Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-30-2005, 06:18 AM   #1 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
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

Quote:
The Clinton Legacy


The Progressive Review


Our Clinton Scandal Index


RECORDS SET

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad

* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.

Using a far looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same figure but with a different standard in "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: "By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."


STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION

- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas to date (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 14
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3

CRIME STATS

- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

SMALTZ INVESTIGATION

- Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15
- Acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6
- Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5 million
- Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million

CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES
FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS
HAVE BEEN OBTAINED

Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice.

OTHER MATTERS INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS
AND CONGRESS, OR REPORTED IN THE MEDIA

Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House.

ARKANSAS ALZHEIMER'S

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.

Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697

THE CLINTON LEGACY:
LONELY HONOR

Here are some of the all too rare public officials, reporters, and others who spoke truth to the dismally corrupt power of Bill and Hill Clinton's political machine -- some at risk to their careers, others at risk to their lives. A few points to note:

- Those corporatist media reporters who attempted to report the story often found themselves muzzled; some even lost their jobs. The only major dailies that consistently handled the story well were the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times.

- Nobody on this list has gotten rich and many you may not have even heard of. Taking on the Clintons typically has not been a happy or rewarding experience. At least ten reporters have been fired, transferred off their beats, resigned, or otherwise gotten into trouble because of their work on the scandals. Whistleblowing is even less appreciated within the government. One study of whistleblowers found that 232 out of 233 them reported suffering retaliation; another study found reprisals in about 95% of cases.

- Contrary to the popular impression, the politics of those listed ranges from the left to the right, and from the ideological to the independent.

- We have not included victims of the Clinton machine, some of whom have acted with considerable danger and at considerable risk to themselves. They will be included on a later list.


PUBLIC OFFICIALS

MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ was a prosecutor on the staff of Kenneth Starr. His attempts to uncover the truth in the Vincent Foster death case were repeatedly foiled and he was the subject of planted stories undermining his credibility and implying that he was unstable. Rodriguez eventually resigned.

JEAN DUFFEY: Head of a joint federal-county drug task force in Arkansas. Her first instructions from her boss: "Jean, you are not to use the drug task force to investigate any public official." Duffey's work, however, led deep into the heart of the Dixie Mafia, including members of the Clinton machine and the investigation of the so-called "train deaths." Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports that when she produced a star witness who could testify to Clinton's involvement with cocaine, the local prosecuting attorney, Dan Harmon issued a subpoena for all the task force records, including "the incriminating files on his own activities. If Duffey had complied it would have exposed 30 witnesses and her confidential informants to violent retributions. She refused." Harmon issued a warrant for her arrest and friendly cops told her that there was a $50,000 price on her head. She eventually fled to Texas. The once-untouchable Harmon was later convicted of racketeering, extortion and drug dealing.

BILL DUNCAN: An IRS investigator in Arkansas who drafted some 30 federal indictments of Arkansas figures on money laundering and other charges. Clinton biographer Roger Morris quotes a source who reviewed the evidence: "Those indictments were a real slam dunk if there ever was one." The cases were suppressed, many in the name of "national security." Duncan was never called to testify. Other IRS agents and state police disavowed Duncan and turned on him. Said one source, "Somebody outside ordered it shut down and the walls went up."

RUSSELL WELCH: An Arkansas state police detective working with Duncan. Welch developed a 35-volume, 3,000 page archive on drug and money laundering operations at Mena. His investigation was so compromised that a high state police official even let one of the targets of the probe look through the file. At one point, Welch was sprayed in the face with poison, later identified by the Center for Disease Control as anthrax. He would write in his diary, "I feel like I live in Russia, waiting for the secret police to pounce down. A government has gotten out of control. Men find themselves in positions of power and suddenly crimes become legal." Welch is no longer with the state police.

DAN SMALTZ: Smaltz did an outstanding job investigating and prosecuting charges involving illegal payoffs to Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, yet was treated with disparaging and highly inaccurate reporting by the likes of the David Broder and the NY Times. Espy was acquitted under a law that made it necessary to not only prove that he accepted gratuities but that he did something specific in return. On the other hand, Tyson Foods copped a plea in the same case, paying $6 million in fines and serving four years' probation. The charge: that Tyson had illegally offered Espy $12,000 in airplane rides, football tickets and other payoffs. In the Espy investigation, Smaltz obtained 15 convictions and collected over $11 million in fines and civil penalties. Offenses for which convictions were obtained included false statements, concealing money from prohibited sources, illegal gratuities, illegal contributions, falsifying records, interstate transportation of stolen property, money laundering, and illegal receipt of USDA subsidies. Incidentally, Janet Reno blocked Smaltz from pursuing leads aimed at allegations of major drug trafficking in Arkansas and payoffs to the then governor of the state, WJ Clinton. Espy had become Ag secretary only after being flown to Arkansas to get the approval of chicken king Don Tyson.

DAVID SCHIPPERS, was House impeachment counsel and a Chicago Democrat. He did a highly creditable job but since he didn't fit the right-wing conspiracy theory, the Clintonista media downplayed his work. Thus most Americans don't know that he told NewsMax, "Let me tell you, if we had a chance to put on a case, I would have put live witnesses before the committee. But the House leadership, and I'm not talking about Henry Hyde, they just killed us as far as time was concerned. I begged them to let me take it into this year. Then I screamed for witnesses before the Senate. But there was nothing anybody could do to get those Senators to show any courage. They told us essentially, you're not going to get 67 votes so why are you wasting our time." Schippers also said that while a number of representatives looked at additional evidence kept under seal in a nearby House building, not a single senator did.

JOHN CLARKE: When Patrick Knowlton stopped to relieve himself in Ft. Marcy Park 70 minutes before the discovery of Vince Foster's body, he saw things that got him into deep trouble. His interview statements were falsified and prior to testifying he claims he was overtly harassed by more than a score of men in a classic witness intimidation technique. In some cases there were witnesses. John Clarke has been his dogged lawyer in the witness intimidation case that has been largely ignored by the media, even when the three-judge panel overseeing the Starr investigation permitted Knowlton to append a 20 page addendum to the Starr Report.


OTHER

THE ARKANSAS COMMITTEE: What would later be known as the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy actually began on the left - as a group of progressive students at the University of Arkansas formed the Arkansas Committee to look into Mena, drugs, money laundering, and Arkansas politics. This committee was the source of some of the important early Clinton stories.

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SCANDALS E-LIST: Moderated by Ray Heizer, this list has been subject to all the idiosyncrasies of Internet bulletin boards, but it has nonetheless proved invaluable to researchers and journalists.


JOURNALISTS

JERRY SEPER of the Washington Times was far and away the best beat reporter of the story, handling it week after week in the best tradition of investigative journalism. If other reporters had followed Seper's lead, the history of the Clintons machine might have been quite different.

AMBROSE EVANS-PRITCHARD of the London Telegraph did a remarkable job of digging into some of the seamiest tales from Arkansas and the Clinton past. Other early arrivals on the scene were Alexander Cockburn and Jeff Gerth.

CHRISTOPHER RUDDY, among other fine reports on the Clinton scandals, did the best job laying out the facts in the Vince Foster death case.

ROGER MORRIS AND SALLY DENTON wrote a major expose of events at Mena, but at the last moment the Washington Post's brass ordered the story killed. It was published by Penthouse and later included in Morris' "Partners in Power," the best biography of the Clintons.

OTHERS who helped get parts of the story out included reporters Philip Weiss, Carl Limbacher, Wes Phelan, David Bresnahan, William Sammon, Liza Myers, Mara Leveritt, Matt Drudge, Jim Ridgeway, Nat Hentoff, Michael Isikoff, Christopher Hitchens, and Michael Kelly. Also independent investigator Hugh Sprunt and former White House FBI agent Gary Aldrich.

Sam Smith of the Progressive Review wrote the first book (Shadows of Hope, University of Indiana Press, 1994) deconstructing the Clinton myth and the Review developed a major database on the topic.

The Clintons, to adapt a line from Dr. Johnson, were not only corrupt, they were the cause of corruption in others. Seldom in America have so many come to excuse so much mendacity and malfeasance as during the Clinton years. These rare exceptions cited above, and others unmentioned, deserve our deep thanks.

THE CLINTON LEGACY
The Hidden Election

USA Today calls it "the hidden election," in which nearly 7,000 state legislative seats are decided with only minimal media and public attention. The paper took brief notice because this is the year the state legislatures perform their most important national function: drawing revised congressional districts based on the most recent census.

But there's another important national story here: further evidence of the disaster that Bill Clinton has been for the Democratic Party. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Democrats held a 1,542 seat lead in the state bodies in 1990. As of last November that lead had shrunk to 288. That's a loss of over 1,200 state legislative seats, nearly all of them under Clinton. Across the US, the Democrats control only 65 more state senate seats than the Republicans.

Further, in 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than the Republicans. After November, the Republicans control one more than the Democrats. Not only is this a loss of 9 legislatures under Clinton, but it is the first time since 1954 that the GOP has controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968).

Here's what happened to the Democrats under Clinton, based on our latest figures:

- GOP seats gained in House since Clinton became president: 48
- GOP seats gained in Senate since Clinton became president: 8
- GOP governorships gained since Clinton became president: 11
- GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254
as of 1998
- State legislatures taken over by GOP since Clinton became president: 9
- Democrat officeholders who have become Republicans since Clinton became
president: 439 as of 1998
- Republican officeholders who have become Democrats since Clinton became president: 3
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 09-30-2005, 06:25 AM   #2 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
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.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 09-30-2005, 06:33 AM   #3 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
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.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 09-30-2005, 06:50 AM   #4 (permalink)
zen_tom
Guest
 
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.
 
Old 09-30-2005, 06:52 AM   #5 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
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.
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?
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 09-30-2005, 07:17 AM   #6 (permalink)
Devoted
 
Redlemon's Avatar
 
Donor
Location: New England
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.
__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.
Redlemon is offline  
Old 09-30-2005, 07:33 AM   #7 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
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?

Fair enough and I agree. I think zen_tom puts it best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zen_tom
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.
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.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 09-30-2005, 07:54 AM   #8 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
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?
filtherton is offline  
Old 09-30-2005, 07:58 AM   #9 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan

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.
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.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 09-30-2005, 08:03 AM   #10 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
More to the point, which is the bigger story? Past crimes or the crimes of a sitting President?

If it bleeds it leads.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 09-30-2005, 08:13 AM   #11 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
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.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 09-30-2005, 08:28 AM   #12 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
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.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 09-30-2005, 08:35 AM   #13 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
but I've never accused you or even thought you hated the man. I've always perceived your views as your own opinion.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 09-30-2005, 08:51 AM   #14 (permalink)
Cunning Runt
 
Marvelous Marv's Avatar
 
Location: Taking a mulligan
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.
__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

Last edited by Marvelous Marv; 09-30-2005 at 08:54 AM..
Marvelous Marv is offline  
Old 09-30-2005, 08:58 AM   #15 (permalink)
Junkie
 
highthief's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
More to the point, which is the bigger story? Past crimes or the crimes of a sitting President?

If it bleeds it leads.

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?
__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.
highthief is offline  
Old 10-01-2005, 05:38 AM   #16 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zen_tom
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.
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.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 10-01-2005, 06:26 AM   #17 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
but I've never accused you or even thought you hated the man. I've always perceived your views as your own opinion.
I know, I was just heading off other who take this tactic...

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvelous marv
Nixon--Resigned when proven to have commited a crime.
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?).

Quote:
Originally Posted by alansmithee
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.
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.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 10-01-2005, 06:50 AM   #18 (permalink)
Rookie
 
Gatorade Frost's Avatar
 
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.
__________________
I got in a fight one time with a really big guy, and he said, "I'm going to mop the floor with your face." I said, "You'll be sorry." He said, "Oh, yeah? Why?" I said, "Well, you won't be able to get into the corners very well."
Emo Philips
Gatorade Frost is offline  
Old 10-01-2005, 07:06 AM   #19 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
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?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Last edited by roachboy; 10-01-2005 at 07:13 AM..
roachboy is offline  
Old 10-01-2005, 07:31 AM   #20 (permalink)
Cunning Runt
 
Marvelous Marv's Avatar
 
Location: Taking a mulligan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
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?).
My point would be that Clinton didn't resign. He continued to embarrass himself and the nation.
__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher
Marvelous Marv is offline  
Old 10-01-2005, 07:39 AM   #21 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
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
raveneye is offline  
Old 10-01-2005, 07:46 AM   #22 (permalink)
Psycho
 
sprocket's Avatar
 
Location: In transit
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
but if that is true, how are arguments across versions of conservative politics (rep/dem) not simply diversion?
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.
__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.
sprocket is offline  
Old 10-01-2005, 10:10 AM   #23 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
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?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 10-01-2005, 06:14 PM   #24 (permalink)
Cunning Runt
 
Marvelous Marv's Avatar
 
Location: Taking a mulligan
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
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:



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

But I know, BUSH SUCKS! BUSH SUCKS!
__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher
Marvelous Marv is offline  
Old 10-01-2005, 06:21 PM   #25 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
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 just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 10-01-2005, 06:55 PM   #26 (permalink)
Republican slayer
 
Hardknock's Avatar
 
Location: WA
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.

Last edited by Hardknock; 10-01-2005 at 07:02 PM..
Hardknock is offline  
Old 10-01-2005, 07:17 PM   #27 (permalink)
Psycho
 
sprocket's Avatar
 
Location: In transit
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
IT"S PRETTY DAMN SAD ANDF SAYS where this country is headed when you have partisans say.... "you think MY president is bad...... "
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.
__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.
sprocket is offline  
Old 10-01-2005, 07:38 PM   #28 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
Ditto, Sprocket. The argument that "my guy isn't/wasn't as bad as your guy" solves nothing.
Elphaba is offline  
Old 10-01-2005, 08:08 PM   #29 (permalink)
Banned
 
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:
Quote:
Paul Craig Roberts is
the John M. Olin fellow
at the Institute for Political
Economy, a research
fellow at the Independent
Institute, and senior
research fellow at the
Hoover Institution.
Quote:
<a href="http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/roberts.cgi">The Latest From Paul Craig Roberts</a>


Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Will Neocon Fanaticism Destroy America?

The “cakewalk war” is now two-and-a-half years old. U.S. casualties (dead and wounded) number 20,000. As 20,000 is the number of Iraqi insurgents according to U.S. military commanders, each insurgent is responsible for one U.S. casualty.

U.S. troops in Iraq number about 150,000. Obviously, U.S. troops have not inflicted 150,000 casualties on the Iraqi insurgents. U.S. troops have perhaps inflicted 150,000 casualties on the Iraqi civilian population, primarily women and children, who are the “collateral damage” of the “righteous” and “virtuous” U.S. invasion that is spreading civilian deaths all over Mesopotamia in the name of democracy

What could the United States have possibly done to give America a worse name than to invade Iraq and murder its citizens?

According to the Sept. 1 Manufacturing & Technology News, the Government Accountability Office has reported that over the course of the cakewalk war, the U.S. military’s use of small caliber ammunition has risen to 1.8 billion rounds. Think about that number. If there are 20,000 insurgents, it means U.S. troops have fired 90,000 rounds at each insurgent.

Very few have been hit. We don’t know how many. To avoid the analogy with Vietnam, until last week the U.S. military studiously avoided body counts. If 2,000 insurgents have been killed, each death required 900,000 rounds of ammunition.

The combination of U.S. government-owned ammo plants and those of U.S. commercial producers together cannot make bullets as fast as U.S. troops are firing them. The Bush administration has had to turn to foreign producers such as Israel Military Industries. Think about that. Hollowed-out U.S. industry cannot produce enough ammunition to defeat a 20,000-man insurgency.

U.S. military analysts are beginning to wonder if the United States has been defeated by the insurgency. Increasingly, Bush administration spokesmen sound like “Baghdad Bob.” On Sept. 19, The Washington Post reported that U.S. military spinmeister Maj. Gen. Rich Lynch declared “great success” against the insurgency that had just inflicted the worst casualties of the war, including a three-day mortar attack on the “safe” Green Zone.

Anthony Cordesman, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., says: “We can’t secure the airport road, can’t stop the incoming (mortar rounds) into the Green Zone, can’t stop the killings and kidnappings.” The insurgency controls most of Baghdad and the Sunni provinces.

With its judgment lost to frustration, the U.S. military has 40,000 Iraqis in detention—twice the number of estimated insurgents. Who are these detainees? According to The Washington Post, “Many of the men detained in Tall Afar last week were rounded up on the advice of local teenagers who had stepped forward as informants, at times for what American soldiers said they suspected amounted to no more than settling local scores.”

Obviously, the United States, not knowing who or where the insurgents are, is just striking blindly, creating a larger insurgency.............
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,
Quote:
http://bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=545

The Sins of Clinton vs. Bush
by Paul Craig Roberts
Copyright 2003 Antiwar.com
Thursday, August 19, 2004 at 9:00 AM

Unsure how to judge the Bush administration? Read former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr's book on the Clinton administration.

Bob Barr is an unusual person, a prosecutor who cares about civil liberty. Barr served four terms (1995-2003) as a Republican congressman from Georgia. He was one of the more intelligent members of the House.

Barr is old-fashioned in the sense that he has an idealistic view of government. To Barr's mind, government is not about ego, prestige, and how the pie is divided. Government is about doing the right thing and serving the country's best interest. Barr believes President Bill Clinton failed in this task, and he is unapologetic about leading the movement to impeach President Clinton.

In his newly published book, The Meaning of Is, Barr provides his account of the impeachment and failed conviction of President Clinton. Barr's use of language creates the impression that he is writing in the spirit of a very partisan Republican. In truth, Barr's choice of words reflects his disappointment in the integrity of government. As a constitutionalist, he has no home in either party...............

...........Barr is convinced that Clinton did great damage to the country and its security. Barr makes a strong argument. However, to anyone who has paid attention to the lies and deception used by the Bush administration to take us to war against Iraq, and to Attorney General John Ashcroft's war against our civil liberties, Clinton's reign seems innocuous.

<h3>By helping us revisit Clinton's transgressions, Barr unintentionally enables us to judge the deterioration in Oval Office behavior under Bush.
Lying about a sexual affair is just not on the same scale as lying about war.</h3>
The petty penny ante real estate deal known as Whitewater pales into insignificance compared to the multi-billion dollar fraud of the Iraqi reconstruction contracts.

This is not to argue that Clinton should be excused. It is to say that matters have become worse......

...........Republicans should have noted that President John F. Kennedy remains a political icon, although he certainly out-womanized Clinton.
The notion of powerful men as womanizers and sexual predators is suspect on its face. The desire for top bragging rights that come from sleeping with powerful men makes women equally responsible...........

..............If anything, Clinton showed restraint. This is especially the case if Republican stories are true that Hillary had to issue orders to shameless White House female staffers not to show up for work without their knickers on.
Barr believes that truth matters. If he is correct, George W. Bush is in for a hard time.
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............

Last edited by host; 10-01-2005 at 08:15 PM..
host is offline  
Old 10-02-2005, 01:44 AM   #30 (permalink)
Cunning Runt
 
Marvelous Marv's Avatar
 
Location: Taking a mulligan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardknock
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
[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.

Quote:
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.
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.


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

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=19
__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

Last edited by Marvelous Marv; 10-02-2005 at 04:36 AM..
Marvelous Marv is offline  
Old 10-02-2005, 03:50 AM   #31 (permalink)
Psycho
 
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!
scout is offline  
Old 10-02-2005, 04:21 AM   #32 (permalink)
Cunning Runt
 
Marvelous Marv's Avatar
 
Location: Taking a mulligan
Quote:
Originally Posted by scout
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.
__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

Last edited by Marvelous Marv; 10-02-2005 at 04:24 AM..
Marvelous Marv is offline  
Old 10-02-2005, 04:49 AM   #33 (permalink)
People in masks cannot be trusted
 
Xazy's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
We will see how Clinton v2.0 will do, when Hilary becomes the next president.

(which to be honest I seriously do not want).
Xazy is offline  
Old 10-02-2005, 08:59 AM   #34 (permalink)
JBX
Unfair and Imbalanced
 
Location: Upstate, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xazy
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.
__________________
"Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"
JBX is offline  
Old 10-02-2005, 09:16 AM   #35 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
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.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 10-02-2005, 10:22 AM   #36 (permalink)
Republican slayer
 
Hardknock's Avatar
 
Location: WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by scout
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!
Now that is something I can get behind.
Hardknock is offline  
Old 10-02-2005, 12:57 PM   #37 (permalink)
Cunning Runt
 
Marvelous Marv's Avatar
 
Location: Taking a mulligan
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
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.
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.


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


Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
the problem is the system as a whole.
No argument there.
__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher
Marvelous Marv is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 06:20 AM   #38 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: Greenwood, Arkansas
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.
__________________
AVOR

A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.

Last edited by AVoiceOfReason; 10-03-2005 at 06:27 AM..
AVoiceOfReason is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 09:40 AM   #39 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVoiceOfReason

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.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 09:56 AM   #40 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: Greenwood, Arkansas
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
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.
__________________
AVOR

A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.
AVoiceOfReason is offline  
 

Tags
bad, bush

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:21 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360