muleskinner wrote:you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth and a benalli in the other.
LIGHT12 wrote:You want to know the true problem. We should never have both parties run Congress and the White House.
I am sure crap has happened. But why is it that it is viewed as so much worse under Bush than other presidents. Did Clinton not put us in Kosovo which we have never left. Did he not hand Nuclear facilities to the North Koreans. Did he not botch Wacco, Ruby Ridge, the Oklahoma City bombing, did he not purger himself, did his general Wesley Clark not sit down and have drinks with the enempy. He did nothing when Terrorists attacked the trade towers, nothing when they attacked the USS Cole, nothing when they were offered Bin Laden on a platter.
But you are angry at Bush for cleaning up a mess, and creating another at the same time. Last I check he wasn't rounding up huge chunks of american citizens and putting them in interment camps. Which FDR did without second thought and I'm sure he is one of your Hero\s.
Now Bush cleaned out the State Department. Many of those Buearocrats had been there in there comfy desks since Carter. They did not agree with the administration, were not working with it but undermining it. Condelissa Rice finally ran a bunch of them out. Then you started hearing crap from them.
Our problem today versus years ago is, people have an agenda, and other people want to believe it because they don't like the other side. And society no longer has a level of decorum that says don't be an ass. I promise you worse things happened under Clinton than have now.
dudejcb wrote:If Clinton had done the same thing I'd be hammering him for it too.
I take it you want to change subjects?SpinnerMan wrote:dudejcb wrote:If Clinton had done the same thing I'd be hammering him for it too.
Who did Nixon hurt? I don't remember anyone being harmed. He got us out of Kennedy's unjust war, and therefore I guess saved lives, despite making it appear that we would run when it got tough.
How do you know how many were killed versus your "exaggerated" number? What is the threshold number whereby ethnic cleansing becomes intolerable, and prior to which it's okay? Is there such a thing?SpinnerMan wrote:The number of people killed in ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, which was a large part of the justification, was greatly exaggerated. Was this on purpose or flawed intelligence? I have know idea.?
You're starting to scare me. this is some pretty random stuff you're throwing out.SpinnerMan wrote:He did bomb an aspirin factory. Clearly, he lied when he said it was a chemical weapon site, when it has never been proven that it was. This just couldn't have been flawed intelligence or disinformation.?
I think I recall at least two people going to jail (man and wife wasn't it), and I'm not sure it was Starr them there. memory fades but I don't recall Starr being a prosecutor in any trials. I think the State of Arkansas did the heavy lifting.SpinnerMan wrote:Starr put a lot more people in jail than most independent councils. He may have put more people in jail than all of them combined. It wasn't like these were meaningless probes.?
Where do you get your misinformation? She was in fact undercover and therefore releasing her name was illegal if not treasonous. Scooter, Rove, Cheney all did it... not some enemy of the neocons. the neocons did it, and with GW's knowledge! Let's wait to see if GW pardon's Scooter on his way out... after the election.SpinnerMan wrote:Valerie Plame - no underlying crime but Scooter Libbey couldn't get his facts straight, whether purposefully or not, had no impact on the fact that an enemy of the neocons had released her name, which wasn't illegal to do anyways, which everybody already knew before the probe even started. I think this was the only Bush inner circle to be convicted of anything.?
You really have a Clinton fixation huh. That was along time ago at this point. But I guess the major diference between the two is in what the lies were about and the impact they had on the country. Can you see the distinction and why it matters? One set of lies cost lives and billions in treasure. the other didn't.SpinnerMan wrote:I don't understand what the President can and cannot lie about. We know for a fact that Clinton lied under oath. A crime that most of us would go to jail for. He made statements under oath that he absolutely knew were untrue. I think this is a career ender, but apparently that just makes you a beloved Democratic icon.?
I guess you'll never figure this out. You refute it when it's put out plain as day and refuse to acknowlege it. go figure.SpinnerMan wrote:[I still can't figure out what Bush said that he knew was untrue at the time he said it. The world thought Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs. The British did think something fishy was going on when Iraqi was discussing economic relations with a country that pretty much only exports uranium.?
I think the clinton's were doing their ususal dumb stuff by thinking politically instead of logically. I think whe wanted to appear tough and not fall into the trap of weak on terror. who knows?SpinnerMan wrote:What did he know that Bill Clinton didn't know? Why didn't Bill Clinton tell his wife that this is a crock and you shouldn't vote for it?
Where do you get your misinformation? She was in fact undercover and therefore releasing her name was illegal if not treasonous. Scooter, Rove, Cheney all did it... not some enemy of the neocons. the neocons did it, and with GW's knowledge! Let's wait to see if GW pardon's Scooter on his way out... after the election.
dudejcb wrote:If Clinton had done the same thing I'd be hammering him for it too. I wasn't happy with his bonehead move to worry about gays inthe military right off the bat, and I didn't like the lack of integrity with Monica, but that brought he and his family shame... However, it didn't materially hurt the country or cost any lives. The only costs were to himself and the millions the R's spent fueling Kenneth Starr's witch hunt... chasing Whitewater, only to find nothing, and then settling for a sleazebag sex scandal. How far off base was that, and were those tax dollars well spent?
I guess i don't really expect you to get the fundamental issues here.
dudejcb wrote:Nixon hurt himself and his party, and broke a few laws doing it. How is this relevant?
I believe you are familiar with the phrase... the pot calling the kettle black.SpinnerMan wrote:dudejcb wrote:Nixon hurt himself and his party, and broke a few laws doing it. How is this relevant?What have I made up? another randon accusation. Nixon's law breaks (conspiracy, etc) were a little more serious and threatening to the country. How does that type of criminal act compare to the one where a guy got a hummer (or whatever) and doesn't want to admit it... even under oath? You're still refusing to acknowledge that there is a significant difference between the facts behind these crimes and their impacts on the country.SpinnerMan wrote: I guess you just make it up as you go. Clinton should have stayed in office because nobody was hurt and only a few laws were broken. Then I guess Nixon should have stayed in office because no one was hurt and only a few laws were broke.Well, Nixon didn't really get what he deserved. he resigned so the impeachment wouldn't proceed. He ran.SpinnerMan wrote:WRONG. Nixon got what he deserved. Clinton deserved the same, but didn't get it. Republicans were right and the Democrats were wrong.
Bill Clinton's impeachment was overturned by the Senate. I wish he had been tossed out of office. We'd be much better off now if Gore had taken over back then.SpinnerMan wrote:Just trying to point out your completely biased view of the world and inconsistent set of rules for your guys and the other guys.