bribed or blackmailed puts a lot more folks at risk. One red herring in the whole defense of Clinton was "it's a private sexual matter." The background was sex, but it could have been corruption of another sort, and the result would be the same. (Another, not germane to our discussion, but I just thought of it, was that a removal from office would be like undoing the election of 1996--it would do nothing of the sort, since Dole wouldn't be taking office, Gore would.)

Bottomline: Character DOES count, and America had better never forget it.

Before he holds the office he has support. Before he makes any presidential decisions he has support. That is what elections are, no? I can support the office, and seperatly I can support the man. He is held accountable after 4 years. He can also be held accountable by the other officials we elected into office to do that job for us. Now when it becomes obviouls the president is not doing the job we've elected him to do - it is time for our senate to hold him accountable. But that time is different for everyone. We are not all going to agree at the same time that the president is an "incompetent hack." for some, he just has to be elected to be labeled as such, for others it takes much more.

I'm not sure if your last paragraph is directed at me, but if it is, go back and read all my posts in this thread and tell me if you still think thats what I"m trying to say.

I still support bush, but I'm going to follow this latest supreme court nominee closely, because I do question this appointment and would like to know more.

I would rather have a president blackmailed by a scorned lover (and I seriously doubt the CIA and the government agencies would allow anyone with close ChiCom or "bad guys" to get too close without making sure she could be made to disappear real fast. There are far, far more ways to get a "spy" close to the president without going that far.

(Of course there are the rumors that Giancana "owned" Kennedy because of his dalliance's with Ms. Campbell, but it seems Hoover held it over the president's head far more than the mob.)

Now, Bush on the other hand, one has to wonder when we see who he appoints and how they have no or little experiences with the position. That to me makes me wonder why, and is far more dangerous to the country than an affair. I understand wanting to give friends positions but they should not be policy making and in positions that could hurt us, there are many qualified people out there and as president regardless of party you should seek the best person out for the job (Clinton did this and put his "friends" in positions that wouldn't hurt the nation if they fucked up) .... Brown in FEMA, Meier for SCJ, and so on.

And by the way, I am sure Clinton is by far not the only womanizing President from either party, he just happened to get caught when the GOP couldn't find anything else that would stick to him.

When I think about it, his nominations do make some sense to me. Everyone complains about what a horrible job our officials are doing. So one would think there would be praise when a fresh face is nominated, someone without the "experience" everyone else has. But then again...

read some in depth historical books and what you are saying is painted quite well. I've been in 2 different countries for almost 3 weeks and reading the papers here isn't much different than america when it comes to scandals for government officials. I'm assuming that people think that just because it's America that there isn't such thing as corruption... especially after the dismantling of Tamany Hall and that machine of corruption.

Although Tamany Hall (and other similar operations in other cities) did have alot of corruption, the organizations did serve an important purpose. They provided many underclass citizens (especially immigrants) opportunities and a voice they might not have otherwise gotten. Whereas much of the influence peddling mentioned in this thread by Bush and Clinton seems to be little more than the lining of their own pockets, the lining of close associates' pockets, or political paybacks.

That's the thought I was trying to express. Your words were very eloquent and "reasonable." I'd like to borrow them for use in discussions with others from time to time.

An interesting point that had not occurred to me, but it tacitly goes along with an important "misconception." Clinton wasn't impeached for having an affair--he was impeached for LYING about it UNDER OATH.

Perhaps in some aspects lack of experience can help, it depends on the job. Do you truly want a Secretary of State that has no idea about foreign affairs? Or the Secretary of Defense to be an ex executive of a company the military has contracts with and gets no bid contracts from? Or a SCJ that makes rulings solely because the political party that put him/her there wants a decision a certain way? Or the head of first responders to take 4 days to respond to a horrid cat 5 hurricane? Or an Attorney General that is your brother and goes after the mob but ignores other important and pressing problems? Or a U.N. ambassador that has had issues with temper and is hard to get along with?

Now WH Chief of Staff and ordering around the staff in the White House or setting speeches up that's different.

You want to make your best friend your press secretary but he isn't qualified? Who cares...... cool, do it.

You want to make a lawyer that has dirt on you SCJ or an Arabian Horse judge director of FEMA? There's credibility issues there, that should send red flags up to all regardless of party as to how you choose people to head important offices.

Which most men would do, because until now it truly wasn't a criminally punishable offense even in divorce courts.

Palmeiro lied to Congress, we don't see him up for criminal charges.

Point is the GOP wanted to get Clinton on something, anything and used his lying about an affair (which I again stress most married men would lie about, especially public officials) to try to fry him. Thank God we had a some GOP senators that put the country ahead of partisan politics.

Lying under oath about cheating on your wife..... BIG FUCKING DEAL, it's laughable and sad that we almost destroyed the office of presidency and a man because of that.

It's not like he lied about..... welll we didn't really have a crisis while he was in office for him to lie about.

Lying about weapons of mass destruction and going to war and then changing why we went every 5 minutes.... far more serious.

(And the bs that Bush was given bad information is just that bs..... if you're going to send men and women to war and put their lives on the line, then you better know exactly why and have perfectly clear, defendable reasons that you will stick by.)

If he had said weapons of mass destruction and had stayed with it and never wavered, right or wrong, I'd respect him as a man of conviction..... now I just see him as a weasel that will say and do whatever he wants and fuck the truth. I'm sure the right can say that about Clinton's lie.

If Bush had said "look illegal aliens are a terrorist risk and I'm going to tighten up our defenses as that is a prime way for them to get here"....... I'd respect him as tough on terrorism..... but to make it so you can't carry fingernail clippers on a plane or go outside of an airport and smoke a cigarette without having to check back in, or some of these other rules are ridiculous and aren't going to stop a terrorist.

You have a very good point. And had that happened we certainly should have prosecuted him - not for screwing his intern, but for treason.

I'd point out that pretty much every politician has something they can be blackmailed on. Bad grades in school, a number of DWI's, jilted lovers from college wanting to get even, etc etc etc. All stuff they wouldn't want to see appearing in the papers and stuff that, if found out by the wrong party, could result in blackmail. At what point would you draw the line and say "yes, this blackmailable action is prosecutable, but that one is not?"

Plus, Lewinsky was cleared to intern for the president. That means all her friends and contacts were checked out before she got anywhere near the oval office. If one of her buddies were ChiCom, etc, she wouldn't have gotten the internship in the first place.

And too you've set up a daunting precident should we ever have an unmarried president. Should we impeach him for dating, since his date COULD be a foriegn national out to do us harm? No, they wouldn't have blackmail possibilities as far as the cheating scandal, but they would have a lot of access to the President, and you're bound to pick stuff up if you're with him that much.


Nope, not directed at anyone specifically, just at those who think the "but he did it too" defense excuses anyone's actions.

Well, his second term anyway. His first term he not only did not have the support of the majority, but he didn't even get elected at all. He was instead appointed by a council of judicial ministers who are NOT accountable to the public.

Well, not really. You can vote for him, then decide he's pissing you off and not support him anymore. It's happening left and right even as we type. That's why his approval rating is in the toilet.


That's true, but you can also support the office, and seperately not support the man. I believe the office of president is important, good, and necessary for our government to function, but that does not mean that anyone who happens to hold that office automatically gets my support.

I'm a believer that the Mafia, Triad, Yakuza, et. al. have their place in securing safety and funds for those underclasses. At least you knew what you were dealing with from the get go.

As for politicians, I'm quite sure that the Tamany Hall machine didn't just do it for the benefit of the underclass, they also got funds for their own gains.

I'm not a Dem, but this is a scary way of looking at things. Someone who murders twice is better than someone who rapes thrice? Someone who rapes five times is better than someone that steals 10 times?

The NUMBER of crimes broken is not as important as the crimes themselves. I'd rather have a neighbor with 200 outstanding parking tickets than a neighbor that killed someone over a pack of smokes. *shrug*

This is kind of off topic but I invite you to consider the definition of tyrant as the ancient Greeks coined the term. To them it ment "Someone who rules by other than constitutional means." With that in mind remember that in the first election Bush wasn't elected president by the people he was given the presidency by the supreme court (Which, last I checked, wasn't how it was supposed to happen.) And i'm not entirly convinced that this last election was all on the up and up either. sooooooo....

DOWN WITH THE TYRANNY OF BUSH!!

*thejoker steps off of his soapbox*

No other word for it: Bullshit. Plain and simple, and the topic has already been discussed extensively.

You're the only one that isn't convinced (well, maybe Al Gore is with you, but no one else). Every agency that has done their own research disagrees with you.

Marvelous
 

While I do find it amazing....the research you have done to know how extensively this has been discussed (having only 2 posts in this forum) It is Marvelous that you define your opinion with such elegance....Just Marvy.

Might want to be a bit less confrontational till youve been here a bit....unless of course you have had a bit of....uh...clandestine practice.

Actually no, it's not bullshit. The Supreme Court appointed Bush in his first term by giving Florida to him. Bush was not elected. So yes, for four years we ceased to be a constitutional republic, and became instead an oligarghy with an appointed head of state.

You are very correct sir. The House which Constitutionally had the right was bypassed.

That's revisionist bs, and anyone with half a brain knows this. Even in the recounts after the election, Bush had Florida. You could argue the stupidity of the electoral college system (one where more people vote for one guy, but the other wins because of where those people voted) but to say that Bush was appointed is the height of democratic/liberal brainwashing.

It only goes to the House if there is a tie.

It went to the Supreme Court because of a lawsuit filed by Al Gore over votes. They threw it out, meaning the votes didn't count, and Bush was therefore elected President.

In other words, the system as it is set up worked. Just because your man lost doen't make it any other way.

And now we have the answer!! Clearly Harriet Miers was sleeping with Bush, and blackmailed him into nominating her...

Finally, something that makes sense!
:D

I think Bush is bad. I looked at that list.

I've never called Bush a criminal. I have said anything with a breath and a heartbeat would be preferable to him.

In terms of quality of leadership, who here enjoyed having the internet made available? Hands? Or just clap. Who enjoyed investments that skyrocketed during the Clinton era?

What advancements has Bush Made? He pushed a law that made birth control unavailable to women in the armed forces - where the rape count is skyrocketing. Ummm... he uh, appointed a cyborg to the supreme court....

And best of all, he completely spent the surplus and built up a massive deficit all over again.

I'm confused...is the point of this thread that basically that if you make a career out of politics and cutting deals to stay in office and so forth, that at some point you're a lot closer to a criminal than a public servant?

Regardless, I could care less about some comparitive approach between Bush and President X. I dislike Bush. I don't think I would like to be in the same room he's in, I think he would annoy the everloving shit out of me, I think he's policies are backassward and I'm disturbed by the extent to which he panders to reactionary Christian groups, calls himself a Christian, and turns around and bombs the shit out of another country in a pre-emptive strike. I didn't like Clinton. I was too young to give a shit about Bush I, nor Reagan other than as people I generally laughed at for taking themselves so seroiusly despite not having real jobs.

I know you put the smilie, but I swear some people probably believe that!

:eek: