Here Today... Gone To Hell!

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Former US president
Bill Clinton sharply criticised George W. Bush for the
Iraq War and the handling of Hurricane Katrina, and voiced alarm at the swelling US budget deficit.


Breaking with tradition under which US presidents mute criticisms of their successors, Clinton said the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq "virtually alone and before UN inspections were completed, with no real urgency, no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction."

The Iraq war diverted US attention from the war on terrorism "and undermined the support that we might have had," Clinton said in an interview with an ABC's "This Week" programme.

Clinton said there had been a "heroic but so far unsuccessful" effort to put together an constitution that would be universally supported in Iraq.

The US strategy of trying to develop the Iraqi military and police so that they can cope without US support "I think is the best strategy. The problem is we may not have, in the short run, enough troops to do that," said Clinton.

On Hurricane Katrina, Clinton faulted the authorities' failure to evacuate New Orleans ahead of the storm's strike on August 29.

People with cars were able to heed the evacuation order, but many of those who were poor, disabled or elderly were left behind.

"If we really wanted to do it right, we would have had lots of buses lined up to take them out," Clinton.

He agreed that some responsibility for this lay with the local and state authorities, but pointed the finger, without naming him, at the former director of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

FEMA boss Michael Brown quit in response to criticism of his handling of the Katrina disaster. He was viewed as a political appointee with no experience of disaster management or dealing with government officials.

"When James Lee Witt ran FEMA, because he had been both a local official and a federal official, he was always there early, and we always thought about that," Clinton said, referring to FEMA's head during his 1993-2001 presidency.

"But both of us came out of environments with a disproportionate number of poor people."

On the US budget, Clinton warned that the federal deficit may be coming untenable, driven by foreign wars, the post-hurricane recovery programme and tax cuts that benefitted just the richest one percent of the US population, himself included.

"What Americans need to understand is that ... every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq,
Afghanistan, Katrina, and our tax cuts," he said.

"We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else."

Clinton added: "We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don't think it makes any sense."

ohhh that stupid 2 term rule fucking christ............

You'll like it next election, though.  ;)

Clinton must need to sell some more books. :hihi: :hihi:

Doesn't he know that you shouldn't throw rocks when you live in a glass house?

I really don't understand how anyone, whether you are really knowledgeable about politics or not, could actually think Bush does a better job running this country than Clinton did. I'm not trying to argue, its just mind blowing to me that anyone could think he did a bad job.  Sure he had the Lewinsky thing, but that didn't hurt me financially.  But Bush sure does. 

I'm with you - I stay out of politics because they are all liars and twist everything.  I too had more disposable income when Clinton was pres!

but i have more now that bush is in...... LOL and im canadian...... hmmmmmm wonder why

but i would not have had to worry back in '01 cause there was no way bush would have knocked down clinton.....

Dodgy American elections!  :hihi:

i bet Michael Moore is re- writing the script to Farenheit II :-X

Was't Clinton like only the 2nd president ever impeach?  And the worst of it is that he stood there on national TV and waived his finger at everyone and lied into our faces about an issue that was so small and unimportant that it should never have required a lie.  Now if he will lie about something so small, he would lie about anything.  Isn't this the man that pardon, on his last night in office, a bunch of felons who had contributed to his campaign mightly?  He is a sleazy bag...no one can possibly deny that and even his wife would agree.

This man avoided real conflict during his presidency when he shouldn't have.  He turned down the chance to get Bin Laden handed over to us on a silver platter on 3 occasions which directly led to 9/11 being possible.  He ruled like a mouse.  He benefited from the internet boom and everyone thinks he was a master financial genius because of it.  Hell, I could have been president during the 90's and come out looking clean on the other side.

I wouldn't put much stock in what this man has to say.

this all has to do with the next election. he's lobbyingn for hillary. you're gonna see alot of bill in the next 2-3 years. he's a major key to hillary winning the white house.

i'm starting to think the only person she would lose to is rudi.

Bill Clinton was an ass clown,
and had nothing to do with you having more "disposable income".
Id love to hear what policy exactly you think may have affected that if you would be so kind.

Clinton was in the right place at the right time.
Can you say dot.com

And Bush has put more money in yours and my pocket than any president in our lifetimes.

Hillary for president?
I dont think so.
I only hope she runs, would sure make whatever conservative we put up a sure bet.
 

Of course I don't expect conservative republicans to give Clinton credit for anything.  And I don't know or care what his morals are, I don't need a president to show me how to be a good person.  I can figure that out for myself. 

As for me personally, of course I'm better off with any democrat in office, things were particularly good with Clinton.  I'm middle class and I work in the social service industry.  Financially, I get trampled by republicans.  If things keep going the way they are, I won't even qualify as middle class anymore.  You can say it would have happened anyway, but I don't buy it.  Bush has screwed up this country and still has 3 more years to make it worse. Incidently, I actually didn't think the first Bush was so bad.  At least he seemed to want to do a good job.

I do actually agree with Shades about Hillary though.  I don't think she can win.  If she gets the democratic nomination, we can expect at least 4 more years being screwed by the republicans.  Why can't she win?  Because she's a woman, and this country isn't ready to put a woman in power. 

I think that the new ABC show with Gena Davis as president is preparing us for a woman pres. 

I personally never understood why a president's sex life is so important in united states.

Most people of power habe enormous sex drives ,that's well known and usually, women ( their wifes) have long term lovers ( jackie O was rumored to see sinatra for 15 years, apparently hillary had one for 20 years and he ended up comitting suicide when she refused to leave her soon to be presidential husband for him, etc etc)..

what's new ?

Most people are sleazy, only you don't know it because you dont get to know what they do with their arse.

Back to politics.

They talk about his sex life, because that is all they can talk about. They spent millions of dollars of our tax money to catch him having a bj...wow, good job.

Dotcom crash?

You don't think we are in a housing bubble? You probably rent anyway.....so you wouldn't know.

Same thing, different market.

Price of gas now?

Deficit now?

Clinton had a surplus.

Clinton caught all terrorists during his administration that attacked us and they sit in jail now.

Bush has not caught any.

Bush had a memo prior to 9-11 that said, " AQ plan on taking planes and flying them into buildings." and you know what he did? He went on vacation. Then guess what happened?

How does catching the person who attacked us on 9-11 equal starting a "democracy" in another country? It doesn't.

Clilnton also had huge international support, where most of the world hates Bush's sorry ass.

Here is your intellectual leader in action:

http://mp3.dubyaspeak.com/admiralg.mp3

THAT is VERY true !!!

The note was left by Clinton himself and his services.

Bush didn't believe it, the secret services did but the people who knew were replaced as soon as Bush came into office and 5000 people died because of the most cretinous family ever seen in white house.

Funny enough, Bush stayed on vacation after hearing about Katrina too. But what do you expect? Waging illegal wars are exhausting, one needs a break every now and then.......

I thought it was just like playing chess on coke funnily enough...is it that tiring ?  :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You really are a miserable little man arent you.

Bush had a memo on his desk that said Al Queada was going to fly planes into buildings huh?
And he should have?....

he had intelligence on his desk from all over the world saying Iraq was hiding WMD's but of course that was irresponsible to demand Iraq disclose where they were or how he disposed of them.

Theres a pattern of talking out both sides of the mouth with liberals.

your so easy to pick apart, its just a matter of asking you questions that you dont answer.

1.What exactly do you think Bush did to inflate housing?
2.What exactly do you think Bush did to drive up the price of gas?
3.The deficit? Bush gave money back to taxpayers to bolster the economy to bring us out of the looming recession after the dot.com crash and 9/11.
Look around, things are pretty good.
unemployment is at a 25 year low
4.Do you think catching Bin Laden will solve the terrorist problem?

you're a goofball dude, I hate to break it to you. But you come off as a 12 year old quoting his Union employed Uncle talking down at the dock.

And I or most other 'republicans' could care less if Clinton was getting a blow job from a barely legal half his age employee of his while the same Al Quaeda was planning attacks on our country.
But lieing under oath is a little concerning for the man in charge of my security.

err, actually, the intelligence services apologised ( in case you hadn't read or heard the radios) for fucking it all up when their infos had said there were going to be problems with planes.

How to you explain heathrow security was reinforced weeks before 9/11 and nowhere i nthe US ?

I WAS IN HEATHROW YOU DUMBCASE ! on the 23rd of august !

People got arrested in DULLES from all around the world for questionning ( so was i), the local police was PA RA NOID and ripped our suitcases, planes were delayed up to 6 hours !

Not believing me ? ask the friend from THIS forum who was picking me up and waiting at Dulles for that long for a plane arriving from england. I'll give you his username if you want.

THEY KNEW!

Hurts you to think so ?

Your problem.

they knew?
ok , and what is your theory on why they didnt do anything?

that last statement is hilarious!!  :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

do you look down on people that rent?

Bush had a memo on his desk that said Al Queada was going to fly planes into buildings huh?
And he should have?....

Are you kidding? LOL, that is probably the same question Bush asked "What do I do now? I know! Take a vacation...."

he had intelligence on his desk from all over the world saying Iraq was hiding WMD's but of course that was irresponsible to demand Iraq disclose where they were or how he disposed of them.

Proven false.

1.What exactly do you think Bush did to inflate housing?

What did Clinton have to do with dotcom? I'm giving what you put out. Your level.

2.What exactly do you think Bush did to drive up the price of gas?

You are a complete idiot. Oil speculation because of the war maybe?

3.The deficit? Bush gave money back to taxpayers to bolster the economy to bring us out of the looming recession after the dot.com crash and 9/11.

Bush gave tax payers an advance on their tax refund, slick, but not that slick. Good way to start out a term: lie number one.

4.Do you think catching Bin Laden will solve the terrorist problem?

haha, so now that is not important? The man who attacked us? Now I've heard it all.

you're a goofball dude, I hate to break it to you. But you come off as a 12 year old quoting his Union employed Uncle talking down at the dock.

Whatever makes you feel better when you look in the mirror.

But lieing under oath is a little concerning for the man in charge of my security.

Yea, except when he lied, it didn't cause 2000 American soldier deaths.

Why didn't he act right away with Katrina?

Incompetent, poor leader, take your pick.

No, but the poster seems pretty unaware of the out of control housing market, so I would assume he is a renter.

Kind of two faced to accuse me of such a thing anyway, since you guys look down on poor people so much.

Funny thing is none of you can really take on what he is saying.

You just attack his character and talk about blowjobs.....

Can you comment on anything worthwhile? Say..... about "federal deficit may be coming untenable"? Any real thought on that? Or are you just gonna talk about when he was in the white house?

Hmmmm....?

but that's not how you worded it though.....you said he probably rents, therefore he wouldn't know about the housing market.

which is insulting on two levels:

1. one of the most hilarious quotes i've ever seen on these boards....accusing someone of renting and using it as an insult. just classic. (i have no idea if you were actually being serious, but either way it's funny as hell.)

2. that people who rent are out of touch with financial trends. (that's a degrading statement.)

AND for the record, clinton had nothing to do with the stock market boom in the late 90's, just as bush has nothing to do with the housing market boom of the last 5+ years.

ok, i'll take the bait on this one. (and i apologize to all who are sick of SLC's extreme anger and partisanship....i'm extremely bored at work right now.)

clinton is flat out lying (or is incredibly stupid) when he says the tax breaks "benefitted just the richest 1%".

the fact is ALL classes and income levels got a tax break. and the richest in the U.S. now pay a LARGER percentage of the overall income tax pie.

but hey, big bill said it so it must be true.  :rofl:

I'll tell you what I know about the housing market from expeience.

I bought a two bedroom home in RI in 1996 for $90,000.  In June of this year I sold that house fo $229,000.  I then took that money to a lower-cost-of-living state (FL), added a small amount of cash to it, and bought a house twice the size of the house I had in RI in a better location with a better school system.  To be honest, the housing boom has been great for me because I have owned for a while.

As for Clinton, who cares about the BJ?  No one.  It is the looking in our faces, pointing his finger, and outright lying about such a non-issue that pissed me off.  And statements like "it depends on what your definition of "is" is" didn't help either.  I would say I am not alone in this whereas he suffered the greatest humilitation of any president by being impeached (and he wasn't impeached for a bj).

BTW, you liberals would be all over Bush if he got a BJ in the oval office.  It would be non-stop from you guys.  The bj is a non-issue. 

His character as a human being is not questionable.  Just look at his list of pardons he made and the offenses he pardon people for. 

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6a.htm

The guy is a huge sleazebag and anyone who argues that is not being fair.  If you are going to argue against Bush by bringing someone into the arguement to compare him against, do yourself a favor and pick someone with better moral standing like Reagan or Bush senior.  Clinton is a joke of a human.

but that's not how you worded it though.....you said he probably rents, therefore he wouldn't know about the housing market.

Yea, and? You are trying to make a big deal out of nothing and attack the poster. Avoid the subject.


AND for the record, clinton had nothing to do with the stock market boom in the late 90's, just as bush has nothing to do with the housing market boom of the last 5+ years.

I am aware of this, that is why I asked him the same question. That was the point, jackass.

the fact is ALL classes and income levels got a tax break. and the richest in the U.S. now pay a LARGER percentage of the overall income tax pie.

Not true.

I see advances on tax returns...that was it.

What about the rest of the article?

Taxes would be the lowest of our concerns right now, nice you avoided that.

The guy is a huge sleazebag and anyone who argues that is not being fair.  If you are going to argue against Bush by bringing someone into the arguement to compare him against, do yourself a favor and pick someone with better moral standing like Reagan or Bush senior.  Clinton is a joke of a human.

Yup, and you still attack his character instead of what he said. You know he is right, so you talk about him lying about a bj.

SLChomeowner, as usual you resort to name calling. come on, i thought you were better than that. you should try to mature a little.

and you were taking a shot at him by saying he probably rents. and you somehow make an assumption that people who rent don't know anything about the housing market.....which is just such a ridiculous statement. ? :rofl: ?

i would argue that alot of renters know MORE about the housing market. the fact that houses are so expensive is why so many people are renting in the first place! but i'm not making big deal about anything. just pointing i thought it was hilarious.

i think taxes are important, and all the other topics have been discussed repeatedly in these threads. and you should educate yourself about taxes and bush's tax cuts. that way you would have something intelligent to add to the discussion besides "not true".

I didn't.  If there was any tax break at all, which I certainly don't recall seeing, it wasn't enough to make a difference in anyone's lifestyle.

And was a tax break even a good idea, considering how in debt our country is?  I don't see where it helped anyone, if indeed such a tax break happened.  I seem to remember getting $1000 that I had to take off my next years tax refund.  Wow.  Yay for me.

Maybe to you republican Americans. Outside your country the current president is the biggest joke of a president anybody has ever seen while Clinton is actually respected.

Nobody here seems to care what Clinton did with the intern. It didn't affect the rest of the world.

Going to war because you think another country has WMDs, and then mentioning it's a war on terror, does affect the rest of the world.



/jarmo

Come on, at least be straight when you talk about it.

Clinton was sued with Jones alleging that Clinton sexually harrassed her in the work place.  Clinton had to testify in front of a grand jury about sexual relations with other co-workers, which was very relevant to the suit.  He testifed falsely to the Grand Jury.  This isn't lying in a speech, it is lying in the court of law which is the foundation of our system.  Judges have been impeached numerous times for such things in the past.  To me, this was especially egregious considering he was a lawyer.  And in fact, he was disbarred for it.  A lawyer does it, they care unfit to practice law.  But the President does it, it is OK? 

However, Clinton was brilliant, he created a strawman that continues to be followed to this day. 

Isn't that what you did by calling him a renter that knows nothing about the market?

By the way, I agree with you that there is a bubble.

SLChomeowner, as usual you resort to name calling. come on, i thought you were better than that. you should try to mature a little.

Why are you hanging on to this for dear life? I explained the post, move on.

i think taxes are important, and all the other topics have been discussed repeatedly in these threads. and you should educate yourself about taxes and bush's tax cuts. that way you would have something intelligent to add to the discussion besides "not true".

I said why they were not true.

Making a big deal out of this too? I already explained the post. If I had intended it as an insult, I would have continued it as an insult.

There is a bubble in certain arreas I think yes.

Subject still avoided...... ;D

You are right, and yet, I really don't care that much.  I don't know if he was a good person or not.  I don't care.  Call me selfish, but I know I was better off when Clinton was in office, and so was just about everyone else I know.  My values probably lean more to the conservative side, but in the end, values don't matter that much if you don't have enough money for  food, a place to live, etc.  I want this country to prosper, be respected, take care of its residents.  That isn't where we are right now, and its sad. 

And what did Clinton say in the original interview that was false, or showed he lacked anything as president?  He's right, this country is in trouble.  And we have at least 3 years before anyone begins to fix things.  How is that not scary to some of you?

The thing about why Clinton's such an asshole is because he lied to the American people. Plain and simple, the dumb fuck lied. But then again so do all politicians worldwide. But to come on t.v. like he did and lied looking into the camera. That's pathetic!!!!!! I think most Americans would agree they wouldn't care who's suckin' Clintons dick or who he's fucking. But the fucker lied and that's where he fucked up!

He himself could have taken out Osama but he fucked that up too. He should have been more focused on that then the skanky fat ass between his legs. It's laughable how in the end he finds it important and he leaves Bush a letter warning him of the danger.

Right, and it was packaged in such a way to make W sound like he was giving us "extra money". All you had to do was read the fine print though.....

do you work? if the answer is yes, you got a tax break.

i can't state it any more clearly, we all got tax breaks. clinton flat out lied in that statement.

SLChomeowner on the other hand probably just doesn't know what he's talking about.

Good points that will go ignored by the liberals here just like the point regarding his pardons.  The man's a joke.  Jarmo, I would say that your statement about clinton being respected in eurpoe is not something to brag about.

I agree, to some extent.  This is, at least partially, Bill starting the Hillary machine.

However....I'm not sure she'll win.  She's pretty polarizing.  There is at least one Repub (McCain) who I would probably vote for over her.

 ::)

Because they didn't believe  someone would dare to attack the biggest world superpower.

It only means people outside your country thinks you know what you're doing, that must be pretty bad.





/jarmo

the clinton name is a powerful brand name. which probably had something to do with why hillary didn't divorce bill. i think alot of people are gonna feel comfortable having big bill in the white house. you get bill's presidential expertise without his BS. and she's gonna work to change her image to appear more religious, more down to earth, and less radical. she's courting the soccer moms (which i believe bush won handily).

and i think when it comes down to it, all the angry democrats are voting for whoever runs on their ticket (despite what many of them say). then you'll have a portion of female republicans who will like to see a woman in the white house.

but i saw a poll last night that said rudi and mccain would beat her handily. i just have a feeling those polls will change in 3 years.

Ralph Nader could beat her.
She has a snowballs chance in hell
Im only hoping the Dems put her up as their candidate.
This is so funny to even be talking about.

HILLARY IN "08"
HILLARY IN "08"

HILLARY IN "08"
HILLARY IN "08"

come on, alltogether now
Ill even help in any way I can

remember, the dumbs, i mean the dems, put kerry on their ticket this year.  :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

so ANYTHING is possible.  :rofl:

I agree with your first statement, no one should care about the blow job. He lied when asked a question that shouldn't had been asked in the first place. That's not what I call lying it's part of his private life.

THAT is what people disregard. The fact that MILLIONS were spent to put him in a position where they knew anyman would probably lie.

And to all the people calling him a sleaze, don't make me list all the Right Wing hypocrites who have been caught with their girls on the side, child pedophilia, sexual harrassment cases etc, even those who went after Clinton were screwing around on their wives....

why would we have to make you do anything, you're like a windup toy, you just keep going and going and going.
Infidelity is still wrong, thats like a kid saying "Tommy did it so why cant I".

The man was our President, dont stare me in the eye and lie bold face, it makes anything else you say hard to take serious.
he did an intern half his age, in the whitehouse no less..
  Ken Starr was after bigger fish he just used Lewinski to point out the character we were dealing with, or lack of I should say.
What about white water, was that a republican witch hunt too?
Paula Jones? How about that poor Clinton lawyer that commited suicide? Lets not even start, Clinton was an ass clown, case closed.
Dont defend him, you look silly.

On topic, Bush has pointed out his own shortcomings on Katrina, no need for the peanut gallery to chime in.

C'mon, SLC, you can't bring up what the holier than thou Republicans have done wrong! ?Have they done anything wrong? ?The garunteed response to all the Republican affairs would be that at least they admited to it. ?I also like how if we criticize Bush for past mistakes they say" You can't change the past, you can't reconstruct history" ?but when the Conserv. backs are against the wall they bring up Clinton. ?What a joke!

It was and Clinton was cleared of all charges. Thanks.

Why are you truning this into a liberal versus conservative thing?  No one is denying that there are immoral republicans.

yeah, i thought this thread was about clinton and bush.  ::)


is that website correct.......clinton pardoned 140 convicted criminals????

is that website accurate? cause i know most presidents had just a handful. is it even possible for one person to know 140 criminals????

yes it is accurate.? The worst part is not the number of people he pardoned, but the crimes for which they were pardoned.? It paid to be a big contributor to Clinton I guess.  I mean that man though so much of the whitehouse that he would rent out the lincoln bedroom and get blowjobs from ugly interns in the oval office.  How can anyone defend the guy by saying they don't care about the morals of the president?  If it were Bush these same people that think Clinton should get a pass on those things would be hammering Bush to death for the same things.  They can't deny that.

Because you guys point the finger at Clinton while ignoring your own parties sexual antics, and child molestations.

Bush changed the entire world with an illegal war. Almost 2000 US dead, billions in debt, 10,000 injured and more to come.

Clinton lied under oath about getting a hummer. Only the tax payers were hurt with the Right Wing witch hunt bill.

And what does that have to do with my statement.  Nothing.

Good logic? ::)? You are still very blinded by your own agenda.  You look foolish actually as most posters have stated here.

Blinded by what?

Pointing out you are a hypocrite?

You are! :hihi:

Of course you avoid that, because it's true.

Name call, insult away buddy, but you guys are the minority here. There are about 6 of you guys (probably 3 registered twice) that feel the way you do. The rest DO NOT.

Well.. Not directly.

But I for one don't think that president's personal life has anything to do with his political life. And in that perspective it has has a lot to do with everything. ?You attack Clinton for lying about getting a blowjob, as if it was even remotely comparable to the things Clinton has criticized the Bush administration for. When you look at it from that perspective.. SLC's comment has a lot to do with your statement.


And please try not to double post... try editing your posts instead. It's really difficult to try to keep up with conversation when people post 3 times in a row although there only might be 2 active people taking part.

Certainly, I think you are correct SLC, but why not condemn both of them?  Anytime anyone on the left is criticized the finger gets pointed at Bush for doing worse things. 

I can't condemn a man for immoral acts on a personal level, it is none of my business. It was only brought out because they had it in for him. As far as listing right wing sexual exploits, I have never done that before, although I could have. I only brought it to the table because of the (mis)focus on Clinton's freakin' bj.

I have been critical of Clinton in the past for his bombing of a pharmeceutical plant, which in fact is type of genocide itself.

But the subject is not "I say one bad thing about each." The subject is "Clinton is critical of Bush's lack of leadership" and everybody turns it into a Clinton Roast to defend Bush.

They propably should be. But when the subject is about Clinton attacking Bush on his policies, and the only argument people can bring to the table to discredit Clinton is that he lied about a blowjob.. well. So you see, the actual criticism of the topic is also avoided by pointing the finger back at the accusor. Which would be a justified move, if it was about something with a bit more relevance than a blowjob.

The man lied under oath in a case that woman brought against him for sexual harrassment. ?Certainly you can condemn that. ?I don't care that he lied to the public about it, but lying in the court of law is a different story. ?Certianly, you can condment that?

actually, bush has not committed any crimes while in office. clinton did. clinton lied under oath. any other citizen in the U.S. would have been put behind bars for several years. lying under oath in a serious crime.

some people on this board are far left wing radicals who are blinded by their ideologies.

but no matter what side your on, everyone should respect others opinions and TRY to understand that there are some of us who agree with the actions bush has taken in fighting the war.

AND bill clinton's criticisms are his fucking OPINIONS. but many on here take them as FACT. and i already pointed out that his statement on taxes is a flat out lie!!! but clinton knows that people who do not like bush, won't question a negative comment directed at him. ?

I agree, it doesn't counter Clinton's arguments at all. ?But again, that is all I see in every thread. ?Bush does something right, the thread gets turned into an Iraq thread. ?An international thread about the UN, the thread gets turned into an anti-Bush Iraq thread. ?I agree it is a strawman argument to attack the accuser rather than his argument, but everyone of these threads gets sidetracked by strawman arguments. ?

I know that there are people who think what he did with Iraq was the right move. But do you still believe that he has handled that, and the Hurricane Katrina (with this I know there wasn't a shitload that he could've done - it was more a matter of local forces to handle,) in the best way possible?

And "lying under oath in a serious crime." I hope you meant to say _is_ a serious crime since, since if the crime was adultery... That is true that the thing he did was not right.. Lying under oath. And he did a very bad misjudgement by lying as he too should be bound by the law. But breaking the law or not.. his actions (in that particular incident) did not effect the lives of millions of people.


That is true. A lot of the time very good arguments turn unfortunately into another Iraq-fight (though this thread is partially about it, so it's pretty natural). I - unfortunately have limited time to read these boards, and am not a very fast typer (especially in English), so I sometimes can't be bothered to reply. What I will say is this. When you see that someone is trying to derail the conversation with dumb arguments, ignore those and only reply to the ones that actually have something to do with the topic. If a poster can't show the relevance of his argument in a thread - it's not worth commenting on.

Ill say he didnt do shit to affect anybody,
was like having bozo the clown in charge.
8 wasted years

It is not just his BJ or lying about hit that makes him a sleazebag.  Check out the list of pardons this bag of shit made on his last day in office.  He has no moral fiber whatsoever.

And putting oil men in charge of environmental rules has moral fiber?  Former timber execs in charge of the Forest Service is moral fiber?  Former workers of major pollutoers in charge of the Clean Air is moral? 

Just a quick point about the Clinton pardons:

First off, if memory serves, Clinton's administration was the first under which DETAILED (name, date of pardon, and crime for which pardon was issued) stats on pardons were required to be kept since 1933.? There are certainly stats AVAILABLE from other presidents, but they were not REQUIRED to keep them, so the details of many of the pardons are not readily available.? So it's not as if we have a whole lot to compare Clinton's list of pardons to in the halls of history......

In addition, Clintons list of pardons, on his "last day" is notably long because, reportedly, he did not want to go down as being the president with the LEAST number of pardons in the modern era.? "Special application rules" were even established to help aid those filing for clemency to speed up the process.? He had FAR fewer grants of clemency during his actual term (that is, not including the 140 grants on his "last day") than many, if not any, president in the modern era.  In addition, he expressed frustration, in the days leading up to the end of his 2nd term with the Judicial Review committee that did the review of all clemency applications.

Also, one must realize, there is a documented process for review of clemency cases and, in most cases, the "recommendation" for clemency comes from either the Attorney General OR the Judicial Review committee.

In other words...singling out Clinton on those pardons may not be entirely fair.....

Here's some info you all might find interesting:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardonspres1.htm

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6.htm

Seems like a good reason to pardon criminals.  I'll give it to Bill though, always thinking of the history books.

A president can pardon anyone he wants for any reason he wants and most president's pardon a bunch of people on their way out.? If he does it on his own or on the Attorney General's suggestion, he is still the one who does it.  You can do an internet search to find who Bush Sr. pardoned, Reagan, etc.?

How can you even try to defend clinton on this?? He pardoned MArc Rich for god's sake.  It is well known fact that he and he alone pardoned these people.? Don't you think if there was a check and balance on this issue within our government that most of those criminals wouldn't have been pardoned?  Getting suggestions from the Attorney's General's office is not a check or balance at all.? Look at the list for christ's sake!? Look at the people he pardoned and the crimes they committed!? How can you possibly defend it?? The better response would have been to say "yea, you're right, he is a sleaze bag for making pardons of that kind".

You claim to be independent, but I have never seen you post a conservative view point once here and you even go as far as to defend leftest wingnuts like slc and now you defend clinton's pardons.? I have a new flash for you...you are a liberal as much as I am a conservative except that I can see when a mistake is made and own up to it.  Pardoning most of the people on that list was a mistake...kind of like lying to a grand jury except not illegal.

1st off, on my posting...you haven't looked hard enough.? I said, just the other day, I'd vote for McCain over Hillary.?There are others scattered throughout my posts. The reason MOST of my posts are "liberal" (not true, they just agree with the liberal view) is because we tend to discuss the issues on which I agree with the liberal viewpoint.? We don't tend to discuss fiscal conservativism here because, well, those issues tend to be boring, esoteric, and not remotely as sensational.? I've said it before, and I'll say it again:? On social policy, I tend to be agree with the libs.? On fiscal policy, the conservatives.? On foreign policy, it's been a toss up before GW.? For this administration, I've disagreed with much more of his foreign policy, and, well, he hasn't really been very fiscally conservative (he's spending more than any Democrat in office ever did...and that's even excluding the costs of the war) AND I disagree with his social policy.? So, while not a "liberal", I'm not real enamored of this president's administration, especially after 2002.  FYI, there are a number of Republicans who feel the same way (McCain being one of them).

On defending SLC, I think that's not exactly true.? I HAVE defended him but I've also disagreed with him, occasionally, and said so.? We just tend not to get into contentious debates about it.

Second, I'm not defending Clinton's pardons.? I'm giving you some background on the clemency procedures and some reasoning WHY Clinton's "last day" list might have been so unusually long.

Some of the claims you make, for instance, are directly refuted in the links I gave:?

You CAN NOT get a complete lists of Bush or Reagan (or Nixon, or Carter's) pardons.? You can get a small list of "notables" but not the complete list.? There hasn't been a complete list of pardons, from ANY President, since the 30's.?

It also explains that EVERY pardon/clemency issue goes through an application process.? Every one.? Part of that process is a board of Judicial Review, and a review by the Attorney General.? You are right that the president, ultimately, makes the final decision.

It IS unusual for a president to have THAT extensive a list of pardons "on his way out".? The links I provided support that.

I don't particuarly like Mr. Clintons list of pardons BUT I'm also not willing to condemn the guy as any more of a sleezebag than the rest of our presedents in the modern era without having any comparable data.? ? It's called having a bit of perspective on the issue.

McCain is not a conservative.
hes a liberal in Independants clothing.

And heres some advice, quit defending Clinton.
The man was, is, and always will be an assclown.
His whole legacy is a cartoon. Think about it.

As opposed to Bush being a joke?

Alright ... look who's talking !!!  ::)

(http://tinypic.com/dxbarp.jpg)

Again, falling back on the old debate standard:

Prove it.

Prove every line.

Otherwise, call it opinion (and unfounded, baseless opinion, at that) and move on.

You won't be able to offer any proof, however because:

1) McCain IS a conservative.? He's just not an ultra right wing conservative.? He's an "old school" conservative, more in line with Regan than with GW.? But for those of you ultra right wing liberal hating conservs, I can understand how his bipartisanship could be a bit scary for you.

2) Clinton was not an "assclown".? You might not like the guy, from a moral standpoint, but you can't deny his administration had it's successes.? But again, I'm not surprised the ultra right wing liberal hating sect refuses to acknowledge his contributions and ONLY focus on his failures.

3) You can't prove I'm defending Clinton, because, well, I'm not.? I'm adding context to the discussion.? I'd define what that means for you but, as I said before, I've done so much research for you of late I should be getting paid for it.? I already said I wasn't thrilled with Clintons list of pardons, but am reluctant to harp on the guy about them without comparable evidence from other administrations. How is that "defending" him?

People love to bash Clinton.

I rather enjoyed the economy and the general 'vibe' in the Country under Clinton.  By the way, I've seen the man speak live.  Bush simply isn't in the same league.  Clinton managed to go for over an hour with no 3x5's, no teleprompter, no anything except for delivering his message, on point.  And then he accepted unscripted questions from the audience.  (I know they were unscripted, because one of mine was answered).  Sorry, I just much prefer an intellectual giant running things than Alfred E. Neumann.  And by the way, this is without factoring politics into it AT ALL.  I'd think Bush was a freaking idiot if he was a Democrat, too.  It scares me how uninformed and unknowledgable he is.  And it should very well scare you, too.  I'd rather unstable Jack Bauer after a dose of heroin have his finger on the 'button' than Bush.

Oh, and heya, Pilferk! :)

-darknemus

Heya dark...noticed you'd been making it back to these parts a bit more often.