What do you think of George W. Bush?

Post Reply New Topic

Let's see some Clinton actions

not so good things and similar actions for which Bush is being patronized:
Higher taxes that contributed only partially to evening out the budget
Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees signed executive ..order in 1993 and rescinded in 2000 upon leaving office.
Went through a record 4 cheifs of staff.
gays in the military backtrack
1994 proved disastrous for the Democrats. They lost control of both houses ..of Congress for the first time in 40 years, in large part due to stalled ..legislation, including a failed attempt to create a comprehensive health ..care system under a plan developed by the First Lady
Inability to compromise or come to terms with Congress resulting in several shutdowns
Delayed signing welfare reform
Unable to complete Palestine peace
Whitewater Scandal
No Democrat voted for impeachment
Travelgate
Filegate
Chinagate - Democrats accepting improper campaign contributions
Pardoned 16 members of a group that was responible for several ..bombings in New York and Chicago
140 pardons in his last days as president including his brother, Marc Rich, a ..drug dealer, and Patty Hearst.
Not so successful War on Drugs
Waco wackos of 1993
Republicans won both houses of Congress in 1994 (not good for ..Democrats)
Started Social Security Reform research and then declined to heed any ..recommendations
NAFTA
Did nothing about genocide in Rwanda, Clinton even claimed that it was a huge foreign policy failure

Iraq/Al-quaeda run ins:
al-Quaeda tried to kill Bill Clinton in 2002
Stopped an Iraqi attempt to assassinate Bush, Sr.

Military Use:
war-torn Bosnia
bombed Iraq
Battle of Mogadishu
Haiti
Kosovo
Missle Strike on Afghanistan
ousting of Slobadon Milosovich

Terrorist Attacks under Clinton:
World Trade Center 1993
Kenya Embassy
Tanzania Embassy
U.S.S. Cole
Oklahoma City

Noteable legislation under Clinton:
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 deter terrorism, ..provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death penalty, and for ..other purpose
Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 "It should be the policy of the United States to ..support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from ..power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic ..government to replace that regime."
In 1994, Clinton negotiated and signed the Nuclear Accords with North ..Korea. The underlying concern was that North Korea was developing ..nuclear weapons technology under the guise of a nuclear power plant
Deal to give Israel $100 million to help trackdown terrorists

Good things:
reprogramming and disarming of nukes with the Russians 1994
Over 22 million new jobs
Highest homeownership in U.S. history
Lowest unemployment in 30 years
Higher incomes at all levels
$360 billion of the national debt paid off
Largest budget deficit in American history converted to the largest surplus
Lowest government spending in three decades
Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years
Higher stock ownership by families than ever before
Americorps created
Minimum wage hike
NAFTA (could be bad could be good, depending on your viewpoint)
Brady Bill
Nanotech iniatives
Eased tensions in Northern Ireland

Still may add some more to the good list later, but I am off to a good start for his negatives and positives and some similar issues with Bush's presidency.

LMAO. But because of his professional acting experience in several B-movies, Reagan managed to pull off most of his public appearances without stumbling through his lines the way W does.

And to clarify, I can't remember who said it, but it really isn't fair that W is blamed for everything from 9/11 to starting a war in Iraq over an abundance of lies to the 72 different Medicare discount cards my Great-Aunt Louise must sift through before she goes to the pharmacy. Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, I. Lewis Libby et al. (many of them leftovers from the Reagan-Bush I years) are the "people" who formulate the policies of the US government (I feel nauseous typing that), but none of them have that frat boy image that so many gullible people find so appealing (in my case, appalling). W is a simpleton; I believe his supporters even describe it as "a lack of intellectual curiosity." Given the popularity of American Idol and Nascar (if you're not from the US, you probably don't know about Nascar; I would be blissful in such ignorance), most people suffer from "a lack of intellectual curiosity," and therefore they can identify with him. So W, the chosen son, is the face that can sell the neocon agenda, although he is too dim to comprehend it.

By the way has anyone covered the reports of Gramps Prescott's business dealings with the Nazis?

Couldn't agree more - Bush (as with seemingly all Republican Presidents) is purely a front with whom your average redneck can identify and feel 'one' with. The decisions and power clearly lie elsewhere. I doubt anybody could trust Bush to be able to decide what side of bed to get up from in a morning......



"I'm like Schindler - we both made shells for the Nazis, but mine worked, God d**n it!" C. Montgomery Burns

Is your contention steve that the Democrats or their presidents are any better? If so, check my previous post. Clinton engaged with all the same parties Bush has, he just did so less successfully, as the waring shots on Iraq and Afganistan and his other terrorist and military exploits did little to change their minds or stem the tide of these enemies aggressive actions. And he created legislation involving many of these same parties. Terrorist attacks were increasing during Clinton's presidency, is it any wonder that it culminated in a major attack shortly after Bush went into office. I don't think it was Clinton's fault that the attacks occured, but blaming Bush for 9/11 is no more true or constructive than blaming Clinton for the embassy bombings or the other attacks. I think Clinton's actions also showed a general trend in both parties toward more serious reactions and actions to stop terrorists and their allies.

As I've said elsewhere, all Presidents are merely stuffed suits controlled by the same sinister forces from the shadows. But at least Clinton displayed signs of intelligence and ideas seemingly of his own, and showed signs of wanting to improve the lot of the less fortunate - by contrast, Republican Presidents ever since Nixon have been no more than smiling, waving, motorized mannequins on castors......

Sounds like you are being a bit harsh on all Republicans, especially since the same thing can be said of Democrats if not to a worse degree, but I bet that degree varies with both parties over time, and the Democrats are worse now. I'll grant you Nixon, but Reagan. I have heard from many that believe he was one of the best or the best. I don't know if I would say the best, but I would certainly not say among the worst like you seem to indicate.

I used to buy that hogwash about Clinton having the best interests of all at heart, until about the time he ran for a second term, too many morality questions, too often sending troops out (the very thing you and other Democrat supporters contend as one of Bush's biggest flaws), too often unable to communicate and compromise with Congress and thus stalling government, and several scandals (not just the personal relationship ones) surrounded his administration and him and that was not just a question of morality and law, but of trust and faith of the people in him to uphold the sanctity of the office, the law, and morality. To which he let the people down in all those departments. And before you question whether I think only Republicans have ever done a good job or ones that I liked, remember I used to be a Democrat and supported Clinton, until his betrayal, and I still count several Democratic presidents of past among the best as well as Republican, including Truman, Jefferson, and JFK among Democrats and Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan among Republicans.

You still confuse me, you despise Bush for the same reasons, it seems, you like Clinton. Bush may not always have all the kinks worked out ahead of time, but at least he tries, and unlike say Warren G. Harding in the past, he has a good support network in his cabinent. Clinton did recieve a number of acedemic accolades, so maybe he smarter bookwise or a better planner, but short in one area does not make someone stupid, that would make you sound prejudice against Low Functioning Autism. Again, these arguements are merely window dressing or rants, since he has already been elected again thus indicating a majority of Americans thought he was at least the best candidate among the options.

Oh come on, the guy could hardly even remember his own name for Pete's sake....



Oh no I don't (sorry - panto season ) - I just think that, in stark comparison to Reagan and Bush x2 he was at least intelligent and had ideas of his own. Nixon too fell into that category - I didn't like him either..... No Republican president since Nixon has had a mind of their own - Clinton, at least, did. Its nothing to do with booksmarts: Reagan was a borderline-senile shell: I've nothing against senility - its a terrible condition, but you can't allow people with it to run counties, for obvious reasons. George W. simply has a sparrow-like mind: again, I've no prejudice against such people, but you need to have more to be reasonably allowed to run a country. And of course I've no prejudice against LFA.....

Well, for one, even if that were so (regarding Bush intelligence), that is why he has a cabinet. I believe he does have a mind of his own that is one of the reasons some people get rubbed the wrong way, because he speaks his mind and most people are not used to politicians doing that.

Regarding Republicans not having a mind of their, I could very easily say the same thing about the Democrats, especially lately, everytime I hear one speak, its like hearing them all speak, even when I turn channels or see a different Democrat come on, I do not see any discernable difference.

Reagan may have been senile appearing in public, but how was he in his meetings, giving out orders, and talking to foreign leaders, I don't think he could have gotten half the things done he did if he were always senile, or maybe it was a bit of a act. He was an actor, so that is possible and his motivation might have been, to put opponents at ease in order to set them up for diplomatic outmaneuvering. And again, I say he did have a mind of his own. That was part of his appeal. For like Truman, he was not a typical politician. He was charismatic in speaches blending a sense of humanity, humor, friendliness, and approachability. How do see they did not have a mind of their own, honestly? You make sly remarks about some of my beliefs and you think these guys were lemmings, come on. Nixon was greedy and let the power go to his head, but I don't see him as a pattern person either. And he certainly was nothing like Reagan or either of the Bushes, so where is the mindless oneness and similarity. You talk in groundless riddles to make the Democrats sound less screwed up than they are. That is why the Democrats are having party unity and stability issues. Many left the party, many were not reelected when they probably should have been, if they had their act together, and many rural and southern Democrats don't see they have common ground with urban Democrats anymore. There is definitely something wrong with the party right now. I blame the left ultra extremists who are constantly getting all the media attention and control.
Do you get your news from the BBC, CNN, or CBS exclusively? If so I can see why your views are so skewed and one sided. You don't even give Reagan credit for at least being a decent president.

And don't keep going on about how intelligent Clinton was, there are a few problems with that.

One, the way you say it, you seem to imply he was the only intelligent president we ever had and you seem to imply there are no intelligent Republicans or Republican president. That is ridiculous. I could argue Reagan was intelligent given all he accomplished, even if he were somewhat senile, he could hold together long enough at such an advanced age to get elected twice and win the cold war. And don't forget, as part of the process associated with all ASDs, there is more than one kind of intelligence.

Two, if Clinton was so smart, how could he be so stupid as to have an affair while president, let it get out, while married to an intelligent wife, lie about it publically, then in court, then get caught and proven to have lied in court?
How could he have been dumb enough not to know something was up in Yugoslavia way sooner than he did and not realize how many people were being killed and yet do little to come to a solution quickly when speed was so badly needed?
How could he have been dumb enough to let the intelligence services slip and worse not notify anyone upon leaving?
How could someone intelligent possibly think bombing or missle strikes would solve any problem by themselves, especially since he was supposed to know history?
How could he so ineptly handle Mogadishu?
How could he not communicate efffectively and come with some solution in handling Congress, even if there were more Republicans? Many presidents have successfully handled an opposing Congress without locking up the government. Reagan, Bush, Sr., and Nixon had to do it.
I could go on and on. I am merely trying to prove a point, intelligence is subjective, and even the least appearing intelligent person on earth can lack even common sense and still be a genius at some subject or field for which the smartest person on earth is totally inept. For many of the points you keep bringing up, especially the ones praising Clinton and chastising Bush, I can easily mirror from the Democrat side. Of course, I should expect as much, I see so many examples of this hippocracy in Democrats.

He's a man....



He's a politician....



They didn't have any oil....



Where do you get that from? All I said is you haven't had a Republican President with any intellect and ideas of their own since Nixon - this is a true statement, so what's the problem?



Reagan didn't get anything done - that's the point: he was purely a front for the real men who made the decisions....



Well, there's his famous one-on-one meeting with Gorbachev...... after spending 45 minutes alone together with him, he was asked what he and the Soviet Premier had talked about all that time: "I can't remember" he replied....



....which is why the Republicans won't let anybody with their own ideas get to be President again....



My 3 year old nephew has a mind of his own, and isn't afraid to speak it either - I don't think that qualifies him as a prospective Prime Minister in the upcoming general elections (I find his political views are still a little.... unfocussed shall we say ).... (I'd still prefer him to Howard though <shiver>) What's any of that got to do with the price of artechokes?

Look, look, look - at the end of the day, your whole political system stinks even worse than ours does.... I find the Republicans slightly nearer my own views than the Republicans, but that's like saying Proxima Centauri is nearer to me than Sirius..... I still won't be going there for a pint of milk and a newspaper. I wouldn't vote for either of your parties as they are just both the same..... You seem to think I'm doing a Democratic PPB or something - I don't know where you got that from?

Uh, excuse me?! THIS IS A RABID NASCAR FAN YOU'RE TALKIN' TO!! !! !!

NASCAR.... that's that thing that's kind of like car racing, but without any racing isn't it?

So you are say Clinton thinks the same way as you claim Bush does, that his decisions whether to intervene or not are based purely on resources and specifically oil.

You are not giving America much credit. Anyway, the U.S. tried the isolation thing for mostly the first 140 years or so as a nation. That did not work too well, especially after we got into the 20th Century, lack of any acition on the world stage set a massive worldwide explosion (WWI) of aggression, thus a little fighting now and then is better than a lot every 40 or 50 years. Or about the rate of major wars before WWII.



Like I said I find that totally untrue, there was nothing leming like or the same about the Republican presidents of the last century, and if you are refering to Bush, Sr. and Reagan, that was a general party direction with several of the same staffers staying on, but they were still not exactly the same or mindless. So I suppose the Soviets just went bankrupt because they wanted to spend all their money on Nuclear buildup and the U.S. was building up purely by coincidence. I don't know where you get your resources but it seems to me whatever they are they are obviously severely biased against the U.S. and especially the Republicans.

So if it is a British resource, I can understand, as British media have been more anti american and republican for the 5 or 6 years anyway and probably longer. You should find better rescources.



Oh and you obviously know Reagan personally and his state of mind. Have you ever thought that could have been a ploy so he would not have to talk to reporters while he could concentrate better on getting the job done behind the scenes? Kind of like the later, "No Comment".



This is still a rather pointless analogy, as some 3 year olds are quite intelligent and capable. Anyway that is no comparison, even if Bush, Jr. were less book smart or intelligent as you "claim" (since apparently you had known him personally while you both attended high school high school in the 1960's, and looked at the score of every I.Q. test he ever took and every performance and multiple intelligence test), he would still have much more experience than your three year old nephew. Yes you would not vote for either party, but instead would be one to sit by and do nothing and yet complain about the political system and who was elected. It is awefully presumptious and prejudice of you to say our whole political system stinks. I could, once again, say the same about the British political system. Seeing as how they policed the world for what about 200 years or so, and fought agains the same kind of tyranny found in Iraq and now some complain about it and your media is wholly biased against and is antiamerican. Your arguements still seem weak and of a minority oppinion, at least where the U.S. is concerned.

So what is your ideal political system anyway, anarchy? Ours and even yours may not be perfect but they are still the best systems either of our nations have at this point, and simply griping about them will accomplish nothing. If you are so disappointed in these systems why not find a constructive and pleasant way to change them. I say pleasant because if you go around saying how bad everyone is, you will not get anywhere. Politics is like Hollywood, its who you know, and who you impress that gets you anywhere. Namecalling may even alienate the opposing parties as they will think, at the very least, you have no idea how to play the politic game.

I don't get that you find Republicans more like your views than Republicans statement.

URGH!! !! I'm watching the State of the Union Address right now. I think I'm going to vomit...or throw something at my TV.

Just had to get that off my chest.

My apologies to you, Archmage.

I'd still say I support Bush. I don't know if I really wanna go into all the details because I've done it ad nauseum in other places but I think he's handling some real ugly issues, staying on point despite what the UN, France, Germany, Hollywood, and california college profs wanna say, and if certain things seem a little machievellian about his foreign policy - he's up against a fanatical group of people who too machevellian themselves for there to be another way.

The good thing is it looks like Saudi Arabia is really starting to examine itself, examine what's been going on in schools since the early 80's, and trying to curb the Wahabi movement so that they can move into the future. Hopefully the ripple effects of what have gone on world-wide (whether over there or over here) will have enough momentum to make changes for the better, demoralize the terrorists, prove to them that their methods will gain nothing, and in time these problems will iron themselves out via the will of the people who live in these countries rather than our Warthogs, MOABs, and Bradleys.

When Dubya first became president (I wont say "elected" as I am sure we all remember hanging chads!) The rest of the world was sniggering behind their hand thinking
"Oh my god! What have the yanks done now!"
Last year after 4 years experience of the administartion there were new elections.
we all held our breath.

When you elected Dubya we all said now in shock
"OH MY GOD!! !! WHAT HAVE THE YANKS DONE NOW!! !!

Most americans have been conned by the Neocons in office into believing that Saddam had some connection to the Sptember 11 attacks.
He didn't.

So why did they attack Iraq?

Saddam was contained, he hadn't attacked any of his neighbours since the last war, indeed was incapable of doing so.
but he had Iran as one of those neighbours, a country dominated by religious fanatics who had good reason to bear him a grudge.
This is why he pretended, yes pretended, to still have WMD (a phrase only brought into common parlance as Dubya cant say "Nuclear" "nukuler" dont cut it).
Iraq had a shattered military and was in no position to defend itself against invasion from Iran or from missile attack (possibly even nuclear) from Israel.
he was trying to play the "west" and the local threats against him.

BUT HE WAS NO THREAT AND WE KNEW IT

so why did the US attack.

ummmm........

could it perhaps be the second largest oil reserves in the world?
about a quarter of the entire supply


Under Reagan the US at least had the respect of the rest of the world
Under Clinton you actually got some of us to like you
Under Dubya you are hated

Even if you feel that Saddam would pose a future threat (one of the many shifting justifications given for the illegal war), you cant just attack a country for what it might do.

They may attack us in future so we attack them now

what does that remind me of?.....

oh yes! Its was the Japanese justification for the attack on Pearl Harbour.
Wasn't that "a day that will live in infamy" but when the US does the same its ok.

The US always claims to act in the best interests of the world, deciding who to attack who to support and who to ignore.
All the rest of the world wants is for all these interventions to have some kind of consistancy beyond whats good for you lot.

Internation law allows military action only in self defence or under the sanction of a UN security Council Resolution.
The Iraq War was neither.

And it shames me that bLIAR went along with it.