Let's think of what Clinton did. Treasoned with Russia(and most likely North Korea and China). Killed our economy, and tried to become some sort of dictator with executive orders. Great help he was.
Printable View
Let's think of what Clinton did. Treasoned with Russia(and most likely North Korea and China). Killed our economy, and tried to become some sort of dictator with executive orders. Great help he was.
"Gay" usually does not apply when you are married and have committed adultery with another woman, but who really knows what goes on in that sick mind of his? :D
As for suck, I don't think he was the one doing the sucking! :D
He was a crappy president, though. He weakened our military, raised taxes, etc. Buit right now, I'm more worried about his wife. She's already a NY senator and is planning to run for president in the future as far as I can tell, and I'd say she is worse than our friend Bill :D
O.K., I agree with the republican, and as always, if you don't agree with me and the republican, get a life
That's a very narrow-minded statement, clintonsucks. We know from your handle that you dislike him, and I don't blame you, but this is cosmos and people should be free to give their opinions without the need for statements like that.
Who cares ????? He's been now gone! Should be more worried how
the present powers that be steer your country, and in what direction
THEY choose to head in. clintonsucks, are you a disgruntled intern that
can't let go of the past????? It was only a cigar, unless you don't like the
smell of them.lol
I agree, clinton did suck as a president. He was a spinless coward. However, he made it to the presidency and got voted in (if democracy actually works). However, it is over and we need to move on. We have (i feel) a good president now and we have another election coming up to practice our freedom of choice.
Thanks,
Adiz
Well it looks like the polls are against you so far. ;) Clinton was a much better president than George Bush Jr.
Hardly...that is like saying you'd rather have Ricin instead of Nicotine for a poison...either way you die chief (ie, pick your poison, they both suck in different ways and for different reasons).Quote:
Originally posted here by CXGJarrod
Well it looks like the polls are against you so far. ;) Clinton was a much better president than George Bush Jr.
/nebulus
comeing form some one who was a military spouse during his administration (my wife was an officer in the navey at teh time), I can say he was the best thing that ever happened to the military, he increased every ones education benifits, increased every nes pay and his spending cuts went to cuts in defense hardware, basicly useless toys that made the defense contractors happy but wortheless to the military.
So lets here your examples of treason.
As I am not an American, I have no business in your politics, other than to comment from a foreign opinion/fly on the wall viewpoint.
It seems to me that the population of the United States Of America saw fit to elect Mr Clinton for two full terms. If they did not like him after the first one, why did they do that? What is the first amendment.......do you not have Democracy?
I do not see the "treasoned with Russia" remark........I would have thought that he was very instrumental in destabilising that nasty little dictatorship? Hardly something to criticise him for? OK he was "in the right place at the right time", but at least he did it?
Foreign policy is very volatile........you elect a President of the USA, not of the World? The USA and her allies can only do so much, so I would think that if a comparison between Mr Clinton and Mr Bush were relevant, it would really be on home policy, welfare, education, health and so on?
The reason I say that, is because the First Gulf War saw numerous "allies" how many were there second time around?...... and how many of those quislings are crawling to America for aid?
I am not attacking Mr Bush (nor defending him).............the World has moved on, so should we? He is the man of the moment, as democratically chosen by the people of America? Good Luck and God Bless should be our emotions?...he heads up the most powerful Nation on Earth!
Sorry about my little rant folks.............we worry about our allies
Cheers
Johnno
Republican or not... the man was a great president.. even though he did ride the Bush Sr.'s wave from the Gulf War which we saw die out at the end of his presidency.
Follow the polls dude,
At least when Clinton was President we IT dudes had a job.I dont give a **** which bird he screwed.Bush had screwed the economy and the future of IT.
dR_eVIL
I'd be more worried about that moron George Bush who is wreaking more havoc that Clinton ever did. I might not live in the US, but as the world's biggest economy whatever happens over there affects us in the UK and I'd rather the FTSE 100 didn't fall through the floor because of the way Bush is running the economy over there.
At the end of the day, I think Clinton was okay as a president - yes his personal/private life was somewhat dubious but then so are the lives of a lot of politicians. Of course, not living in the US I wouldn't experience any mistakes he made in the same way as US citizens would, but overall I think he was a good guy and tried to make the right decisions most of the time (a darn sight more than Tony Blair or George Bush do!).
The thing is, people liked Clinton, even after all the scandals, screw-ups etc. Even now he's still politically active, and, whilst he might not actually be running the country, he's still a fairly powerful person in politics.
BTW, I think the poll options are somewhat biased - there's nothing to say 'Clinton did an okay job' or anything like that, and clintonsucks seems to think that anyone who supports the guy is a crackhead. Now, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but if (and only if) they don't supress the opinions of others at the same time.
People might have liked him, but I sure didn't. He's just one more left-wing hipocrite that was more concerned with how to be reelected than how to best serve his country. He sent national security, the economy, and the credibility of this nation spiraling down when he left office, and now Bush is taking the flak for it. He ignored the threat of terrorism, he raised taxes, and he lied under oath. So, all the people can like Clinton, I don't care, but he is still a lying, cheating, liberal hipocrite! :p
Bush didn't do anything to the economy in my opinion. How about the 9/11 attack and other events. They had a stlight bit more to do than Bush.
He has given an across-the-board tax cut, which will help the economy in the long run. Reagan proved that. I hear all this crap about it being only for the rich, but everyone gets something back with Bush's plan. What people don't realize is that, even if the rich get back more than the Average Joe, they are paying more and deserve to get more back. By no means am I rich (saved for 4 years to get my box), but I still support it because it is better than a tax increase like the Democrats are proposing. It was easy for Clinton to say he helped the economy, it was peacetime. We didn't have a war going on, which changes circumstances. As for 9/11, it was a tragedy, but Bush has done the right thing by seeking out the ones who are responsible. We probably will never know, but what would Clinton or Gore done in Bush's position? Going after these guys doesn't sound to Clinton-esque, with all the anti-war setiment out there. But his actions probably would have depended on where the polls lie and what his SOI (significant other intern) had to say.
Actually if you read the tax proposals, the rich are not as rich as I originally thought. It's the high 90k range for a household. Hell the average Joe around here has a 60k range for household income. Being “rich” isn’t too far away from average income. That's where the Democratic Party places the line for “Rich”. I suppose since me and my GF are in the 90 bracket together, because we work all kinds of long hours, than we deserve more than the 40 percent I am getting gouged for now. I can barely afford a house! Now if I was in rural Ohio I would be one rich bastard, but they don't make referendum for geo-location! So, if you are a democrat running on a tax increase platform, I would be inclined to oppose that issue. Especially since the top 25 percent of wage earners already pay 80 percent of all taxes collected. For reference I can quote hundred of articles I have collected... here is one from a college student..
Quote:
The IRS 2000 figures came out today and there is not much of a surprise. The people earning the most money are being cheated out of what they worked hard for. Al Gore's 'wealthy one percent' of wage earners made 20.81 percent of all the money made in the US in 2000, but they paid 37.42 percent of taxes collected. The top 25 percent of wage earners made 67.15 percent of money made in the US, but paid 84.01 percent of all taxes. That said, people are yelling at me now saying, yea but that top 25 percent is making hundreds of thousands of dollars right?
Wrong. The top 25 percent of wage earners, according to the report, is those making $55,225 and up! And those falling into the top 50 percent of wage earners are paying 96.09 percent of the budget and only making $27,682 and up! So to all of us college students who plan on going out in a few years (or sooner) and having an income of around $50,000 or up, are going to have to fork over a higher percent of our income because we're smarter? No. Because we got lucky? No. Simply because we made more money. That's right folks, in this country we take the people who do the best and hit them in the face with penalties just because they make more.
I plan on working hard and making in that top 25 percent one day. It's good to know I'll be punished for doing so. I'll go as far as to say that my personal liberties will be violated. That's right, I (along with anyone else with an ambition) will be singled out and treated differently than the rest of America only because of how much money I will make. I thought America abolished discrimination?
George Bush didn't take terrorism seriously either - not until September 11th. If the twin towers had been attacked during Clinton's term in office, he probably would have acted in a similar way.Quote:
Originally posted here by TheRepublican
People might have liked him, but I sure didn't. He's just one more left-wing hipocrite that was more concerned with how to be reelected than how to best serve his country. He sent national security, the economy, and the credibility of this nation spiraling down when he left office, and now Bush is taking the flak for it. He ignored the threat of terrorism, he raised taxes, and he lied under oath. So, all the people can like Clinton, I don't care, but he is still a lying, cheating, liberal hipocrite! :p
At least Clinton could make a speech in public without coming across as an illerate moron (as George Bush Jnr manages to do, in a similar way to his father).
I hated Clinton. He was a dirtbag, but he did one thing right, and it took
some political courage. He defied the provincial minded Democrats and
promoted a free trade policy. In spite of his other unwise policies, free
trade kept the economy rollimg along for his entire time in office.
The economy was due for a cyclical downturn by the time Bush jr was coming
in, so I blame no one for today's economy. Bush has, however, systematically
and cynically lied about the threat of Iraq, waged war on the thin authority
of congressional abdication.
The past is the past. Clinton (thank goodness) is gone. Whether Bush succeeds
or not is really a matter of luck, whether voters believe that the economy
is beginning to recover by this time next year. It's really too bad that we judge
presidents by the state of the economy. Of all factors affecting the economy,
the President of the US is the least significant.
:cool:
pwaring said:
Remember this: "That depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is." I don't know how much more moronic you can get.Quote:
At least Clinton could make a speech in public without coming across as an illerate moron (as George Bush Jnr manages to do, in a similar way to his father).
rcgreen said:
Iraq was a threat to the US. It has been proven numerous times that saddam both possessed WMD's and was harboring terrorists by Mr. Powell in he UN. Besides, he got congressional approval to go to war, look at thisQuote:
Bush has, however, systematically and cynically lied about the threat of Iraq, waged war on the thin authority of congressional abdication.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in524191.shtml
That is bullshit! The UN never said that Iraq harbored weapons of mass destruction. The UN was against the war the whole time (along with the rest of the world) and they have not found even ONE weapon of mass destruction in Iraq. NO missles, no chemical weapons, no nukes, no nothing!Quote:
Originally posted here by TheRepublican
Iraq was a threat to the US. It has been proven numerous times that saddam both possessed WMD's and was harboring terrorists by Mr. Powell in he UN. Besides, he got congressional approval to go to war, look at this
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in524191.shtml
I didn't say Mr. Powell and the UN proved that they had WMD's, rather that Mr. Powell presented overwhelming evidence proving that they did during a UN meeting. I can't say where they are now, but they did have them (It was theorized that they were moved into Syria.) But, as you already know, we don't need the UN's authorization to go to war. The world's opinion matters, but not in matters of our own national security.Quote:
Originally posted here by CXGJarrod
That is bullshit! The UN never said that Iraq harbored weapons of mass destruction. The UN was against the war the whole time (along with the rest of the world) and they have not found even ONE weapon of mass destruction in Iraq. NO missles, no chemical weapons, no nukes, no nothing!
Just because some one says they have evidence dosn't mean they have evidence. Look bush and his cronies lied to every one about Iraq, a lot of us never beleived him and are not willing to let him off on a "woops I made a mistake in inteligence" defense. I think its great that the man who ran on a platform of restoreing integrety to the presidency is such a bad lierQuote:
Originally posted here by TheRepublican
I didn't say Mr. Powell and the UN proved that they had WMD's, rather that Mr. Powell presented overwhelming evidence proving that they did during a UN meeting. I can't say where they are now, but they did have them (It was theorized that they were moved into Syria.) But, as you already know, we don't need the UN's authorization to go to war. The world's opinion matters, but not in matters of our own national security.
Maybe I am the only one who saw it but I remember seeing some of and reading reports about Powel's speech. There was some extremely good evidence provided. It didn't seem made up, there were satellite photos.
I find it almost comical that people actually argue that Sadam did not desire and engineer the capability to deliver mass casualties. Even skeptics could consider satellite captured images of convoys crossing Iraqi borders, some what suspicious. What were they carrying? Especially since traces of weapons programs have been discovered through material evidence and interrogation of scientists. Who are also quite happy to have a ruthless dictator in the past?
The speech that Bush gave made it seem imminent to our national security that we Americans take out Sadam immediately. That quote is what people are standing on. Regardless of the good or bad that war on Iraq has brought to the world community, those words are being used as a political crutch to gain momentum for the opposition party. It's also not like the UN didn't think there were weapons in Iraq. They just wanted more time for inspectors to go in. Also don't forget that during the time leading to war, Sadam wouldn't let any one in his country until months had gone by. And over the years he consistently and defiantly defied UN sanctions from the first war, when they violently over through another sovereign government and looted and pillaged it’s citizens. There is a lot in this issue that is left open but those words "weapons of mass destruction" have become much like the "thousand points of light" statement. It's plastered all over the media.
And you have to look elsewhere to find that Bush is seeking UN sanctions to be removed from Iraq. The governing council selected from Iraqi citizens is on the way to governing themselves. Once a week I see a written report that categorizes some Iraqi police action against a known terrorist group. This is kind of a cold statement, but I would rather deal with them there in Iraq than here in American cities.
I give a few examples of some of the good, because I can also entertain the idea that intelligence was wrong, I don't believe it right now but I can entertain the idea of a mistake, and still see good in what has transpired. WMD, doesn’t bother me. What may bother me is if Bush absolutely knew there were no weapons and he still made that statement. I think he understood a threat there and was not intentionally snow balling America. I am not sure he blatantly lied meaning it’s not another “I did not inhale” type of statement. Hell, come to think of it – even if he did lie, was it for the greater good? Maybe he is smarter and has more balls than we all think? Those last comments were entertaining some differing options based solely on speculation.
You're absolutely right, RoadClosed. I saw some of what Mr. Powell put into his report, and it all looked credible to me. Besides, like you said, who can honestly argue that the world would be a better place with saddam still in power. This is just the liberals being wrong and trying to direct the blame to someone else.
Question: If the UN did not believe that Iraq harbored WMDs, then why did the UN levy and keep in place sanctions against Iraq; that were specifically designed to search out illegal WMDs within Iraq?Quote:
That is bullshit! The UN never said that Iraq harbored weapons of mass destruction.
Please think about your post before you spout off irrevelant and untrue facts, or at least quantify you statement if you are discussing a matter of technical contestation.
Clinton was by far the absolute worst President this country has ever seen. Anyone who defends his actions should be questioned!
For God's sake he is a perjurer! Gee, let's see, that is against the law correct??
I am assumeing you hate Nixon, Regon, Agnu, Liddy, North (I would trhow in Ragon but with alzhimers he very well may not have remembered aything...in which case he was an unfit president.) with the same passion then correct?Quote:
Originally posted here by paulie walnuts
Clinton was by far the absolute worst President this country has ever seen. Anyone who defends his actions should be questioned!
For God's sake he is a perjurer! Gee, let's see, that is against the law correct??
RoadClosed: my probelm with bush is not the lieing, I expect a politition to lie its part of the job, its the hipocracy...if you claim to have a higher standard you must expect to be held to that. He claimed he would bring integraty back to the presidency (its been disaperred around andrew jaksons terms.) his continued blatent lies after that statement are what causes me to dislike him
oh my bad, I got the impression you hated him since he started running for a political office.
;)
And your beloved George Washington not only misled the public about having a mistress, but kept kept an army of slaves to boot. Let's see, that's morally detestable, correct??Quote:
Originally posted here by paulie walnuts
For God's sake he is a perjurer! Gee, let's see, that is against the law correct??
A lot of presidents have done far worse things than possibly, depending on your personal definition of 'sexual relations', committed perjury. Try frying the bigger fish first.
So what everyone is saying is that the CIA and all his advisors said "Boss there is absolutely no weapons of mass destruction and on top of that there is absolutely no evidence at all that Al Qaeda was ever linked with Iraq. And Bush said "I don't care I want his balls” and then lies, knowing full well there was conclusive infallible evidence to the fact that Saddam had nothing more than a few AK-47s and old SCUDS and that he was absolutely not hiding anything?”
That is was all a carefully calculated ruse to oust a dictator?
bballad said:
Of course you'd expect politicians to lie, it's the only way anyone could justify to themselves voting for Clinton :p . It's supprising that you'd bring up the "hipocracy" that Bush is allegedly guilty for; as the left is so good at generating lies and propaganda I didn't think you'd give Bush credit for his lame attempt to destroy the nation :rolleyes: after all, that has been the left's game for decades. Honestly, he got one of his facts wrong and now the whole world is after him because of a mistake. It's not like it made a difference anyhow; we were going in there whether or not that sentence was said or left unsaid. This is just a way for the left to regain some of it's credibility after their embarassing take on the war.Quote:
I expect a politition to lie its part of the job, its the hipocracy
Didn't Clinton have a chance to get bin laden? Didn't he give secrets to the Chinese in return for campaign donations? Bush isn't any better. Lied about Iraq, has made questionable economic desicions, is reversing environmental laws. The tax cuts mainly benefit the wealthy. Sure, they pay more in federal income taxes, but poorer people pay more in Social Security taxes. Social Security only applies to incomes up to around 80,000. That means A-Rod only pays Social Security on 80,000 and the 24,920,000 is left untaxed. Local property taxes and sales taxes take a greater percentage of lower income workers. The income tax passed because the people believed only the wealthiest would be taxed. Richer people benefit more from the low capital gains tax. People should be outraged that capital gains are taxed less than the working man's earned income.
No, it was all a carefully calculated ruse to gain control over middle east oil supplies and shipping routes. Granted, the Iraqis sell the oil, but Uncle Sam controls it. WMD's (or the fear they inspired) were a perfect excuse. Ousting Hussein and freeing the Iraqi people was merely an added bonus.Quote:
Originally posted here by RoadClosed
That is was all a carefully calculated ruse to oust a dictator?
Was oil contributing factor to invading Iraq? I don't think that anyone would deny that possibility. But, during the time leading up to the invasion of Iraq; I cannot recall one country, besides Iraq, making the claim that Iraq did not have WMDs. Not even the French contested the possibility that Iraq was harboring WMDs. That is why the UN never lifted the sanctions against Iraq. The "protest" at the UN revolved around wanting more time to conduct inspections, where the Iraqi government interference was difficult at best.Quote:
Originally posted here by Striek
No, it was all a carefully calculated ruse to gain control over middle east oil supplies and shipping routes. Granted, the Iraqis sell the oil, but Uncle Sam controls it. WMD's (or the fear they inspired) were a perfect excuse. Ousting Hussein and freeing the Iraqi people was merely an added bonus.
I do not know anyone that believes that Iraq was completely forthcoming with its weapons capabilities. Especially when unstated and illegal warheads were discovered during the 2nd round of UN inspections prior to invading Iraq. Thus the continual and ongoing policy of deception condoned by the Iraqi government was once again revealed. 12 years was more than enough time for Iraq to come clean about it's weapons programs. If Iraq had been openly honest and allowed the UN inspectors to do their jobs in the first place, Iraq would not be an occupied country at this time.
By the way if you are really into the "Conspiracy Theory" bit, just go rent the movie and leave the intelligent discussions to people that aren't paranoid.
Of course they had illegal weapons, and of course they were doing their best to hide them. The French and their posse were content to give Iraq all the time in the world, even when they were presented with satellite photos and those illegal missiles were found, just because the anti-war stance was the popular thing at the time. This just gave Iraq all the time it needed to move those weapons to anywhere they pleased before the invasion, with all the extensions to the deadlines that the UN agreed on. Sometimes I think that the entire world has gone over to the dark (left) side... :rolleyes:
I rather enjoyed Conspiracy Theory, by the way
Humm if he had those weapons why didn't he use them? or are you going to spew some crap about an iraq unwillingness to fight the us troops...i think the hundreds of us soldiers dead (not counting the thousands wounded) would dispute that.Quote:
Originally posted here by TheRepublican
Of course they had illegal weapons, and of course they were doing their best to hide them. The French and their posse were content to give Iraq all the time in the world, even when they were presented with satellite photos and those illegal missiles were found, just because the anti-war stance was the popular thing at the time. This just gave Iraq all the time it needed to move those weapons to anywhere they pleased before the invasion, with all the extensions to the deadlines that the UN agreed on. Sometimes I think that the entire world has gone over to the dark (left) side... :rolleyes:
I rather enjoyed Conspiracy Theory, by the way
Lets ignore the fact that nonconventional weapons (biological and chemical) are not WMD's (fule air and Nukes), and lets ignore the fact that noneconventionals are basicly useless unless you are dealing wiht a mass of unequiped troops who cannot leave the area they are in (gas attacks in japan have shown that gas agenst civilian targets are not devistating) and just look at the fact the iraq had no means of dilvering any weapons to anywhere....how where they an imidiate threat?
http://disarmament.un.org:8080/Treat...D?OpenDocument
http://disarmament.un.org:8080/Treat...3?OpenDocument
Biological and chemical weapons are WMD's.
http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000195.html
A theory as to the first issue.
Number 1 - I would say the threat of U.S. retaliation had something to do with the lack of WMD's being used. I would also say that the speed of the U.S. advance did not allow Iraq ample time to constitute the chemical weapons for deployment.Quote:
Lets ignore the fact that nonconventional weapons (biological and chemical) are not WMD's (fule air and Nukes), and lets ignore the fact that noneconventionals are basicly useless unless you are dealing wiht a mass of unequiped troops who cannot leave the area they are in (gas attacks in japan have shown that gas agenst civilian targets are not devistating) and just look at the fact the iraq had no means of dilvering any weapons to anywhere....how where they an imidiate threat?
Number 2 - Your wrong. Chemical and Biological weapons are considered to be WMDs. After 11 years of being an Intelligence Analyst , with a four year stint with an Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) unit, in the United States military, I definately know the definition of a WMD.
Number 3 - Your partially right. A prepared unit can overcome a Chemical or Biological attack if the warning sensors are deployed upwind and can positively identify the malicious agent. This also depends on the delivery means and placement of the air burst. If the release is directly over a unit, say goodbye to that unit because it will not have any warning. Also if you are going to lob munitions, from outside the contaminated area, on top of a unit that is under a chemical attack and dressed in full protective gear. It is much easier to kill your enemy. The protective gear is heavy, hot, cumbersome, and difficult to communicate through.
Number 4 - Your wrong. The gas attacks used in Japan, I am assuming you are referring to the Sarin attacks used in the subways. You need to understand the agent before you state a fact. Sarin is a nerve agent that kills, period. Yes you can survive if you receive a non-lethal dose but you will suffer from its afteraffects for life, and often pass down medical problems to your unborn children because of it.
Number 5 - Your wrong. Chemical warheads could have been easily fitted to Iraqs existing munitions. You don't have to have a high tech missle to deliver chemical or biological agents. Even mortars, crop dusting planes, or unmanned drones can deliver these leathal chemicals.
[QUOTE]
Humm if he had those weapons why didn't he use them? or are you going to spew some crap about an iraq unwillingness to fight the us troops...i think the hundreds of us soldiers dead (not counting the thousands wounded) would dispute that.
[QUOTE]
Number 6 - It's one thing to be an expert using hindsight, with hindsight being 20/20. The bigger question is what crystal ball did you use to definitively prove that Iraq did not have WMD's? All of the indicators of probable WMD's were there. The simple fact is that Saddam gambled and lost.
Personally, I think it was a pissing match. I dont think there were any weapons of mass destruction. I think that Bush just wanted to create a war to finance all his buddies, but hey, thats my opinion.Quote:
Originally posted here by RoadClosed
So what everyone is saying is that the CIA and all his advisors said "Boss there is absolutely no weapons of mass destruction and on top of that there is absolutely no evidence at all that Al Qaeda was ever linked with Iraq. And Bush said "I don't care I want his balls” and then lies, knowing full well there was conclusive infallible evidence to the fact that Saddam had nothing more than a few AK-47s and old SCUDS and that he was absolutely not hiding anything?”
That is was all a carefully calculated ruse to oust a dictator?
Now we have to think about the fact that we have PISSED off the entire world (besides Britian and a couple countries) and made America look like a huge bully that will invade any country it wants on a small amount of evidence. Now we are putting America 80 Billion dollars more in debt (with only 20 going to reconstruction and the rest going to the millitary) and I have to wonder "Why was invading Iraq a good thing again?" Oh yeah, we were liberating the oil, I mean Iraqi people.