PDA

View Full Version : Bill Clinton, Good President Or Not?



Digger
05-30-2007, 04:08 AM
Personally I feel Bill Clinton a very poor president who abused the powers of his office and deliberately lied under oath, However it must be said, I doubt there would be any honest politicians anywhere.:)

But how bad was Clinton or do you feel he was a good president?

Regards digger.

Rising Sun*
05-30-2007, 07:44 AM
Well, he certainly knew how to get ahead. ;)

Gen. Sandworm
05-30-2007, 08:11 AM
Well I will say that most of Bill's praise comes after being president. If you thought Bill was bad just wait till you see Dubya! :mrgreen:

Bill mostly worked on internal issues. His foreign policy was good but not great. One of the 1st presidents to balence the budget in a long time. I would say mostly he keep the status quo and improved what he could. Also have to remember that he was really the 1st president that didnt really have to worry about the USSR. At least as a potential threat. He probably wont be remembered as a great pres but a good one coz he was, for the most part, a peace time leader.

Bush probably will not be remembered as a bad pres. Like I said before to hit the bottom according to Americans you have to do nothing. Even thou Im not a fan I cant say he did a bad job leading the country right after 9/11. Or lets just say the end of 2001. However im sure you will not find him anywhere close to the list of great presidental speeches. ;)

Back to Bill.........he will be forever plagued with the scandal towards the end. Personally I thought it was funny until they impeached him. This was nothing more than the Republicans trying to show muscle. Much like now with the Democrats and their time tables. Both are pretty silly.

royal744
05-30-2007, 09:42 AM
Personally, I think he was a very good President. When he left office, the country was running a budget surplus (the deficit "clock" in Times Square actually ran "backwards"), he had reduced welfare rolls in the country, and the US was both admired and well loved in the world. He didn't preside over the sale of America to China, that's for sure. He fought a brief, sharp war in Kosovo and got in and out rapidly, especially because the Republicans imposed a timetable on him (Tony Snow: "If you think Vietnam was bad, wait til you see Kosovo." How wrong can one be?). He won that war. Memories are very short around here.

The bad press he got for the Monica Lewinsky affair was deserved but it was not an impeachable offense, especially when compared to what is going on now, or, compared to the antics of people like Newt Gingrich who went after Clinton with hammers and tongs and then told his wife who was in the hospital with cancer that he was leaving her for another woman he had been "dating". Geez, the pot calling the kettle black. I think history's verdict on Clinton will be very positive, especially by comparison. A BJ under the desk may be unseemly, but it is not the same thing as 3500 dead kids in a faraway land for dubious reasons.

overlord644
05-30-2007, 10:28 PM
i think that all bill's negative views com from the lewinsky scandal, after all he was president from 93-01 and that has been the most economically prosperous time in US history

Gen. Sandworm
05-31-2007, 04:13 AM
Funny enough according to this graph( that doesnt site a source besides wiki common) Bill was far more popular during his 2nd term than his first. Also close to the highest approval rating he had ever had when he left office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clinton_approval_rating.JPG

Rising Sun*
05-31-2007, 09:30 AM
Clinton did something useful by firing some missiles at Gaddafi, who pulled his head in afterwards.

Pity he didn't wipe out Gaddafi and his whole command crew on that occasion. I know Gaddafi's young child was killed. So? Did Gaddafi give a cube about anyone of any age being killed by the mongrels he supported? As ye sow ... etc

Might have discouraged some others to host, for want of a better word, terrorists in their countries. And avoided a lot of other problems caused by people who thought, correctly, that they were beyond the reach of justice.

Laconia
05-31-2007, 03:31 PM
Clinton is a traitor and should be in jail! The sensitive technology that he allowed to be sold to China qualifies him for a long prison term. This action allowed the Chinese to advance at least 10 to 15 years with their long range weapons program. Plus, his constant trampling of the U.S. Constitution by signing in to law things such as more gun controland ceding American soverignty to the Unitd Nations! The worst part is this scoundral is now being supported by the taxpayer, even though he could afford to pay his own security detail and office space with the millions of dollars he has made since leaving office. What a low life this man is!!!

Laconia
05-31-2007, 03:36 PM
Personally, I think he was a very good President. When he left office, the country was running a budget surplus (the deficit "clock" in Times Square actually ran "backwards"), he had reduced welfare rolls in the country, and the US was both admired and well loved in the world. He didn't preside over the sale of America to China, that's for sure. He fought a brief, sharp war in Kosovo and got in and out rapidly, especially because the Republicans imposed a timetable on him (Tony Snow: "If you think Vietnam was bad, wait til you see Kosovo." How wrong can one be?). He won that war. Memories are very short around here.

The bad press he got for the Monica Lewinsky affair was deserved but it was not an impeachable offense, especially when compared to what is going on now, or, compared to the antics of people like Newt Gingrich who went after Clinton with hammers and tongs and then told his wife who was in the hospital with cancer that he was leaving her for another woman he had been "dating". Geez, the pot calling the kettle black. I think history's verdict on Clinton will be very positive, especially by comparison. A BJ under the desk may be unseemly, but it is not the same thing as 3500 dead kids in a faraway land for dubious reasons.

He did preside over the sale of Amerca to the Chinese. He got political donations from him my friend, and allowed the sale of sensitive technology. So he lobbed a few missles, he didn't do a damm thing after the Kobar towers attack, the Cole attack, the embassy bombing attacks, nothing. We still have troops in the Balkins also. Please!!! And lets not forget about him sending Sandy Burger to the National Archives to steal papers that would make him look bad as regards our friend Bin Laden and 911!

Laconia
05-31-2007, 03:43 PM
Personally, I think he was a very good President. When he left office, the country was running a budget surplus (the deficit "clock" in Times Square actually ran "backwards"), he had reduced welfare rolls in the country, and the US was both admired and well loved in the world. He didn't preside over the sale of America to China, that's for sure. He fought a brief, sharp war in Kosovo and got in and out rapidly, especially because the Republicans imposed a timetable on him (Tony Snow: "If you think Vietnam was bad, wait til you see Kosovo." How wrong can one be?). He won that war. Memories are very short around here.

The bad press he got for the Monica Lewinsky affair was deserved but it was not an impeachable offense, especially when compared to what is going on now, or, compared to the antics of people like Newt Gingrich who went after Clinton with hammers and tongs and then told his wife who was in the hospital with cancer that he was leaving her for another woman he had been "dating". Geez, the pot calling the kettle black. I think history's verdict on Clinton will be very positive, especially by comparison. A BJ under the desk may be unseemly, but it is not the same thing as 3500 dead kids in a faraway land for dubious reasons.

It was lying under oath that was the impeachable offence and the Republicans at least followed the Constitution concerning this matter. These 3500 soldiers (not kids) were all volunteers. They knew what could happen to them when they joined the military. It was American policy, even under Clinton to get rid of Saddam's regime, but Clinton didn't have the cohones to do it militarily And many Democrats voted for the war and they now are running away from it . I don't have any respect for these folks.

Digger
05-31-2007, 05:43 PM
I don't think anyone was overly concerned with the sexual antics of the man, perhaps other than the moral majority. What was of concern was his abuse of power of his office, his bald faced lies and deliberate attempts to destroy Monika Lewinsky.

Remember she was not the only woman he did this to, it was just that Lewinsky was the first to have the gumption to bring it in to the open and show Americans what a low life this sod is.

And yes his track record on foreign relations was not that good. In fact his reactions to the Balkans crisis were so slow, more lives were lost than necessary.

Regards Digger

Gen. Sandworm
06-01-2007, 04:59 PM
And many Democrats voted for the war and they now are running away from it . I don't have any respect for these folks.

Yea ......... and both parties voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which was all based on BS. Just like the reasons to go to Iraq. I dont care who it is but someone has to say "hey we made a mistake and what are we going to do about it?" Now we have a wonderful situation caused by us were humans are constantly being thrown in the meat grinder. Now im not for immediate withdrawal or stupid time tables but something needs to be done.

This is why Clinton did things by the book and went with the UN. Just like Bush's Dad in Iraq. Saddam was a bastard and im glad he is gone. But thats no reason to go to war. If thats the case I say we declare war on Africa........plenty of crazy bastards down there that make Saddam look like a girl scout.

royal744
06-01-2007, 05:43 PM
It was lying under oath that was the impeachable offence and the Republicans at least followed the Constitution concerning this matter. These 3500 soldiers (not kids) were all volunteers. They knew what could happen to them when they joined the military. It was American policy, even under Clinton to get rid of Saddam's regime, but Clinton didn't have the cohones to do it militarily And many Democrats voted for the war and they now are running away from it . I don't have any respect for these folks.

LOL, well, Laconia, I certainly managed to "rattle your cage"! Since the original question was whether or not he was a good or bad president, I stand by my "opinion" that he was an excellent one, especially compared to the cretinized midget who is currently occupying the White House, and who has shown himself to be a bigger liar in every possible sense of the word than Bill Clinton who lied about a blow job from a woman of consenting age. If you disagree with this, fine. That's your prerogative and that's what this forum is for. Welcome.

royal744
06-01-2007, 05:44 PM
Laconia: it takes a real man to say he was wrong; it takes a real fool to say he has never been wrong and has never made a mistake. Who was it who said, "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds"?

royal744
06-01-2007, 11:15 PM
In fact his reactions to the Balkans crisis were so slow, more lives were lost than necessary.Regards Digger

Wow. "More lives were lost than was necessary." Gee, um, let me think now, is there anyone else I can compare Clinton's performance with.... let's see, live, un-necessary losses.... let me think....

Nickdfresh
06-02-2007, 04:25 PM
William Jefferson Clinton was an excellent President. You can say all you want about his shortcomings, and he did have some. But his steady leadership heralded the ending of deficit spending, a booming economy, and a relatively safe world in which the United States was by-in-large respected. He helped prevent an Islamic insurgency in the Balkans by goading reluctant, rudderless European countries into taking action against Serbian genocide. Although his actions against Osama Bin Laden were somewhat lacking, he did take him seriously as a longterm threat. On the negative side, I think his signing off on NAFTA was foolish and has had a negative long term effect on both the US and South American economies while providing very little benefits. And yes, he did try to cover up his affair with Monica Lewinsky and was probably a womanizer. But you know what? Grow the **** up already! Firstly, he TECHNICALLY did not "lie under oath," since the "definition of sex" given to him did not include "oral." So yes, he lied in spirit, but not in letter. And where is the moral equivalency of investigating the President's sex life? I mean, it was an open secret that Eisenhower was in a long term sexual relationship with his driver, an Irish Actress named Kay Sommersby that was accepted into the US Army (inexplicably) as basically a concubine (I think the joke goes that: "Eisenhower and Kay have broken down on the road. Kay opens the hood to have a look at the engine, and Ike goes to the trunk to pull out the mechanic's tool set. He says, 'screwdriver?' and Kay replies, 'might as well, I can't fix the goddamn engine!'" George Bush 41 is said to have had numerous affairs with prostitutes, and of course the Reagan family was hardly one to emulate.

Forty million dollars were spent investigating Clinton by a "vast right wing conspiracy" feeding Ken Starr mostly false information via the 'Arkansas Project' (the editor has since apologized to the Clintons and has admitted a grand design to slander and overturn a democratic election via false or exaggerated accusations with the goal of impeachment). He survived all of this, and managed to keep the country on track despite constant wasteful investigations and partisan smear and a completely transparent, phony, and a hypocritical Republican congress which has since violated nearly every tenant in their "Contract with America." In light of all this, I'd say he's probably one of the greatest presidents ever.

Nickdfresh
06-02-2007, 04:30 PM
Clinton is a traitor and should be in jail! The sensitive technology that he allowed to be sold to China qualifies him for a long prison term. This action allowed the Chinese to advance at least 10 to 15 years with their long range weapons program. Plus, his constant trampling of the U.S. Constitution by signing in to law things such as more gun controland ceding American soverignty to the Unitd Nations! The worst part is this scoundral is now being supported by the taxpayer, even though he could afford to pay his own security detail and office space with the millions of dollars he has made since leaving office. What a low life this man is!!!


Idiot. "Clinton sold China technology?" Well, WTF is Bush selling them? Why is everything in ****ing Wal-Mart made in China since Bush took office?

More "Arkansas Project" crap basically holding Bill Clinton personally accountable for Chinese espionage. Well pumpkin, ALL presidents should be "in jail" then. Shouldn't they?

Firefly
06-02-2007, 05:30 PM
From an outside view over his 8 years I think he was better than what you have now. Not as good as some, but better than others.

redcoat
06-02-2007, 05:54 PM
I liked Clinton, unfortunately I can't say the same for the present US president

mike M.
06-02-2007, 08:26 PM
I think Clinton sucked, definitely not as good as we have now. I still remember Clinton saying he smoked a joint but he didn't inhale and who can forget " define is". Check out this list of Pardons issued by Clinton http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6a.htm Why so many to cocaine dealers?

Digger
06-03-2007, 07:09 AM
I would go with JFK on this one, but only just. I think another term may have made this decision much easier.

Reagen had his good points, but I think the actor sometimes merged with the President.

Regards digger.

Laconia
06-04-2007, 01:18 AM
LOL, well, Laconia, I certainly managed to "rattle your cage"! Since the original question was whether or not he was a good or bad president, I stand by my "opinion" that he was an excellent one, especially compared to the cretinized midget who is currently occupying the White House, and who has shown himself to be a bigger liar in every possible sense of the word than Bill Clinton who lied about a blow job from a woman of consenting age. If you disagree with this, fine. That's your prerogative and that's what this forum is for. Welcome.

Whats the term about the Clinton's? They are "congenital liars"! As for Bush, he lost me on the illegal immigration issue. I have no love for this man either. But you can say one thing about him, he has largely kept his campaign promises. He was always for "comprehensive immigration reform", "campaign finance reform" (another blow to the Constitution), he cut taxes, etc. That's why people hate him so.\, he did what he said he would. Yeah, Clinton was a good President in a sense, he has good political skills, and he could make you like him even though you knew he was a louse.

Laconia
06-04-2007, 01:38 AM
Idiot. "Clinton sold China technology?" Well, WTF is Bush selling them? Why is everything in ****ing Wal-Mart made in China since Bush took office?

More "Arkansas Project" crap basically holding Bill Clinton personally accountable for Chinese espionage. Well pumpkin, ALL presidents should be "in jail" then. Shouldn't they?
Don't call me an idiot, MAGGOT BRAIN! Lets keep it civil here. Yes, I agree, we have been sold down the drain by our own elected officials. We, "the people" have let all this happen. We are the ones who don't vote in record numbers, we are the ones who buy all that China crap. The fact is, I fear all is lost. The politicians keep most of us happy with full bellies and a roof over our heads. Nobody wants to do anything about it either.

Laconia
06-04-2007, 01:48 AM
Yea ......... and both parties voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which was all based on BS. Just like the reasons to go to Iraq. I dont care who it is but someone has to say "hey we made a mistake and what are we going to do about it?" Now we have a wonderful situation caused by us were humans are constantly being thrown in the meat grinder. Now im not for immediate withdrawal or stupid time tables but something needs to be done.

This is why Clinton did things by the book and went with the UN. Just like Bush's Dad in Iraq. Saddam was a bastard and im glad he is gone. But thats no reason to go to war. If thats the case I say we declare war on Africa........plenty of crazy bastards down there that make Saddam look like a girl scout.

Buy the book? The Gulf War was only in a cease fire mode. The war could be resumed at any time for Saddams lack of adhearance to the said ceasefire agreement. The U.N. passed how many resolutions? Did Saddam comply with any of them? Yes, the whole thing is a meatgrinder. What do you do? Look at Iran and the nuke issue. They keep defying the UN. Everyone says they don'et want a nuke Iran, but the UN will do nothin and soon Iran will have nukes. What will stop them? Asking? Pleading? Begging? In the end we will do .nothing and then the mideast will be in a real mess.

Laconia
06-04-2007, 01:59 AM
LOL, well, Laconia, I certainly managed to "rattle your cage"! Since the original question was whether or not he was a good or bad president, I stand by my "opinion" that he was an excellent one, especially compared to the cretinized midget who is currently occupying the White House, and who has shown himself to be a bigger liar in every possible sense of the word than Bill Clinton who lied about a blow job from a woman of consenting age. If you disagree with this, fine. That's your prerogative and that's what this forum is for. Welcome.

Yes, you got me going. This is a great subject. Nothing gets my goat like the politicians of today. Love him otr hate him, we all got our feelings about William Jefferson BLYTHE Clinton.

Gen. Sandworm
06-04-2007, 03:11 AM
Look at Iran and the nuke issue. They keep defying the UN. Everyone says they don'et want a nuke Iran, but the UN will do nothin and soon Iran will have nukes. What will stop them? Asking? Pleading? Begging? In the end we will do .nothing and then the mideast will be in a real mess.

This is not about Bill. OFF-TOPIC.

Israel will never let Iran get nukes. When Saddam was working on nukes they went in and took them out. That was a bit easier since Iraq and Iran were at war. Im all in favor of Iran having nuclear power but nukes are a different story. In this case im not worried about what the UN/Iran/US will do im more worried about Israel in this case. Talk about the shit hittin the fan in an already bad situation.

Might add ... its not like they are going to have them tm. Still away off. Hopefully the UN will get off its *** and do something otherwise whats the point. The UN is the way to go but things happen to slowly sometimes.

Gen. Sandworm
06-04-2007, 03:13 AM
Lets keep it civil here.

Play nice ladies! ;)

Man of Stoat
06-04-2007, 03:42 AM
Clinton had an extremely easy ride from the media, particularly the European media, purely because he was a Democrat.

Imagine the headlines had a republican government gone into Kosovo and bombed Libya.

Also remember that most of the planning and preparation for 9/11 was carried out while slick Willie was in office, yet the whole thing is somehow bush's fault, Clinton getting a free pass for doing nothing.

Had he been a republican and done exactly the same things, the media would have been all over him like a rash and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Digger
06-04-2007, 04:26 AM
Thanks Man of Stoat. Kosovo was a no win situation. The western press largely backed the move, but the people on the ground reckoned he dithered around for too long before taking action. Of course this was all after the EU wimped out on taking any strong action.

Regards digger

Man of Stoat
06-04-2007, 04:39 AM
The EU has always relied on the US presence in Europe for its defence. had the Soviets rolled over the inner German border at any time between 6 p.m. on Friday and 8 a.m. on a Monday, it would only have been the American and British forces in Germany holding them back, the others all having gone home for the weekend .

A favourite game of the European countries is to do nothing, insist that the Americans do something, and then slag the Americans off as the "world police" when they do. it really boils down to "we want the Americans to sort it out, but we want to complain about it too"

Frankly, given that the Europeans couldn't sort out a minor problem in their own backyard on their own justifies the American view that the Europeans are utterly ineffectual whinge bags. And I am European!

Digger
06-04-2007, 04:58 AM
I remember the night hostilities commenced. Clinton gave what I thought was a well balanced sincere speech as compared to Tony Blair's attempt at Churchillian oratory, which failed miserably especially when he wistfully looked off in the distance.

Yes, I do not know how you Europeans can share the same continent with the French.;):rolleyes:

Regards digger

Rising Sun*
06-04-2007, 06:24 AM
Look at Iran and the nuke issue. They keep defying the UN. Everyone says they don'et want a nuke Iran, but the UN will do nothin and soon Iran will have nukes. What will stop them? Asking? Pleading? Begging? In the end we will do .nothing and then the mideast will be in a real mess.

Which countries border Iran east and west, and put it in a pincer if invaded simultaneously from those countries?

Afghanistan and Iraq.


Where are American forces?

Afghanistan and Iraq.


Which nation labelled Iran as part of the Axis of Evil?

America.


If you were in Iran, would you feel threatened by a situation equivalent to America being sandwiched by China occupying Canada and Mexico?


What did America do when the North Koreans, also part of the Axis of Evil, made out that they were going more seriously nuclear?

Rush to accommodate them.


What could Iran have learned from this?

How about: Go nuclear and America will rush to accommodate us?


What could Iran learn from the different American treatment given it and its North Korean Axis of Evil partner?

How about: America rushes to accommodate North Korea but not us?


What happened to the third country in the Axis of Evil, being Iraq, when it was alleged by America to have nuclear weapons?

It got invaded.


What could Iran conclude from the favourable treatment that North Korea got from America compared with what happened to Iraq with considerably less evidence and no provocation?

How about: America is engaged in a crusade against Islam?


What would be a reasonable Iranian response?

Get some serious weapons for the inevitable invasion by American forces on their borders, and make them and their allies pay dearly for any invasion.


Maybe if America had a current president who was rather more measured and intelligent in his pronouncements and exercise of military power, like Clinton was and Bush isn't, Iran's mullahs and assorted dangerous Islamic ratbags would have been happy just to puff themselves up by condemning America as the Great Satan and pronouncing fatwas on Salman Rushdie and so on, without actually doing anything much more than jerkiní their gherkins about how they were in a real conflict with far-away America.

Iran hasnít moved to Americaís borders, nor did it initiate the Axis of Evil approach, so it canít be blamed for the current situation where it has responded to a legitimate concern that America is determined to carry out Bushís clear desire to take it out sooner or later.

I donít like the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons, but Iím not happy with the way America uses its military muscle either. Or the way my country goes along with it like a pathetic little lap dog.

Laconia
06-06-2007, 12:57 AM
Which countries border Iran east and west, and put it in a pincer if invade

I don’t like the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons, but I’m not happy with the way America uses its military muscle either. Or the way my country goes along with it like a pathetic little lap dog.

Good points, Rising Sun. Of course we would react likewise if we were being sandwhiched. But, we can not forget that Iran is being driven by religious ideology. Somewhat fanatic if you ask me. They want to eliminate Israel, call America the "Great Satan". Face it, America's position in the Middle East is all about oil and it's free flow to the rest of the world. Let's not be too hard on America though, in the course of history we have done more for freedom and liberty than anyone else. Imagine what your life would have been like if you had had to grow up under the banner of Japanese benevolance.

Rising Sun*
06-06-2007, 08:12 PM
Let's not be too hard on America though, in the course of history we have done more for freedom and liberty than anyone else. Imagine what your life would have been like if you had had to grow up under the banner of Japanese benevolance.

Agreed.

It would have been more accurate for me to say that I'm not happy with the way America uses its military muscle after Afghanistan.

I was in favour of rooting out Osama and his crew in Afghanistan, but Iraq is a different issue that's made things worse rather than better, and not just for America, by becoming a focus for all the Islamic fanatics on the planet. It has greatly increased conflict and resentment between Islam and the West and widened the range of Muslims who support the fanatics. None of this bodes well for the future.

As has been observed by others, Bush's military adventurism in Iraq has destroyed the enormous international goodwill that existed towards America after 9/11, and still after Afghanistan. From an outsider's viewpoint, he's done more damage to America's standing in the eyes of the rest of the world than any post-war president, and probably any president. That alone makes him a far worse president than Clinton.

Laconia
06-07-2007, 09:53 PM
Agreed.

It would have been more accurate for me to say that I'm not happy with the way America uses its military muscle after Afghanistan.

I was in favour of rooting out Osama and his crew in Afghanistan, but Iraq is a different issue that's made things worse rather than better, and not just for America, by becoming a focus for all the Islamic fanatics on the planet. It has greatly increased conflict and resentment between Islam and the West and widened the range of Muslims who support the fanatics. None of this bodes well for the future.

As has been observed by others, Bush's military adventurism in Iraq has destroyed the enormous international goodwill that existed towards America after 9/11, and still after Afghanistan. From an outsider's viewpoint, he's done more damage to America's standing in the eyes of the rest of the world than any post-war president, and probably any president. That alone makes him a far worse president than Clinton.

Well, to be honest, I don't give a hoot to our "standing in the eyes of the rest of the world". Like him ot not, he is our elected President, his administration sets foreign policy and that's that. The electorate will pick another and America's foreign policy could change. I am just so tired of the UN though, the immense waste of my tax dollars to said organization. We pay a lot of the freight and the rest of the world spits in our eyes. America has it's own Constitution and that is the only document we should live by. If I am to be a slave in the wheel of life, by God I wish to be a slave under an American master. Like I say, George Bush is not my favorite guy. He has violated the U.S. Constitution himself , in fact we have very few politicians in this country who make laws according to it anymore. They say they do, but they really don't. I am just so totally disgusted with it all! As for the Muslin fanatics, they hate us for who we westerners are (our religion), and all that we have. We didn't do squat to them and bang! 911. There is nothing we can say or do to make them like us. You need to realize that ALL WESTERNERS are in their crosshairs. They will kill you and your children in a heartbeat, all in the name of their Allah. Prepare yourself for a long war is all I can say.

royal744
06-10-2007, 10:01 AM
Well, to be honest, I don't give a hoot to our "standing in the eyes of the rest of the world". Like him ot not, he is our elected President, his administration sets foreign policy and that's that. The electorate will pick another and America's foreign policy could change.

I certainly hope it changes because one could not to any worse than this president. Every day I watch the news and read the newspaper it gets worse. It has been a long time since a US president has attacked a country "just because he wants to". This has brought shame on our country. Worse, it has resulted in over 3500 dead American boys and girls.


I am just so tired of the UN though, the immense waste of my tax dollars to said organization. We pay a lot of the freight and the rest of the world spits in our eyes. America has it's own Constitution and that is the only document we should live by.

There are many people in the US who don't like the United Nations, and in some areas of criticism they are right - there is corruption and feather bedding, and the awarding of committee assignments to countries that have neither earned it nor deserved it. Hmmmm, sounds a little like the House and Senate under the Republicans selling everything but the doilies on K Street.

As for wasting your tax dollars, how about throwing away half a trillion dollars of your tax money on NOTHING?

As a proportion of its GNP, the US actually spends less money than any western European nation on foreign aid.

royal744
06-10-2007, 10:11 PM
I've noticed that some of my compatriots are a bit blinded by the "righteousness" of their cause that they lose any sense of perspective on what they are doing. I think you identified a host of these issues, RS, and quite properly pointed them out. I find it amazing, or at least fascinating, to watch Bush and Cheney trying to raise that old drumbeat once more and turn it against Iran.

It reminds me as nothing so much as the insane and phony propaganda of the president concerning Saddam's WMD, only now it is Iran's WMD that we are supposed to be worried about. At this point in history, it is worth noting that among the US, Iraq and Iran, the only country that actually has WMD, is the US. Bush said, in an interview during this time, that "he's (Saddam) is a madman." He said it more than once. I think we have a right to ask now just who the madman was.

More to the point, perhaps, one reason, perhaps the reason why we have a problem with Iran now is because we toppled the only regime - bad as it was, I grant you - that was a countervailing force against Iran: Iraq! In effect, we "delivered" Shi'ite Iraq into the hands of Shi'ite Iran, proof that the "Law of Unintended Consequences" deserves a second look, unless, of course, this is what Bush wanted, which would be difficult to believe.

Americans have really short memories. It was President Reagan who gave Saddam many, many millions in arms and aid because it was fighting an eight year war against Iran. I'm sure many have seen the video of none other than Donald Rumsfeld visiting Saddam Hussein and warmly shaking his hand. And, lest we forget, it was April Glaspie, Bush's ambassador to Iraq, who told Saddam - the transcript of her talk with him is available on the internet - that the US didn't have a problem with Saddam's problem with Kuwait's borders. Good lord. Recent history is full of ironies. Anyone who thinks we have exercised good judgment on the world scene since Reagan and Bush1 and Bush2 have trod on the world scene might want to rethink their position. Only now, we are in a mess, a quagmire and a disaster of such proportions that it is possible that future historians, when describing the long moment when America was eclipsed on the world scene, will be talking about Bush2 and Iraq.

Perhaps the greatest irony of all is that the one country in the so-called "axis of evil" which truly is nuts and certainly evil - North Korea - and actually has nuclear weapons, gets a free "Get of Jail" card from Bush. If this doesn't confirm that Iraq and the hoax of WMD was all about oil, then nothing does. If Bush had been really serious about WMD, he would have gone after the one guy who actually had them and said so.

There is a lot of what appears to be religious fanaticism in certain locales in the Middle East. We are concerned that these Muslim clerics will take over regimes just as they have done in Iran. Non-religious regimes in the Middle East are worried about Muslim fundamentalists who want to run governments and follow their skewed interpretation of God's law. We are so blinded by this that we do not see that the Jerry Falwells (now deceased) and Pat Robertsons in this country want to do exactly the same thing to America. They want to tell us what to think and do and how to live our lives. Ironic, isn't it?

Go figure.

Gen. Sandworm
06-11-2007, 03:01 AM
We didn't do squat to them and bang! 911.

If i hadnt just woke up I would go on about this but 1st let me just get a clarification. Do you mean your average American or the US govt or both?

Gen. Sandworm
06-12-2007, 02:14 PM
We didn't do squat to them and bang! 911.

If i hadnt just woke up I would go on about this but 1st let me just get a clarification. Do you mean your average American or the US govt or both?

1. I would like the answer to my question. 2.Does anyone else have a problem with this one or is it just me?

royal744
06-12-2007, 11:20 PM
Well, Laconia, if pirates based in Bermuda attacked us and sank some of our ships, I really don't think the proper reaction is to attack Costa Rica and lie and say the Costa Ricans are harboring the pirates. Oh, and by the way, the Costa Ricans are working on a nuclear bomb. LOL. That's what Bushie did when he shifted away from Afghanistan and attacked Iraq. It seemed so obvious when he did it then and seems ten times more obvious today. Why are there people who deny the obvious?

Laconia
06-13-2007, 09:28 PM
If i hadnt just woke up I would go on about this but 1st let me just get a clarification. Do you mean your average American or the US govt or both?

The average person in the towers that day did nothing. As far as the U.S. Govt, well, they have a foreign policy, and some of the folks out there might not like it. They can always find some reason to find fault with us. Now, as to why Bin Laden did it, well, I only remember that the U.S. supported him in Afghanistan against the Soviets. In the end he turned on us. But it's all part of the drive to establish a worldwide Muslim Caliphate. Of course we are enemy #1.

Laconia
06-13-2007, 09:39 PM
It reminds me as nothing so much as the insane and phony propaganda of the president concerning Saddam's WMD, only now it is Iran's WMD that we are supposed to be worried about. At this point in history, it is worth noting that among the US, Iraq and Iran, the only country that actually has WMD, is the US. Bush said, in an interview during this time, that "he's (Saddam) is a madman." He said it more than once. I think we have a right to ask now just who the madman was.

More to the point, perhaps, one reason, perhaps the reason why we have a problem with Iran now is because we toppled the only regime - bad as it was, I grant you - that was a countervailing force against Iran: Iraq! In effect, we "delivered" Shi'ite Iraq into the hands of Shi'ite Iran, proof that the "Law of Unintended Consequences" deserves a second look, unless, of course, this is what Bush wanted, which would be difficult to believe.
Quote above.

It was just not the "phoney propaganda" from Bush about WMD's. All the Democrats were singing the same tune. All the intelligence reports said the same. So along comes Bush and he pulls the trigger. What can you do? He miscalculated. He thought the Iraqi people wanted peace and liberty after Saddam. They don't. Now, you can't take Al Queada out of the picture in Iraq either. Yes, Bush handed the deal over to Shiite Iran. Saddam was a bullwark against this sort of thing, I agree. We supported Saddam for many years against Iran. So what? The enemy of my enemy is my friend, remember? As for all the WMD's, maybe, just maybe they are sitting in Syria. This is a possibility, isn't it?

royal744
06-14-2007, 09:34 PM
It was just not the "phoney propaganda" from Bush about WMD's. All the Democrats were singing the same tune. All the intelligence reports said the same. So along comes Bush and he pulls the trigger.

I love this. Bush "miscalculated". Let's change that to "Bush lied". The buck stops at his desk. You say the Dems said the same thing? You could be right, but the Dems didn't go to war and Bush did.


As for all the WMD's, maybe, just maybe they are sitting in Syria. This is a possibility, isn't it?

No, actually, that isn't a possibility because it has been very carefully looked at. If they were there, and we knew it, believe me, Bush would have made sure we knew it too to prove he wasn't the absolutely worst president in our history. Alas, he is.

Laconia
06-14-2007, 11:23 PM
I love this. Bush "miscalculated". Let's change that to "Bush lied". The buck stops at his desk. You say the Dems said the same thing? You could be right, but the Dems didn't go to war and Bush did.



No, actually, that isn't a possibility because it has been very carefully looked at. If they were there, and we knew it, believe me, Bush would have made sure we knew it too to prove he wasn't the absolutely worst president in our history. Alas, he is.

Guess you must have missed the part where the Dems voted in a resolution of Congress to back Bush in this war. They are all GUILTY! The only thing we have now is the Dems trying to weasel out of their vote. It won't work. The truth is the truth. Lets face it , you don't know the whole story, all the backroom stuff with the CIA and other intelligence reports. Or perhaps mabe you have some sort of direct pipeline to the absolute truth concerning this matter? You know what I know, the reports that you heard in the press etc., just as I did. You believe what you believe concerning this matter, and I believe what I believe. We can agree, the whole thing is a mess and how did this thread go from Bill Clinton being the absolute worst President, to George Bush having that mantle?

Chevan
06-15-2007, 12:28 AM
Sorry to interrupt you but i have to say It so interesting to read this thread guys and ladies;)
Never saw the simular discussion before between the american members.
So you honored lady Laconia think the Bush is not guilt for the political deadline in Iraq?

It was just not the "phoney propaganda" from Bush about WMD's. All the Democrats were singing the same tune. All the intelligence reports said the same. So along comes Bush and he pulls the trigger. What can you do? He miscalculated. He thought the Iraqi people wanted peace and liberty after Saddam.
Sorry but i't hard to believe that the "innocent Bush" were deceived by the Dems and intelligence reports about WMD in Iraq. but ....... i'm particulary agree with you.
You absolutly right the everybody want this war in 2003. And Dems voted for the war.
I think the Bush was simply a toy in the hand of lobbyes and interests of differents groups.
In fact the WDM was not the real reason of invasion - I heared there were a more importaint interests in the Iraq oil and Israel. And honesly speaking i think Bush clearly know - there were no WDM in Iraq( it was a pure political invention of mass media to treat the social oppinion- nothing more).
Anyway i think Bush could nothing did to stop the much more powerfull forces inside the america. They want the war - they have got the war. But the Bush now is the scapegoat.
It's sadly IMO.
Cheers.

Rising Sun*
06-15-2007, 02:03 AM
People often believe things that lack evidence but which justify what they want to do. Which is why Dubya and the neo-cons got into bed with Ahmad Chalabi, who was a crook and a fraud and probably a double agent run by Iran. With disastrous results for America and great results for Iran.

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm/Page/Article/ID/1734

Digger
06-15-2007, 03:44 AM
Okay I've set up two seperate threads to discuss the merits of US Presidents, so this thread can return to on topic.

Regards digger

mike M.
06-15-2007, 10:46 AM
You say the Dems said the same thing? You could be right, but the Dems didn't go to war and Bush did.


Here is a site that shows who voted for and who voted against the war, lots of Dems voted FOR WAR. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

royal744
06-16-2007, 07:08 PM
Guess you must have missed the part where the Dems voted in a resolution of Congress to back Bush in this war. They are all GUILTY! The only thing we have now is the Dems trying to weasel out of their vote. It won't work. The truth is the truth. Lets face it , you don't know the whole story, all the backroom stuff with the CIA and other intelligence reports. Or perhaps mabe you have some sort of direct pipeline to the absolute truth concerning this matter? You know what I know, the reports that you heard in the press etc., just as I did. You believe what you believe concerning this matter, and I believe what I believe. We can agree, the whole thing is a mess and how did this thread go from Bill Clinton being the absolute worst President, to George Bush having that mantle?

Oh gosh, Laconia! I thought Bush said, "I'm the decider." Maybe he would have been more accurate if he had said, "Vice-President Cheney, the puppet-master, is the decider."

Nickdfresh
06-17-2007, 03:38 AM
Sorry to interrupt you but i have to say It so interesting to read this thread guys and ladies;)
Never saw the simular discussion before between the american members.
So you honored lady Laconia think the Bush is not guilt for the political deadline in Iraq?

Sorry but i't hard to believe that the "innocent Bush" were deceived by the Dems and intelligence reports about WMD in Iraq. but ....... i'm particulary agree with you.
You absolutly right the everybody want this war in 2003. And Dems voted for the war.
I think the Bush was simply a toy in the hand of lobbyes and interests of differents groups.
In fact the WDM was not the real reason of invasion - I heared there were a more importaint interests in the Iraq oil and Israel. And honesly speaking i think Bush clearly know - there were no WDM in Iraq( it was a pure political invention of mass media to treat the social oppinion- nothing more).
Anyway i think Bush could nothing did to stop the much more powerfull forces inside the america. They want the war - they have got the war. But the Bush now is the scapegoat.
It's sadly IMO.
Cheers.

http://www.youtube.com/v/jHnSPsZshyM

royal744
06-19-2007, 09:13 PM
Sorry to interrupt you but i have to say It so interesting to read this thread guys and ladies;)
Never saw the simular discussion before between the american members.
So you honored lady Laconia think the Bush is not guilt for the political deadline in Iraq?

Stick around Chevan. There are many divergent opinions in this country and even among those who agree on main lines of thinking there are sharp disagreements about other matters. That's what debate is for. Sometimes just engaging in the exchange, one changes one's opinion, such as, for instance, the use of the pronoun "one" which is not common in America and quite common in Great Britain, LOL! Or prepositions at the end of a sentence such as what is this up to for? Someone said you should never end a sentence with a preposition but Churchill said it was hogwash. I'll go with Churchill on this one.