Clinton Bashing

[GROUCHO MARX]

What would history have written about Bill Clinton had legal troubles not marked the end of his second term?

We don't need any apologists or Clinton haters, there are enough of those.

What were the pros and cons of the job he did?

My personal opinion is that he didn't take the threat of terrorism seriously enough after the first WTC attack, but that he was smart enough not to get in the way of a technological boom.

I don't think I know today what WJC actually had as his agenda? He is a smart and charming guy, but did he have anything other than scandal for which he will be remembered?

[ January 26, 2004, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: GROUCHO MARX ]

 

[Last_Z]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GROUCHO MARX:
What would history have written about Bill Clinton had legal troubles not marked the end of his second term?

We don't need any apologists or Clinton haters, there are enough of those.

What were the pros and cons of the job he did?

My personal opinion is that he didn't take the threat of terrorism seriously enough after the first WTC attack, but that he was smart enough not to get in the way of a technological boom.

I don't think I know today what WJC actually had as his agenda? He is a smart and charming guy, but did he have anything other than scandal for which he will be remembered?

---

I won't knock on his head for messing with Monica.....but I would for getting caught!

I really don't know what the big deal is about Billy.....Other than accumulating a massive surplus (it did costs us though), I just don't know of any other significant things he did.

I have the same opinion of JFK.....he seemed like a very honest and fair guy.....but did he really do anything for the American people?
I guess he might have saved us from nuclear war in '63......if it was Bush, we might've attacked Cuba and then the Soviets would've fired nukes and we fire back......and there goes the world! If the movie "13 days" is accurate, especially the part where JFK was under pressure from his military advisors, then I would think he did an outstanding job.....but that would be it though.

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

Z, the difference between Kruschev and Saddam is the the Soviets were a highly developed, industrialized nation. They had much more to lose in war, the destruction of a half century's worth of building.

Saddam only had to lose his power and legacy. Those statues of him were coming down as soon as he exited.

I believe that JFK's legacy is really that he wasn't LBJ. People like to theorize that he would have prevented the escalation of the Viet Nam war. It's a nice theory, but that's all it is.

 

[labman]

Without his legal troubles, I think Clinton would have been remembered as a do nothing president. I feel his only agenda was taking care of Bill Clinton. His philosophy appeared to be: sex, power, money, use what you have, however you can, to get more. What do you want, and what can you give me for it? As with Clinton, I disagreed with many of Carter's policies, but I respect Carter, but only have contempt for Clinton. I think he substantially reduced our security, trying to make a place for himself in history. The atomic power deal with North Korea is one of the worst examples. Much of the weakness of our intelligence agencies can be blamed on him. By far, I think his time in the White House facilitated the whole rotten moral tone of society today.

I think our whole society is badly polarized on the moral issues. Not so much abortion and gay rights, but is it OK to do what ever benefits you, and if you do get caught, lie out of it. I was very upset with one poll that had the majority of the American people admiring Clinton for his ability to lie out of things. I am hoping it was a biased poll.

Well yes, I do have to admit hating him, also his wife and their lap dog Clark. I believe right and wrong do exist.

 

[needtoknow]

It seems interesting that when Clinton lied about sex Republicans thought it was an impeachable offense. When Bush lies about war he is to be rewarded and re-elected.

 

[Al]

Well to stay on topic and avoiding the rebutal on the Previous Bush bashing agenda. I think Bill was in office and he left office-that's about it. I think his failings were not dealing effectively with growing terror threats and at the same time removing our eyes and ears by trashing the spy netork that really is the root of all our problems now

 

[labman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by needtoknow:
It seems interesting that when Clinton lied about sex Republicans thought it was an impeachable offense. When Bush lies about war he is to be rewarded and re-elected.

---

Wait a minute. It is undisputed that Clinton lied about sex under oath. It has not been proven that Saddam didn't have WMD before the decision to go to war. And even if he didn't, there is a good chance that George was mislead by bad intelligence. Stating that George Bush lied is as big of a lie as what you are accusing him of. Try to stick to the facts.

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by labman:
Wait a minute. It is undisputed that Clinton lied about sex under oath. It has not been proven that Saddam didn't have WMD before the decision to go to war. And even if he didn't, there is a good chance that George was mislead by bad intelligence. Stating that George Bush lied is as big of a lie as what you are accusing him of. Try to stick to the facts.

---

Bush is either a lier or incompetent. Your choice until one or the other is proven.

 

[tec97]

quote:

---

Originally posted by XS650:Bush is either a lier or incompetent. Your choice until one or the other is proven.

---

Interestingly, the same criticism can be made of his father with regards to the Iran/Contra affair...

 

[dkcase]

quote:

---

same criticism can be made of his father with regards to the Iran/Contra affair...

---

Wait a minute. Reagan was President during the Iran/Contra dealings. No ?

 

[tec97]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dkcase:

quote:

---

same criticism can be made of his father with regards to the Iran/Contra affair...

---

Wait a minute. Reagan was President during the Iran/Contra dealings. No ?

---

Reagan was purposefully insulated from those dealings - Bush Sr though either knew about them and lied about it, or should have known about them and didn't. Reagan is IMO cuplable too tho - what he did was akin to saying something like "we need to figure out some way to arm those Contras and get hostages free w/o looking like we're negotinating for them!" to his senior staff, then covering his ears and going "LA-LA-LA-I-CAN'T-HEAR-ANYTHING-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!"

 

[JohnnyO]

quote:

---

Originally posted by XS650:
Your choice until one or the other is proven.

---

I don't think either one has been proven yet. Just because you disagree with someone politically doesn't mean they're incompetent. Insults are the last refuge of a liberal with no logic left to argue with.

I've seen video of all the dead Kurds from 1988. That poison gas had to come from someplace.

 

[Sumerduckman]

There are three things that spring to mind as a legacy of the Clinton era, pro or con you pick.
He may not even get the blame or credit. I guess that is for the historians.
NAFTA, Welfare 'reform', and our first class military hardware, that has been doing the job in Iraq and Afganistan. It takes a number of years to design,test and go to full production with the high tech boom booms. I am personally familar with a number of the DOD weapons programs, and a quite a lot of them were started and brought to fruition during the Clinton years.

 

[needtoknow]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnnyO:

quote:

---

Originally posted by XS650:
Your choice until one or the other is proven.

---

I don't think either one has been proven yet. Just because you disagree with someone politically doesn't mean they're incompetent. Insults are the last refuge of a liberal with no logic left to argue with.

I've seen video of all the dead Kurds from 1988. That poison gas had to come from someplace.

---

Did you also see the pictures of dead Iranians (Iran/Irag War) killed by Saddam's poison gas. Did the U.S. stand up then, no, we continued to support him because he was doing our bidding for the Iranian hostage crisis. I agree about insults, but I've never seen them as sole possessions of a liberal.

 

[Last_Z]

GM,
I agree with you! As much as some people would like to believe otherwise, JFK would have been dragged into Viet-Nam. It was a matter of good and evil....Communism vs capitalism. JFK dragged us into the space race just to prove we were better, what makes anyone think he wouldn't have done the same to prevent the spread of communism??
BTW, I'm sure many here know.....he was also a playboy....more so than Billy!


Labman,
Exactly my point! I don't give Clinton much credit......if something, he did away with a lot of good things and got us into trouble by making crucial mistakes.

needtoknow,
I get your point....the difference is that GW does not seem to directly be at fault. He acted on the intelligence report, which we are now finding out was at least partly wrong. GW was looking for any excuse however, and that SHOULD NOT be how we do business.

 

[JohnnyO]

I think Clinton's main agenda was that nothing bad was to happen on his watch, hence he didn't take a lot of risks. On the upside, he lowered the bar enough on both professional and personal behavior that even I can run for office now.

 

[Flashlightboy]

The saddest part of Bill Clinton is that in terms of pure and raw political ability he was, without question, the best of his time. He had the smarts to be a great politician and president but he instead of relying on those smarts, he squandered them. A talent that wasn't maximized is a talent wasted.

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnnyO:

quote:

---

Originally posted by XS650:
Your choice until one or the other is proven.

---

I don't think either one has been proven yet. Just because you disagree with someone politically doesn't mean they're incompetent. Insults are the last refuge of a liberal with no logic left to argue with.

I've seen video of all the dead Kurds from 1988. That poison gas had to come from someplace.

---

Then instead of insults, perhaps you could come up with some other explanations for Bush's actions.

I'm a 40 year Republican, but that doesn't mean I have to be a Bush appologist. Bush is an embarassment.

We've all seen the 1988 video, they have nothng to do with anything. If you find some credible video of Sadam's WMDs taken in the last two years, that would be another story. The Bush administration would pay you handsomely for them

 

[XS650]

killed duplicate post

[ January 28, 2004, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: XS650 ]

 

[Pablo]

Back to topic:

Some pretty good observations here (with the exception of the people who want to puke 2004 election into every thread).

First of all check your kid's history books. Clinton is already recorded as the best president since FDR, since it's coming out that JFK may have had some pro-business tendencies. I'm kidding a bit here, but the man is pretty much a saint already in Wa state 5th grade history book and the liberal teachers just add praise to that.

My thing with Clinton? I don't give a do-do if he had a thing for a big titted, dark haired, young bimbo...heck she's too fat for me, so he may as well have her.

What really bugged me most about Clinton, more than any president in recent history? His unbridled glory hounding. He took credit for EVERYTHING!! You name it...things he had zero to do with until after they were successful! Heck he's a politician, it's to be expected - but what's not expected? The press fell for it EVERY flicking time!! Lazy a$$ press of ours. That's when I lost all respect and found out just how bad and biased the press is in the USA.

That's how I'll remember Clinton...slid into office, did some things, took credit for everything good...slid out. Ironic thing? Gore tried to emulate Clinton. Didn't work.