Ah The Glory Days Of The Clinton Admin

[unosdostres14]

Can you name other rulers that invaded three other countries illegally currently in office?

Can you name oher rulers in violation of UN Securoty Council Resolutions currently in office?

Can you name other rulers that REPEATEDLY violated their CEASE FIRE agreement currently in office?

People forget that was a cease fire agreement, not a formal ending of the Gulf War.

Well Bush has come pretty damn close to being the answer to all three of those questions.

And that still doesn't change the fact that Iraq didn't provide any kind of threat to us and there was no reason American soldiers had to die in order to remove Saddam from power.

 

[Dreadsox]

Well Bush has come pretty damn close to being the answer to all three of those questions.

And that still doesn't change the fact that Iraq didn't provide any kind of threat to us and there was no reason American soldiers had to die in order to remove Saddam from power.

#1 Even those who did not support going to war felt that Iraq had the WMD.

#2 If the war was illegal, the UN Security Council would not have passed resolutions in support of the US after the war.

#3 Whne someone violates a cease fire.....shouldn't that be grounds for continuing the war?

 

[financeguy]

but then again the current crop of Dems aren't very smart.

Hmm...you have a point there!

 

[verte76]

I will try and find info for you....but I am almost 100% sure that if you cannot fulfill the rules to be President...you cannot be the VP>

This is correct. In 1988 some people used this to quiet a rumor that Reagan was going to be Bush's running mate. Reagan couldn't have a third term as president, thus he couldn't be Bush's running mate.

 

[phanan]

This is correct. In 1988 some people used this to quiet a rumor that Reagan was going to be Bush's running mate. Reagan couldn't have a third term as president, thus he couldn't be Bush's running mate.

But where does it specifically state this? I don't see anything regarding Vice-Presidents and term limits, or that former Presidents can't be Vice-Presidents. Obviously, they shouldn't be able to, but I can't find that info. anywhere.

 

[MissMoo]

"If Bush was in office for LESS than a year, why wouldn't Clinton be as responsible or more for 9/11.
I fail to understand that...and I hold Bush responsisble.....
But this was NOT the first attack on our soil....the trade center was attacked during Clinton's watch....
and if the Presdient were not busy lying in court...we may have done more than bomb an asprin factory."

I read a book about Clinton's presidency that talked about this. Apparently the Clinton admin. gave Bush's admin. a bunch of info on the possibility of there being an attack on the US and Bush chose to ignore it. Bush thought it was not as much of a threat as it was and (if I remember correctly) didn't even attend the briefings that Clinton's people were having. So, while things may have been going on under Clinton, Clinton was aware of it and trying to work up a plan on what to do. Bush chose to ignore the information, that makes him more guilty to me.

Also, I think it's good to remember that no President will ever be perfect. They will make good and bad decisions, just as we all do.

 

[Infinity]

But where does it specifically state this? I don't see anything regarding Vice-Presidents and term limits, or that former Presidents can't be Vice-Presidents. Obviously, they shouldn't be able to, but I can't find that info. anywhere.

The way I see it is that a Vice-President is a potential President. The VP takes an oath that he will become president if anything happens to the current president. That's why 2-term former presidents cannot become VP's because they cannot take this oath.

 

[80sU2isBest]

"
I read a book about Clinton's presidency that talked about this. Apparently the Clinton admin. gave Bush's admin. a bunch of info on the possibility of there being an attack on the US and Bush chose to ignore it. Bush thought it was not as much of a threat as it was and (if I remember correctly) didn't even attend the briefings that Clinton's people were having. So, while things may have been going on under Clinton, Clinton was aware of it and trying to work up a plan on what to do. Bush chose to ignore the information, that makes him more guilty to me.

What was the name of the book, and did the author provide any evidence for his claims?

 

[Dreadsox]

Sounds like Richard Clarke.....

 

[unosdostres14]

Do you people honestly believe that Clinton was a bad president and Bush is a good one? I mean...just sit down and take a look at history. Look at where our country went from 1993-2000. That was like....the best economic time in history for America. We were able to solve military confilcts quickly and efficiently without thousands of deaths. Now look at where we are from 2001-2005....EVERYTHING has gotten worse. Don't say that the economy is where you wanted it to be. Don't tell me that the Iraq War went exactly as planned.

I mean....do you honestly believe that Bush has been a better President than Clinton was.

 

[Diane L]

I want Clinton back. Seriously. I do.

What verte said. I agree.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

can someone really point to anything that clinton actually did in his entire 8 years in office? the most substantial thing he accomplished was getting his weenie wacked... the man did nothing for 8 years. was he a bad president? not at all... but he certainly wasn't a good one either.

all things he set out to do... national health care... northern ireland... israel/palestine... they all failed. his presidency was incredibly mediocre in nature. but thanks to the dot.com boom that propelled the american economy, he's considered to have been such a great president.

great politician, yes... great president, not so much. not bad, but let's not put himself on mount rushmore anytime soon.

 

[Irvine511]

can someone really point to anything that clinton actually did in his entire 8 years in office? the most substantial thing he accomplished was getting his weenie wacked... the man did nothing for 8 years. was he a bad president? not at all... but he certainly wasn't a good one either.

all things he set out to do... national health care... northern ireland... israel/palestine... they all failed. his presidency was incredibly mediocre in nature. but thanks to the dot.com boom that propelled the american economy, he's considered to have been such a great president.

great politician, yes... great president, not so much. not bad, but let's not put himself on mount rushmore anytime soon.

he did a brilliant job shifting our economy from a 20th century economy to a 21st century economy. he also opened the doors for immigrants from Southeast Asia, Central Asia, and the Americas, many of whom have turned out to be rather brillaint entrepreneurs and as hardworking as any groups of immigrants who have arrived on our shores, and in addition, many of these people are working the great biomedical sciences labs outside of Boston -- it's not homegrown talent that makes America dominate the globe when it comes to sicence and technology, but our willingness to take the best of what the world has to offer and give them space, time, and funding to do great things as we've done throughout history (see, Einstein). Clinton will also be credited for success in Bosnia, as well as welfare reform, the Family Medical Leave Act, and i think it's also safe to say that, while this could have been any Democrat, that 8 years of non-Republican rule is nearly always a good thing for traditionallly marginalized social groups. i think the 1990s were for gay people what the 1960s were for African-Americans. whenever Republicans are in power, they tend to choose an easy-to-scapegoat class of people to kick around and blame for society's failings (see the horrific stereotype of the "welfare queen" during the Reagan years).

and that's just for starters.

 

[BostonAnne]

the trade center was attacked during Clinton's watch....

and if the Presdient were not busy lying in court...we may have done more than bomb an asprin factory.

I agree with Infinitum98

Originally posted by Infinitum98
Yes, Clinton should not have lied to the jury. But it was wrong for this matter to be brought to public in the first place.

I feel Congress was responsible for dropping the ball by keeping him busy in court.

 

[BostonAnne]

can someone really point to anything that clinton actually did in his entire 8 years in office?

The deficit turned into a surplus.

And while I can't blame Bush for not being able to maintain it due to September 11th - I can't believe he would cut taxes when we were headed back to a deficit.

 

[Resolution 1441]

Just thinking about Bush makes me feel all hot and heavy inside.

Anyone wanna get high? Hehheeeehh...

 

[MissMoo]

Dreadsox, the book is called The Natural and it's by Joe Klein (yes, the Primary Colors guy). I'm not sure about how much he backed up the claim. There were footnotes however. Check it out and see what you think.

 

[verte76]

The deficit turned into a surplus.

And while I can't blame Bush for not being able to maintain it due to September 11th - I can't believe he would cut taxes when we were headed back to a deficit.

The Bush tax cuts are ridiculous. And aside from this he doesn't have a domestic agenda. There's nothing in significance like the Family Medical Leave Act. That's one heck of a great law.