Clinton or Bush

[vraiblonde]

...but I'm still saying I can't imagine him DOING anything about it.

I can.

That's the thing that pisses me off most about Bill and Hillary Clinton. He could have been a great president - and I mean GREAT. And she could have been THE most influential and accomplished First Lady in history. Forget Jackie Kennedy - Hillary could have set the standard for future First Ladies.

But...it just wasn't in 'em. They had the goods, but not the mindset and the will. Instead of confronting issues head-on, they circumvented and blamed others. Between the two of them, they could have built a legacy that would be admired for years to come. But they blew it because of their immaturity, lack of discipline and defensive, vengeful, meanspirited ways.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Jimmy Carter = Hostages taken in Iran and held for 444 days.

Ronald Reagan = Hostages released within 22 minutes after inauguration.

Bill Clinton = Has feeble measure responses to multiple attacks on the US and US interests. Terrorists continue, 9/11 happens 8 months after he leaves office.

George Bush = Took it to them, invaded Afghanistan, destroyed training camps, destroyed infrastructure, put terrorists on the run and terrorist supporting governments on notice.

Who can forget Carter: If you don't release these hostages, we won't light our national Christmas tree. Like they gave two ####s.

 

[BuddyLee]

...the implication is that Clinton inaction bad, Bush action good. I think Bush's handling of Iraq and Afghanistan has left an awful lot to be desired, so, you explain to me how Bubba would have done so much better of a job had he taken the invasion route.

I'll wait. Bubba the Crusader dons his sword.

Go ahead.

I think it will be quite interesting to see what happens after the 2008 election. Even if a Republican gets into office, what if a similar attack to 9/11 occurs. How would one not blame Bush then as they are to Clinton now? I don't think you can center on any particular individual or any particular event for they all accumulate and change in a heartbeat.

 

[BuddyLee]

Who can forget Carter: If you don't release these hostages, we won't light our national Christmas tree. Like they gave two ####s.

Don't forget the killer rabbit.

 

[Larry Gude]

That's what I am trying to...

I think it will be quite interesting to see what happens after the 2008 election. Even if a Republican gets into office, what if a similar attack to 9/11 occurs. How would one not blame Bush then as they are to Clinton now? I don't think you can center on any particular individual or any particular event for they all accumulate and change in a heartbeat.

...get across. Clinton lead up to the 'mess' we have today. He is not directly responsible, after 6 years, for how things are turning out in Afghanistan or Iraq. If the questions was 'Could Clinton have prevented 9/11 by aggressively dealing with the attacks that happened on his watch?' then the answer is a clear and obvious YES.

W could have gotten UBL day one. Day one. There's all manner of dynamics behind his decisions, as is the case with Clintons. The difference is W means to DO something. Bubba meant to think and talk about it.

 

[BuddyLee]

...get across. Clinton lead up to the 'mess' we have today. He is not directly responsible, after 6 years, for how things are turning out in Afghanistan or Iraq. If the questions was 'Could Clinton have prevented 9/11 by aggressively dealing with the attacks that happened on his watch?' then the answer is a clear and obvious YES.

W could have gotten UBL day one. Day one. There's all manner of dynamics behind his decisions, as is the case with Clintons. The difference is W means to DO something. Bubba meant to think and talk about it.

Agreed. I think part of the issue here is where to draw the line. At what point do we stop blaming Bush or Clinton for future problems? 1 year? 5? A century?

 

[vraiblonde]

At what point do we stop blaming Bush or Clinton for future problems? 1 year? 5? A century?

I still blame FDR (among others) for the Holocaust. #1, because Hitler should have been nipped in the bud and FDR didn't want to get involved. #2, because his State department wouldn't allow escaping Jews to immigrate to the US.

So don't ask me - I'm a grudge holder.

 

[bcp]

First allow me to go on record saying that never, never ever should the words Clinton, and Bush, be used in the same sentance.

now, I think the fault lies greatly in the hands of the voting public for not raising our voices during the many years that government was slowley giving itself more and more power.

there is a big sale at the local beer store up here this coming weekend, not all is lost.

name of said store left out to avoid this beng considered an advertisement for an unpaying client.

 

[Mikeinsmd]

First allow me to go on record saying that never, never ever should the words Clinton, and Bush, be used in the same sentance.

now, I think the fault lies greatly in the hands of the voting public for not raising our voices during the many years that government was slowley giving itself more and more power.

there is a big sale at the local beer store up here this coming weekend, not all is lost.

name of said store left out to avoid this beng considered an advertisement for an unpaying client.

Someone else thought the same thing. Cleek--->


Now PM me the name of that store!!

 

[Pete]

Jimmy Carter = Hostages taken in Iran and held for 444 days.

Ronald Reagan = Hostages released within 22 minutes after inauguration.

Bill Clinton = Has feeble measure responses to multiple attacks on the US and US interests. Terrorists continue, 9/11 happens 8 months after he leaves office.

George Bush = Took it to them, invaded Afghanistan, destroyed training camps, destroyed infrastructure, put terrorists on the run and terrorist supporting governments on notice.

Clinton or Bush 09-25-2006 03:46 PM You are such an idiot.

Perhaps but is is fairly clear that liberals and those who lean left resort to inaction or ignoring something hoping it will go away or solve itself. Please stop please stop please stop.

As far as who's blame it is I say none of them were but Clinton by virtue of having so many attacks and little action contributed to 9-11 the most. Clinton didn't act decisively when attacks happened, he dismissed it and flung a few cruise missiles at shacks. He did act, although not strongly and that is where he made his mistake. He basically proved the trend of liberal leaders, they could hit, crawl in a hole and wait a few days, then do it again. Just like Carter. Clinton also did not dispatch the CIA effectively to root out intelligence on those who attacked us and to eliminate them. His crap about "I told the CIA to kill him but they wouldn't " is pathetic bullchit. He was the CINC, the Chief Executive, the head kahuna. You do it or I will fire you. He didn't want to follow through because it might be controversial and hurt someones feelings.

George Bush was ultimately responsible because he was in office. He should have known what the threat was. He should have acted on it. The only thing reducing in my mind Bush's responsibility is that he was only in office for 8 months, hardly enough time to get ahold of everything going on, inherited poor intelligence and a lackadaisical attitude. Typical short term memory problems all Americans have.

George H.W. Bush wasn't a shrinking violet, just ask Saddam. Reagan wasn't ask Gorbachev or the Iranians who feared what he would do. George W. Bush hasn't turned out to be a hang wringer either. Going back JFK and his confrontation with the Russians during the Cuban Missile Crisis and later Vietnam was the last liberal who had backbone and resolve. Even Reagan had moments, Beirut Barracks bombing comes to mind.

All things considered both contributed but the ones responsible were the rat bastards who actually did it. In our open society were were ripe for the picking, then and now. We will never eliminate it, all we can do is try to minimize it and take it to them and keep them on their heels. That is what Bush is doing. I have said before I would rather have someone who DOES act, even if it may be not the best course of action than someone who wants to hand wring and think about it and hope diplomacy will help.

 

[bcp]

Someone else thought the same thing. Cleek--->


Now PM me the name of that store!!

I should have read all the posts before making my comment.
The intellectuals will almost always be on the same wavelength.


oh, check your pm.

 

[Pete]

...the implication is that Clinton inaction bad, Bush action good. I think Bush's handling of Iraq and Afghanistan has left an awful lot to be desired, so, you explain to me how Bubba would have done so much better of a job had he taken the invasion route.

I'll wait. Bubba the Crusader dons his sword.

Go ahead.

I am saying action even if not 100% efficiently carried out is much better than inaction.

Argue about the way Bush and Rumsfeld have carried out the war. People are still arm chair quarterbacking the Peloponnesian wars. 1600 years ago.

If the Spartans had developed a better naval force and done more to assist insurgency in the Aegean things would have been different.

Bush delved off into this with a poor plan......Stipulated. Still, we went in and did something, and in 4 years we have lost less than we lost in 6 months in Vietnam. We liberated a country, arguably made it harder for militant Muslims to organize in Iraq and be funded by Saddam. Most importantly.......allow me to stress this MOST IMPORTANTLY we delivered the message that the days of the US absorbing blows, lobbing in a couple Tomahawks, and forgetting it hereby leaving you to go back to the diabolical business of finding unique ways to kill us by the thousands are OVER.

I cannot say Bubba would have done better or worse because he did not posses the stones to even try.

 

[Bustem' Down]

No one. Clinton could not have prevented 9/11 anymore than Bush could have.

Here's my answer, The People. The People of the United States, then and currently, are responsible due to inaction and uninvolvement in thier government, a government supposedly "by the People". If the citizens of this country were to take the power back that they have let the politicians usurp from them, then progress could be made in this country. As it stands now we have a fat lazy populace who is more concerned with trying to find a government to babysit them while they watch thier reality shows. 9/11 happened because security was weak, was that Clintons fault? No, it was the People's fault for not demanding more security from thier government, all three branches. Iraq is a mess, is that Bush's fault? No, it's the People's fault for not demanding that the current government do something and do it now. The People need to step up and take care of this country because there is no other way it will happen, there is no one to blame but ourselves.

 

[FireBrand]

No one. Clinton could not have prevented 9/11 anymore than Bush could have.

Here's my answer, The People. The People of the United States, then and currently, are responsible due to inaction and uninvolvement in thier government, a government supposedly "by the People". If the citizens of this country were to take the power back that they have let the politicians usurp from them, then progress could be made in this country. As it stands now we have a fat lazy populace who is more concerned with trying to find a government to babysit them while they watch thier reality shows. 9/11 happened because security was weak, was that Clintons fault? No, it was the People's fault for not demanding more security from thier government, all three branches. Iraq is a mess, is that Bush's fault? No, it's the People's fault for not demanding that the current government do something and do it now. The People need to step up and take care of this country because there is no other way it will happen, there is no one to blame but ourselves.

Bull F-In Shiat Dumbazz,
Do you vote or what ??
Yeah, the choices are slim,
but now we have the best choice available.!!!!

 

[Bustem' Down]

Bull F-In Shiat Dumbazz,
Do you vote or what ??
Yeah, the choices are slim,
but now we have the best choice available.!!!!

Is that all you do is check a box? Real productive dipshiat. Try interacting with your government sometime.

 

[FireBrand]

Is that all you do is check a box? Real productive dipshiat. Try interacting with your government sometime.

I support the government every day of the week,
Oh, the shiat that you don't know !!

 

[Bustem' Down]

I support the government every day of the week,
Oh, the shiat that you don't know !!

You job doesn't impress me.

 

[FireBrand]

You job doesn't impress me.

very ASSuming !!!!!

 

[FireBrand]

You job doesn't impress me.

Patriotism is not a JOB, but a way of life !!

 

[vraiblonde]

Here's my answer, The People. The People of the United States, then and currently, are responsible due to inaction and uninvolvement in thier government, a government supposedly "by the People".

There's a point in there, but it's overshadowed by the fact that we basically hire these clowns to do a job. Unfortunately, it's difficult to fire them when they screw up.

I didn't think Clinton was that good of a president his first term. So imagine my surprise when he was re-elected. That wasn't my fault, and it wasn't the fault of 50.8% of voters.

And Congress, who checks and balances the president - who elects them? Is Nancy Pelosi my fault? Even Barbara Mikulski isn't my fault because I have never voted for her, not even once.

So do you think they care what people who don't vote for them think? No. No, they don't. Because they have enough people who WILL keep voting them into office that people like you and me can ##### our faces off and it goes in one ear and right out the other.