Godammit Clinton, why did you have to go on Letterman?

[Stoid]

And make me miss you so fucking much I could weep? And did you have to sound so incredibly intelligent, thoughtful, and aware? Did you have to do it the same night I happened to catch way too much George spouting his usual empty, mindless, content-free glurge in all over the place, making the contrast between the two of you physically painful to contemplate?

Did you have to prove, again, how articulate you are, how thoroughly you understand the most important issues facing our country and our planet, how nimble your mind is? Did you have to do that, and rub my nose in the fact that the man currently occupying the White House is postively terrifying in his profound lack of all your skills and abilities? Did you have to make me confront, head on, how deeply, deeply unhappy I am to have that monkey in the Oval Office when there are men and women like you who could be there, should be there? That the fate of my country and the very world itself rests in his hands instead of yours (Or Gore's)?

And this is all before I've even stopped to think about the actual politics and policies!

Damn you!



:(

[Astroboy14]

Um, Stoid, you do realize that Clinton WAS President of the US for 8 years, and did his part to help lay the groundwork for what has happened to the US... right?

I'm not a big fan of the current Pres. Bush, but jeez... a little harsh, maybe?

I find myself now trying to picture what Clinton or Gore would have done as President of the US post- 9/11: I don't know.

Is Bush doing a good job? I don't know... ask me in 20 years; maybe then I could answer with some certainty.

Would Clinton or Gore do better? I don't know... ask me in 20 years; maybe then I could answer with some certainty.

And this is all before I've even stopped to think about the actual politics and policies!

I won't call you on this, as I have little understanding of the politics and policies myself, but comfort yourself with the knowledge that Bush has surrounded himself with a crack foreign policy team... I hope he has at least the wisdom to listen to them.

But, when was Clinton on Letterman? I missed it! Unless it's on tonight... if so, I may have further comment later...

[Mr. Moto]

I was in the U.S. Navy from 1993 to 1998. Bill Clinton was my Commander-in-Chief during me entire period of service.

Clinton was articulate, but much of what he articulated was meaningless mush. His policies never had an effect on international terrorism.

Bush has clearer ideas, even though he occasionally stumbles over words. In the last year, the Taliban have been removed from power in Afghanistan and the ability of al-Quaida to train terrorists has been neutralized. Threats still exist, but our country is actually doing something to eliminate them.

History treats the talkers who never act with contempt. This is Bill Clinton's fate.

[Mr. Moto]

I was in the U.S. Navy from 1993 to 1998. Bill Clinton was my Commander-in-Chief during me entire period of service.

Clinton was articulate, but much of what he articulated was meaningless mush. His policies never had an effect on international terrorism.

Bush has clearer ideas, even though he occasionally stumbles over words. In the last year, the Taliban have been removed from power in Afghanistan and the ability of al-Quaida to train terrorists has been neutralized. Threats still exist, but our country is actually doing something to eliminate them.

History treats the talkers who never act with contempt. This is Bill Clinton's fate.

[light strand]

Mr. Moto, your military service is relevant how? Let's face it, the military never liked Clinton. In addition to being right leaning, the military really hated his trying to integrate gays into the military.

Bush has clear ideas, sure. It's too bad they're so fucked up.

My husband had been in the Marine Corps since 1985. He's gone to war once, and that was with the first Bush administration. He is now preparing to go again, despite the fact the nearly all of the entire upper echelon of military personnel think it's a bad idea. I think that's just what we need. We need to start a war the Generals don't support.

I believe this entire Iraq thing is a ploy for Bush to raise his approval ratings and avenge his father's attempted assassination. I really don't think that my husband should risk his life for the Bush family honor. I wish he would get out, but he's three years from retirement.

As for Clinton not doing enough to eliminate terrorism, what would you have him do? He couldn't even send in cruise missiles without being accused of "wagging the dog" . You see, international terrorism wasn't really a big deal to us because we (the continental US) were never a target.

But now you're telling me that you would have supported fully your deployment to Afghanistan when you were in the military (had that actually been possible for Naval personnel) had Clinton said that the terrorist training camps were a threat? Because if you are, quite frankly I don't believe you. During the Clinton years, I'd had many a conversation with various Marines. Their biggest gripe was the deployment of US soldiers to peace keep in "places we don't belong".

Remember Moto, hindsight is 20/20.

[elucidator]

Horse waffles!

Clinton acted, as any reading of the time shows. And you remember the bi-partisan support that came rushing to him? When major Republican figures had no qualms whatever about suggesting he was trying to distract attention from Hummergate?

Can you imagine thier reaction if Tom D. suggested that Our Churchill was trying to disract attention from Enron? They would shreik with porcine rage and go into frothing conniption fits, and tear the nearest flag to shreds in thier eagerness to wrap it around themselves.

The Taliban are removed? Well, whoop-de-fucka-do! Hot damn, guess that'll show 'em! The political control over a major chunk of the Godforsaken Desert has been wrested from thier grasp.

Why, we haven't had such a glorious victory since our stunning defeat of the elite Cuban terrorist bulldozer drivers in Grenada. Operation Urgent Fury, as I recall.

Feh.

[apotheosis]

Originally posted by Astroboy14
you do realize that Clinton WAS President of the US for 8 years, and did his part to help lay the groundwork for what has happened to the US... right?

Silence, heretic. Have you not realized that the Holy Clinton, aka The One True President, can do no wrong in the eyes of the Faithful? Repent, repent; make disparaging remarks about the current administration, lest ye be branded 'conservative' and cast bodily into the Pit of Shrieking Poodles.

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by light strand
In addition to being right leaning, the military really hated his trying to integrate gays into the military.

"Don't ask, don't tell" hardly counts as integration.

[pldennison]

Originally posted by light strand
You see, international terrorism wasn't really a big deal to us because we (the continental US) were never a target.

Oh, how quickly we forget. (http://www.msnbc.com/news/716248.asp?cp1=1) Maybe if we had done something a little more substantial the first freaking time, they wouldn't have had a second chance. Then there was the U.S.S. Cole, which is close enough for comfort.

During the Clinton years, I'd had many a conversation with various Marines. Their biggest gripe was the deployment of US soldiers to peace keep in "places we don't belong".

If their rank was anything less than, let's be generous, Lt. Colonel, then their opinion as to "where we belong" isn't terribly relevant. That's why the Joint Chiefs of Staff are Generals and not E-4s.

[Liberal]

Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. The only difference between them that I can see is that one of the tyrants is from Arkansas, and the other is from Texas. In my opinion, each is exemplified by his choice for attorney general: Janet Waco versus John Asshole.

[xenophon41]

Why, what a nuanced and perceptive analysis that was, Lib.

[Bricker]

In any comparison between the immediate past President and the current one, there is no question that in the category of ...sound[ing] so incredibly intelligent, thoughtful, and aware...

Mr. Clinton wins in a landslide. Bill Clinton has an extraordinary ability to project warmth, caring, and concern, and to connect with people. He is not a stupid man by any stretch of the imagination; he understands issues and can beautifully communicate that understanding to an audience of one face-to-face, to twenty at a metting, or to millions through a television camera. He is a people person, and smart to boot.

Neither major party candidate to succeed him had that ability; of the two, I think George W. had more of it than Al Gore - but both were pikers compared to Clinton.

That said, I don't miss Bill Clinton's presidency, because I didn't like many of his ideas, and his facile ability to connect to people masked a deficit in his integrity that I found incompatible with what I wanted to have in a President.

But if you're looking for charisma, Clinton has it in spades. No argument there.

- Rick

[Liberal]

Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. The only difference between them that I can see is that one of the tyrants is from Arkansas, and the other is from Texas. In my opinion, each is exemplified by his choice for attorney general: Janet Waco versus John Asshole.

[Oblong]

As for Clinton not doing enough to eliminate terrorism, what would you have him do? He couldn't even send in cruise missiles without being accused of "wagging the dog"

Well it would have helped that the couple of times he did wag the dog, he did it right, instead of bombing a pharmacy that "heals the pain" of the locals.

Now, assuming that Enron is linked to Bush, which it isn't but who needs facts when talking politics, Robert Rubin is more closely tied to these corporate scandals than anybody in the Bush administration. Its kind of hard to have an influence before you take office. But, assuming that it does, now if Bush decided to invade on the eve of Ken Lay appearing before a Grand Jury, then you could have an argument.

"Our intelligence tells us that Bin Laden is here and he has to be bomed this very night" Bubba needs to be presidential for a day. We'll bomb the wrong objective.

[elucidator]

Oh, cry out for the hounded conservatives! How they are pilloried and chastised from the barren beaches of the Hamptons to the bitter snows of Aspen! Alas!

Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!

Clinton lies about a blow job, Our Churchill lies to lead us to war.

Blow jobs, in my limited experience, are seldom fatal, either to particpants or bystanders.

(And if I'm wrong about this, I do not want to be so advised.)

I have become convinced over the last several weeks that there will be a war with Iraq. The willingness of Our Churchill to accept and promulgate flimsy evidence as undeniable shows clearly that his mind is made up, and the clarity of his vision will not be clouded by facts.

Lord, how I hope I'm full of beans.

And I don't know which is worse: to put a good man in a situation where he is bound by duty to die in a false cause, or compel him to kill for it.

light strand, I'd much prefer that your husband not depart. Failing that, I can only hope for a safe return.

I've done all I can, and it ain't squat.

[Liberal]

Why, what a nuanced and perceptive analysis that was, Lib.Likewise, I'm sure.

[light strand]

pldennison I wonder how much "international terrorist" talk was bandied about on the 1993 attack. I'm sure you were supporting an attack on al queda in '93.

Argue as you will about who gets to choose where the troops are deployed, but your memory must be worse than mine, because peacekeeping and troop deployment was even an issue in the 2000 elections.

I really don't give a shit as to who get blamed for the 9/11 attacks. But lets face it, this revisionist history is pretty damn ridiculous. All of a sudden we as nation wanted to send our troops out to avenge for the 1993 WTC bombings? Bullshit. You, and every other Conservative would have had a fucking cow. We caught the guys, tried them, and sentenced them. Everyone seemed happy.

Yes spooje that was the result. However if you remember correctly, that wasn't his intention. The intention was to let gays openly serve. "Don't as don't tell" was the compromise that settled on.

Thanks for the kind wishes elucidator. I'm sure he'll be fine.

[Coldfire]

Originally posted by Mr. Moto
In the last year, the Taliban have been removed from power in Afghanistan and the ability of al-Quaida to train terrorists has been neutralized. Threats still exist, but our country is actually doing something to eliminate them.You do realise that had there not been a 9/11, the Taliban would still have ruled Afghanistan, and Al Quaida would still be unaffected (and the extent to which it has been affected now is debatable).

In other words: these actions cannot be attributed to Bush's policies. Any president, Republican or Democrat, that would have reacted to 9/11 with apathy would have been dragged out of the White House by an angr lynch mob of about 100 million people. Sending troups to Afghanistan was not a choice. It HAD to be done.

[xenophon41]

pssst, light strand; pldennison is not a "conservative".




Lib: Thanks. I haven't attempted one here, though.

[TwistofFate]

Our Churchill?

please tell me no one ACTUALLY refers to GWB as that?

[London_Calling]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. The only difference between them that I can see is that one of the tyrants is from Arkansas, and the other is from Texas. In my opinion, each is exemplified by his choice for attorney general: Janet Waco versus John Asshole.
Whoa, 'ang on a sec Lib. As far as this foreigner recalls, Ashcroft's appointment was the result of Bush's pact with the Devil (Jerry Falwell) about 2 ½ years ago and as he (Bush) was about to burn in the Primaries. Names like (John Mc)Cain spring to mind......... Bush didn't have any real choice in the matter:

Falwell delivers the masses > Bush wins > Ashcroft represents Falwell as AG. All very....biblical, really.

Ain't that the way it went ?

[pldennison]

Originally posted by light strand
pldennison I wonder how much "international terrorist" talk was bandied about on the 1993 attack.

Quite a lot, since we arrested, tried and jailed -- wait for it -- international terrorists for it. Why do you think the Cole was attacked, or the embassy in Kenya, you dolt?

I'm sure you were supporting an attack on al queda in '93.

I was? I don't think I was. No, pretty sure I wasn't.

Argue as you will about who gets to choose where the troops are deployed, but your memory must be worse than mine, because peacekeeping and troop deployment was even an issue in the 2000 elections.

I didn't say it wasn't an issue. I said that it's the guys in the Oval Office and with the stars on their shoulders who get to decide "where we should be," not the guys with three stripes up and two down. There's this whole "chain of command" thing, maybe you've heard of it. The job of the enlisted men and junior officers is to go and do what those other guys tell them.

All of a sudden we as nation wanted to send our troops out to avenge for the 1993 WTC bombings?

Who has claimed that?

You, and every other Conservative would have had a fucking cow.

That's it. I'm calling the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections and putting my voting records online just to make all the pinheads who call me a "conservative" look stupid.

We caught the guys, tried them, and sentenced them. Everyone seemed happy.

Everyone except al Qaeda who, it would appear, doesn't exactly tremble with fear before the power and might of the U.S. Judicial System.

Idiot.

[RickJay]

So there's a choice between Bill Clinton, who makes some people happy because he does his little Frowny Face thing (you know, where his lower lip goes up and he scrunches his chin) that makes him look like he's a sensitive guy and cares about you, even though he's ridiculously transparent in his insincerity and did pretty much none of the things he said he would; or George W. Bush, who makes some people happy because he's not Bill Clinton, even though he can barely speak English and careens from pillar to post in his dealings like a drunk on a Segway. (I'm for free trade - let's raise some tariffs!)

The people who like Mister Frowny Face don't like Dubya because Dubya isn't sensitive and seems kind of stupid about a lot of little details like, you know, the economy. The people who like Dubya don't like Mister Frowny Face because Mister Frowny Face spent more time getting slurpies from his interns than actually doing anything he'd promised to do. The people who like Mister Frowny Face therefore castigate the Dubya fans as "Conservatives" and "Fascists" and say they're uncaring ogres. The people who like Dubya castigate the Mister Frowny Face fans as "Liberals" and "socialists" and say they're fools and henonistic ne'er-do-wells. All the while, the difference between the administrations of Mister Frowny Face and Dubya are, on the majority of issues, pretty much the same.

Gosh, and you wonder why election turnouts are low.

[The Ace of Swords]

Not to you know, respond to the thread topic, but does DL have transcripts up already?

BC is indeed wonderful to listen to a competent, informed, president, who, by the way, is twice the communicator that George "terra" Bush is.

I'm surprised that Bush hasn't banned Clinton from speaking, as every word he pronounciates makes Bush look ever worse.

[Feynn]

A year has passed since 9-11 and we can see the results. As our favourite clog wearing Rush fan said:

"You do realise that had there not been a 9/11, the Taliban would still have ruled Afghanistan, and Al Quaida would still be unaffected (and the extent to which it has been affected now is debatable).

In other words: these actions cannot be attributed to Bush's policies. Any president, Republican or Democrat, that would have reacted to 9/11 with apathy would have been dragged out of the White House by an angr lynch mob of about 100 million people. Sending troups to Afghanistan was not a choice. It HAD to be done."

I agree.

Have there been any more terrorist actions against the U.S. in the past year?

I think the message was well delivered and other governments have taken note of the U.S. policy of "if you ain't with us you're fucked." As militantly anti U.S. as some governments are they seem to realize that certain actions or lack of action could result in devastating consequences from both the United States and other countries.

Canada could just threaten to stop exporting beer and poutine and many governments would cave in. On the other hand we could threaten to send them Celine Dion. Either way, we're not to be trifled with.

Enough with the hijack... Clinton was and is about as slick as a person can get. His suits must be teflon coated because shit just won't stick to the guy.

Bush on the other hand, despite his bumbling good old boy demeanor is one scary motherfucker. Actually, the thought of the shrub doing his mom is a pretty scary visual in itself.

Of course we have Jean Cretien so perhaps I should not be casting aspersions on your leaders... :)

[Feynn]

A year has passed since 9-11 and we can see the results. As our favourite clog wearing Rush fan said:

"You do realise that had there not been a 9/11, the Taliban would still have ruled Afghanistan, and Al Quaida would still be unaffected (and the extent to which it has been affected now is debatable).

In other words: these actions cannot be attributed to Bush's policies. Any president, Republican or Democrat, that would have reacted to 9/11 with apathy would have been dragged out of the White House by an angr lynch mob of about 100 million people. Sending troups to Afghanistan was not a choice. It HAD to be done."

I agree.

Have there been any more terrorist actions against the U.S. in the past year?

I think the message was well delivered and other governments have taken note of the U.S. policy of "if you ain't with us you're fucked." As militantly anti U.S. as some governments are they seem to realize that certain actions or lack of action could result in devastating consequences from both the United States and other countries.

Canada could just threaten to stop exporting beer and poutine and many governments would cave in. On the other hand we could threaten to send them Celine Dion. Either way, we're not to be trifled with.

Enough with the hijack... Clinton was and is about as slick as a person can get. His suits must be teflon coated because shit just won't stick to the guy.

Bush on the other hand, despite his bumbling good old boy demeanor is one scary motherfucker. Actually, the thought of the shrub doing his mom is a pretty scary visual in itself.

Of course we have Jean Cretien so perhaps I should not be casting aspersions on your leaders... :)

[Mr. Moto]

No argument that action needed to be taken after September 11th. But it needed to be taken after the Khobar Towers bombing, the attacks on our embassies, and the bombing of the Cole. More action than arrests needed to happen the first time the WTC was bombed as well. The international terrorist network had to be investigated and attacked.

The Clinton administration didn't do much against terrorism in the face of this. I'll concede the Bush administration hadn't done much before September 11th, either.

That's a comparison of eight years versus eight months, though.

Lobbing cruise missiles into an aspirin factory or an empty camp surely doesn't count. I have great respect for cruise missiles, but they can't make political points or hold territory.

For the record, Republican lawmakers worked well with Clinton when their interests coincided (trade authority comes to mind). If there was a need for a war, and a case that Clinton could have made, I as a Republican would have been on board. As a serviceman at the time, with my country threatened, I'd have gone.

If Clinton couldn't have made the case due to impending impeachment, this is an indictment of personal shortcomings on his part. It is disingenuous for a corrupt politician to claim that his enemies are keeping him from important work when these scandals were his own making.

Clinton wasn't kept from being a great leader because his enemies were investigating scandals; he was a poor leader because his scandals interfered with work he needed to do.

[light strand]

Wow that was pretty hostile pld.

What I'm trying to say is that in 1993 (not the stuff written Feb. 26 2002) that the "International Terrorist" term didn't seem so scary.

As for the Generals getting to choose where the troops go, I never argued that they didn't. What I said is that the troops hated Clinton. Where is the argument here? They go where they are told, but that doesn't mean they don't bitch about it.

Perhaps I should have said you, and every Conservative. Sorry about the "other".

The rest was what I called "revisionist history". All of a sudden I'm hearing about how Clinton woulda, shoulda, coulda done more, but I don't see it. I suppose that to be expected though. after all, I am both a 'dolt ' and an 'idiot'.

Next time don't use a cite with such big words.

I need something like this:

See the bad men bomb
Bomb bad men bomb

See the building fall
Fall building fall

See the people cry
don't cry people

We are all sad
See the sad, sad people

[Scylla]

PLD;

That's it. I'm calling the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections and putting my voting records online just to make all the pinheads who call me a "conservative" look stupid.

It's not their fault.

They see the blinding truth, and intelligence behind your words, your integrity, and dignity, and they conclude you must be one of us.

[Coldfire]

Originally posted by Mr. Moto
No argument that action needed to be taken after September 11th. But it needed to be taken after the Khobar Towers bombing, the attacks on our embassies, and the bombing of the Cole. More action than arrests needed to happen the first time the WTC was bombed as well. The international terrorist network had to be investigated and attacked.

The Clinton administration didn't do much against terrorism in the face of this. I'll concede the Bush administration hadn't done much before September 11th, either.

That's a comparison of eight years versus eight months, though.Well, hindsight is aways 20/20, isn't it?

The real question in this scenario is of course: would Al Gore have handled things differently when faced with the tragedy of September 11? I submit that the answer to a large extent is "no". He would have shipped troups to Afghanistan as well, and the US military would have handled the task in a similar fashion.

Saying Clinton didn't around to rounding up Al Quaida because the focus was on his private life is disingenious. The focus just wasn't on that hunt back then, and it would not have been under a Republican president, blowjob scandals or not.

I think the following would apply as well: what does it say about American society and politics that a sitting President was driven to an impeachment process?

I'm not excusing Clintons lies, but for all I care, my President (or Prime Minister in this case) can get BJ's until the cows come home from 26 horny 20 year old interns - as long as he does his job. Had Clinton been prime minister of the Netherlands, he probably wouldn't have lied about having oral sex with an intern when faced with the question: the people here just don't care that much about a political figure's private life. Sure, it would have been a small scandal. But it would have stopped being news soon enough as well. The simple fact is that America is not like that. Clinton would have been raked over the coals if he had admitted to it. Yes, lying about it made it worse for him in the end. But what if he had gotten away with the lie? Better than admitting it, in terms of the political outcome. He just gambled, and lost.

Clinton was a liar, and he tried to pull one over on every American. But perhaps in another political climate, he wouldn't have. Morally, he'd still be a man who cheats on his wife, and abuses his authority for an occasional BJ, of course. To which I say: so fucking what.

I realise that that's a rather personal approach. :)

[Enore_Tsotset]

My biggest beef with the shrub is that he is living up to what some of the arab nations have been accusing him of: being a war monger. Sure, we *may* have needed to carpet bomb a country into submission after 9/11 instead of sending in special forces to deal with the actual people that did it, but do we still need to be there a year later? Still bombing and killing innocent Afganni people on the off chance that the psychopathic Bin Laden might happen to be in a cave there? When most of his senior staff generals are saying that a war with Iraq is a bad move and most other civilized nations oppose it, is the shrub listening and showing restraint? Showing what this country is capable of, not only in it's wartime abilities, but in it's compassion for the people of these nations that are led by nutjobs? Nope, he doesn't give a flying fuck and goes as far as using 9/11 rememberance ceremonies as a chance to spew more of his hate and "vengence will be mine(ours)" bullshit. Say what you will about the abilities of Gore or Clinton in the face of 9/11 and the ineveitability of an action in Afganistan, but I would rather have anyone else in the place of shrub right now, even Gore. Shrub is using this as an excuse for rampant spending (homeland security agency will cost us $30 billion per year, rather than giving an extra $10b to the FBI to beef up what they already do) not to mention pulling us out of the world court, removing the chance of the US to be a significant player in the setup and governing of what WILL become the standard of how we(the world) try international crimes in the next decade. Shrub is a xenophobic, hate filled, inarticulate little man that has no more business running this country than Letterman.

[pldennison]

Ixnay, Scylla, you're gonna get me in trouble.

light strand, I don't know how you can sit there with a straight face and say that there's no way someone can realistically think that Clinton "shoulda woulda coulda" done more. Unless the Administration and our intelligence services were completely asleep at the wheel. As early as 1996, TIME Magazine was reporting on Osama bin Laden's terrorism-funding activities throughout the Middle East, and possible links to Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman (THE PALADIN OF JIHAD: FEARLESS AND SUPER-RICH, OSAMA BIN LADEN FINANCES ISLAMIC EXTREMISM, May 6, 1996).

In Sept. 1996, The Independent of London reported:

To the shock of many of his supporters, the Saudi dissident Osama Bin Laden has called for a "holy war" against the US inside Saudi Arabia and for "swift and light forces working in complete secrecy" to strike against what he calls the "crusader" army in the Gulf states.

Parts of the original statement from Mr Bin Laden, the wealthy leader of hundreds of Arab fighters who has returned to live in Afghanistan, where he once fought Soviet troops, were published in Saturday's London edition of Al-Quds al-Arabi but without proof of authenticity.

However, the Independent has confirmed Mr Bin Laden, accused by the US State Department of being "one of the most significant financial sponsors of Islamic extremist activities in the world today", did write the call for jihad (holy war) from Afghanistan on 22 August.

He said "the presence of the American crusader forces in the Muslim Gulf states . . . is the greatest danger and the largest harm which threatens the world's biggest oil reserve . . . pushing out this American occupying enemy is the most important duty after the duty of belief in God."

The Clinton Administration certainly knew who this guy was, and where he was, and what he was capable of. I certainly don't blame Clinton in any way, shape or form for not predicting the 9/11 attacks -- I blame the FBI and the CIA for dropping the ball. But Clinton certainly did not appear overly concerned with actually taking proactive steps to combat terrorism. His actions were reactive in nature, and as a result, each time these guys survived to plan future attacks.

[Milossarian]

Can't we change the constitution so that Clinton can always be our president?

He was, after all, so effective.

Lead the way for us, Stoid!

[Scylla]

Clinton is like... so dreamy!

I can't tell who I'd rather have a dream date with, him, or Jonathan Taylor Thomas.

I guess I'll just have to wait for my next Tiger Beat magazine.

[Guinastasia]

LOL....Clinton may not have been perfect, although I would prefer him to Bush, who is really starting to scare me with all this "Attack Iraq!" crap.

On the other hand, Clinton was hardly a liberal.

Eh...I still say Cecil for president.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Ace0Spades
Not to you know, respond to the thread topic, but does DL have transcripts up already?

Dunno, but I taped it. Small comfort in dark moments that Dubya can't last forever.


BC is indeed wonderful to listen to a competent, informed, president, who, by the way, is twice the communicator that George "terra" Bush is.

Only twice? The phrases "many orders of magnitude" and "exponentially" come to mind. Clinton makes George look like Koko.

Originally posted by Mr. Moto
Clinton wasn't kept from being a great leader because his enemies were investigating scandals; he was a poor leader because his scandals interfered with work he needed to do.


This reading of history boggles the mind completely. Really it does. Honestly, Mr. Moto, think hard about what really happened to Clinton, and how...the exact sequence of events is really important.

You can hate the guy, you can be disgusted by his personal failings, and you can despise his policies. What you cannot legitimately do is suggest that the "scandals" (and there was only one, which is a critical component to an honest assessment of what happened to his presidency, that would be my point entire) were of his own making unless you manage to convince yourself that it was somehow acceptable for the investigation that revealed the Monica issue was acceptable in the first place. And that takes some cirqu de Soleil - like feats of mental gymnastics.

And thank you, Coldfire.

[Scylla]

Dunno, but I taped it. Small comfort in dark moments that Dubya can't last forever.

There's always Jeb.

[Scylla]

Coldfire:

I think your asessment is poor, though accurate in the differences between Europe and the US. It would have been a smaller scandal had he chosen not to lie.

However his actions were an abuse of power, and was potentially sexual harassment.

It shows an extreme lack of judgement. The risk to reward scenario on the pleasure of the moment versus the potential consequences is not one that a wise man accepts, if he is at all intelligent and disciplined.

It also shows a lack of character in that it demonstrates that a couple of minutes of pleasure seems to be more valuable than a marriage commitment.

I don't look at the lying as a gamble that didn't pan out. It's bigger than that. It's a character revelation, and a damning one.

***

I thought he was a decent politician and decent Pres. in many ways, but I'm baffled by the claims of what a great orator and posesser of charisma he was.

Certainly he is smooth and polished, but he always struck me as leering and disingenuous.

But then again, I'm also baffled by how people get taken in by the fake sincerity of a slick used car salesman, and how some of them still love the guy even after they've been screwed.

Clinton just had a better suit and haircut.

[Spavined Gelding]

Well, this being the Pit it probably is not the place to get caught up in anything that pretends to be a rational analysis of national and international politics, but here we go:

In terms of style, there is little to choose between Clinton’s lip biting and phony piety and Bush’s homey jingoism. Style isn’t the problem.

The problem is the two gentlemen’s differing perception of the world and the limitations of military and economic power. Clinton recognized that there were limits and that any major action required concerted action by the traditional European powers and by the remains of the Soviet Union. Clinton saw that US leadership turned on the willingness of the other nations to be lead. Thus the shipment of US troops into the former Yugoslavia was as part of a NATO/UN force, not as the US going it alone. That action was deplored by the people who are now whispering in Bush’s ear as an open ended do-good project and as one-world nation building. The irony, of course, is that events have forced those same people to engage in an even more problematic nation building project in Afghanistan now that they are in power and are faced with and even bigger project in Iraq if their counsel prevails and there is an armed invasion of that country.

Bush on the other hand seems to regard the world as America’s oyster. During the Presidential campaign there were any number of op-ed pieces to the effect that since the US was the only super power still standing in could do pretty well what ever it wanted and that if other countries, especially the remains of the Soviet Union, didn’t like it they could lump it. It is my recollection that most of this stuff was coming out of The American Enterprise Institute and the thing tank at Stanford University (the Hoover Institute?). Every thing that has happened so far indicates that he President and his inner circle continue to think that the US has the ability to act as it wishes without regard to the views, interests and level of cooperation from other nations. Internal political pressures appear to be forcing the President to deviate from his previously announced position. You will remember that there was a time that the President’s people were taking the position that not only was the consent and assistance of the Gulf Campaign allies not needed, the consent and assistance of Congress was not needed either. The face that the President even found it expedient to speak to the UN is some indication of the shift in reality if not in rhetoric.

As far as the US military campaign in Afghanistan is concerned, before last September there was no political imperative to go after the Taliban government or AlQuida. We seemed to be willing to accept the occasional car and boat bomb as the price of our pre-eminent position. Not even the right wing-nuts were howling for military action in the Khyber Hills. The action that has now been taken in Afghanistan was taken in the face of unquestioned provocation, with the active support of Pakistan and with the moral approval of all of the traditional powers. Now, I am afraid, that the President is in the process of dissipating the reserve of good will and support that accrued in the wake of September 11, in a single minded drive to get rid of Sadam based on old grievances and in the absence of any clear and convincing showing that an action as extreme as a military invasion is the only practical approach available to protect the US.

Stoid'sbasic point in this thread is that Clinton thinks and talks better than Bush. I can only base a conclusion on thinking on how the thinking is expressed. Having said that: where is the surprise? When the President gets off message he does not do a good job of expressing what thoughts he may have. But in the world of clear cut moral choices and absolute national power that exists in the President’s mind there is nothing to debate and no need to persuade. Clinton was big on persuading, Bush, not so much. As some Administration people, notably the Attorney General when he appeared before Congress, have expressed it, anyone who doesn’t buy into the President’s world view is either a fool or a scoundrel. That’s not an approach that wins friends.

[light strand]

pld, of course I would have like Clinton to have prevented Sept 11. However, I honestly (with a straight face) believe that his hands were pretty much tied. Read this (http://www.salon.com/news/1998/09/23news.html) article from Salon (a liberal source) written on 20 Aug 1998. Can you imagine what the anti-Clintonians said? Here (http://www.time.com/time/daily/special/asbombing/clintonwash.html) was Clintons speech at the time. His approval rating from the public were low, and the Lewinski scandal was in full swing, Starr was on his heals, and Wag the Dog had just been released.

He did try proactive steps (from Time (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/year.review/) "A Pair of Quick Arrests 9/7/98")
The White House, meanwhile, has ambitious plans for a larger military, diplomatic and covert war against bin Laden, senior officials tell TIME. The Treasury Department is looking at ways to block bin Laden's $300 million empire from financing his terror network. At future U.N. conferences and economic summits, Clinton will lobby foreign leaders to seize bin Laden assets found in their countries. Friendly foreign-intelligence services, acting on CIA tips, have begun rounding up bin Laden operatives in different parts of the world to harass his network. The agency has succeeded in breaking up a bin Laden terror cell operating in Albania. The Pentagon is readying more strikes on bin Laden operatives before they attack. "We're going to take you down before you take your gun out," a planning officer on the Pentagon's Joint Staff vowed.
Personally, Clinton was way to smarmy for my liking. I found him to essentially a letch, and an egotist who though that he was so smart that he could pull the wool over the eyes of the public and they would be fooled by his far superior charm and intellect. But I also believe that there is not a president in history who didn't go through a "woulda, shoulda, coulda" phase after their term and it's ridiculous on all accounts.

[RedFury]

Having also had the pleasure of watching the Clinton appearance on Letterman, I heartily agree with the OP. One couldn't help but notice, after a full day of listening to Bush's vacuous speeches, the incredible contrast to Clinton's polished prose, intellectual capacity, command of subject matter and overall humanity.

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Ace0Spades
I'm surprised that Bush hasn't banned Clinton from speaking, as every word he pronounciates makes Bush look ever worse. [/B]
Did this make anybody else laugh?

[Odesio]

Originally posted by light strand

As for Clinton not doing enough to eliminate terrorism, what would you have him do? He couldn't even send in cruise missiles without being accused of "wagging the dog" . You see, international terrorism wasn't really a big deal to us because we (the continental US) were never a target.


The first WTC bombing wasn't on US soil?

Marc

[apotheosis]

Originally posted by Sauron
Did this make anybody else laugh?
That was all part of his strategery.

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by Scylla
I thought he [Clinton] was a decent politician and decent Pres. in many ways, but I'm baffled by the claims of what a great orator and posesser of charisma he was.

Certainly he is smooth and polished, but he always struck me as leering and disingenuous.

As opposed to Dubya, who strikes me as leering and disingenuous on the face of it, without the benefit of charisma or intelligence. He's just a salesman. What baffles me is how many people buy into what he's selling.

Not saying everyone sees it that way, but after his piss-poor gludge-fest speeches yesterday, and his content-free speech to the U.N. this morning, I can no longer help but see it that way.

Clinton had many problems, but at least he put on a good show. Dubya can't even do that much.

[Milossarian]

Content-free speech at the U.N.?

Wow.

I've stopped trying to figure "you people" out, though. ;)

[Daoloth]

Remember when Clinton had that medicine factory levelled by cruise missiles? Those were the days...

[WSLer]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Janet Waco

Hey look everyone, another failed attempt at being witty.

How nice.

How charming.

Just in case you've forgotten, which you obviously have, it was Koresch who continually lied and broke agreements which he had made with law enforcement officials and it was his followers who shot first and who killed ATF officers, so go play your failed Janet Reno smear game elsewhere, 'kay?

[5 time champ]

Nay, nay London Calling that's not quite how it was. From your perch accross the Pond you misread Midwestern politics.

We can blame the appointment of John Ashcroft as AG on the good voters of the Show Me State of Missouri. Ashcroft was narrowly defeated in his Senate re-relection campiagn by Mel Carnahan, who had died in a plane crashed about 3 weeks before Election Day.

Had Ashcroft been re-elected, Bush would have almost certainly not appointed Ashcroft as AG. Jerry Falwell be damned.

The US Senate was tied 50-50 after Bush's election --I mean appointment by the Supreme Court. Missouri's Democratic Governor would have appointed a Democrat to fill the vacant Senate seat. That appointment would have tilted the control of the Senate to the Democrats, albiet, 4 months sooner.

On November 2, 2000 I very proudly cast my ballot for the deceased Mel Carnahan over a rather stiff John Ashcroft. In retrospect, however, I can't help but wonder if the U.S. would be better off with Ashcroft in the Senate.

[manhattan]

Originally posted by elucidator
Oh, cry out for the hounded conservatives! How they are pilloried and chastised from the barren beaches of the Hamptons to the bitter snows of Aspen! Alas!

Apropos of nothing, conservatives are doubtless "pilloried and chastised" in these places. They are both liberal hangouts.

We're more Quogue and Lake Powell.

Carry on.

[apotheosis]

Originally posted by 5 time champ
The US Senate was tied 50-50 after Bush's election --I mean appointment by the Supreme Court.
No, no, NO.

Now, let's go over this again: FIRST you make the obligatory snide 'appointment' shot as if it were a slip of the tongue, THEN you make the faux 'retraction' with its implied smirk.

Really, now, is post-Kinisonian sarcasm so difficult?

[Oblong]

So what this really is all about is, who cares if we are being screwed or not by our President, as long as he looks and sounds good, then it was worth it. If I'm going to be raped, at least it could be by a cute guy. Is that what ya'all are getting at?

How a President appears and conducts himself on a talk show is completely irrelevant. It's as irrelevant as possible. I want to see how the guy conducts himself in meetings with his senior staff, what kind of policies are beint set, etc. I don't care if the guy can tell a joke.

I guess Bubba was afraid we'd all forget about him. He's got to keep working on that legacy, after all. I wonder if Letterman spoon fed him the topics ahead of time like he did with the wretched Hillary Rodham.

[elucidator]

If me and him ever sit down to some beers and sincere discussion, I've got a lot of bones to pick with him, a number of serioius lapses when he let down the team. Big time.

But towards the end I'd think about the number and the sort of people who lividly hate his guts, and I know I'd figure he had to be doing something right.

I also know I'd end up buying the beers.

[Neurotik]

Um...Oblong, Letterman isn't a journalist. Everyone gets to see the topics ahead of times. Or did you think that every celebrity just had some cute anecdote to share right off the bat during those interviews. Give me a break.

Even d'Amato got spoon fed questions. They aren't there to make them look bad or ask tough questions. Letterman's job is to make his guests look GOOD! Even if they are evil carpetbaggers.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Oblong
S, as long as he looks and sounds good, then it was worth it. I

How a President appears and conducts himself on a talk show is completely irrelevant. I don't care if the guy can tell a joke.


You obviously didn't watch.

Come to think of it, you obviously didn't read the OP, either.

[PhiloVance]

But towards the end I'd think about the number and the sort of people who lividly hate his guts, and I know I'd figure he had to be doing something right.


Maybe that's why he issued so many pardons. Tried to even the score. :rolleyes:

[elucidator]

Lets see, now, "pardons". Not quite, no. Ah, here we go, "presidential pardons", search within that, ah, there! "Presidential Pardons and George H.W. Bush"

Ready when you are, Philo! Bring it on! Have us a good ol' time!

And Oblong you might have something there, poor ol' Bill, kicked over to the curb and nobody paying much attention to him.

Say, by the way, what did you think of Newt Ginrich's latest press conference?

[Rossarian]

Originally posted by Enore_Tsotset
Sure, we *may* have needed to carpet bomb a country into submission after 9/11 instead of sending in special forces to deal with the actual people that did it, but do we still need to be there a year later?

We must have been watching different wars or something. In the one I watched, we sent a lot of special forces in to deal with the people who did it. And maybe you need to look at a picture of 1945 Berlin to understand what carpet bombing actually is. The only thing "carpet bombed" in Afghanistan was remote mountain ranges.

And on the topic, I don't miss Clinton. Not because I blame him for everything that ever went wrong, but because I think the office of the President of the United States should mean something, and a guy who cheats on his wife and gets blowjobs in an office that used to be occupied by men like Lincoln and Roosevelt, well it just isn't my idea of a president. YMMV

[elucidator]

Also occupied by Warren G. Harding and Richard Nixon. Lets get a little perspective on this, ok, igloo-kicker?

[Stoid]

Well, Rossarian, we're each entitled.

But as long as we're sharing our ideas of what makes a president... my ideas never, ever include anything having to do with a president's sex life. Ever. Under any circumstances. Cuz I just don't see how it applies. Isn't that funny?

[KismetRose]

Stoid, my boyfriend and I often sigh when we see Bill on television and wish aloud that he was in office right now. We did it just yesterday. I think that, the next time voting comes along, we're both going to do everything we can to get everyone we know and everyone they know not to vote for Bush. By then, hopefully, our efforts will not be necessary. Bush is becoming more and more transparent as time goes on.

[Phoenix Dragon]

Originally posted by Daoloth
Remember when Clinton had that medicine factory levelled by cruise missiles? Those were the days...

That sounds about as reasonable as "Remember when Bush had several thousand Afghani citizens killed by smart bombs?" Context is everything...

[Mr. Moto]

Yeah, KismetRose, that's striking fear in the hearts of Republicans everywhere.

We don't ever win LA County, and hardly ever win California, yet our guy is in the White House.

We'll win it next time without California, too. Bush is mighty popular here in the red states.

[Sauron]

Originally posted by apotheosis

That was all part of his strategery.

:D

[vanilla]

Hes in my city today.
I'll tell him you said hi Stoid!

[gobear]

Is it possible to dislike both Clinton and Shrub? Sorry, but I really fail to get how Stoid and Elucidator can miss a man who did so little during his term in office? and don't give me "he was distracted by the GOP Whitewater witch hunt." While I agree that Ken Starr's Inquisition manque drew off some resources and attention, that still does not excuse clinton signing DOMA and that execrable welfare reform bill. Clinton screwed up health care reform in his first term and then abandoned it. Clinton betrayed everything progressives stand for, and when you say that you "miss him," I can only conclude that you are easily fooled by a sexy smile and a sharp suit.

Of course, I voted for him twice, so I'm a sucker, too, but against Bush, Sr. and Dole, was there a choice?

If you guys want to idolize a progressive leader, how about Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota (Elucidator's senator). According to his Web site:

During his first Senate term Wellstone led legislative battles to make health care more accessible and affordable, and won workers protection to take time from work to care for their families without losing their jobs. He helped raise the minimum wage, successfully fought to protect seniors' pension funds from corporate raiders, and authored historic ethics and lobbying reform measures that forever changed how the people's business is done on Capitol Hill. Since 1996, Wellstone has expanded health care coverage for those suffering from mental illness, worked with a bipartisan coalition to write a new farm bill, and blocked harsh bankruptcy reforms unfair to consumers as well as efforts to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. He has fought for and secured federal resources for Minnesota schools, and worked tirelessly on behalf of veterans, passing legislation to aid homeless veterans and securing compensation for "atomic veterans" suffering from cancers due to radiation exposure during their military service. He has been a leader in efforts to combat violence against women. In 2000, Wellstone joined with Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) to pass historic bipartisan legislation to prevent international sex trafficking of women and girls, establishing first-ever penalties for those who enslave and traffic in persons.

Moreover, he has engineered real bipartisan efforts to reform campaign finance. Wellsotne has the ideals and honor that Clinton lacks.

Re. Monicagate--I don't much care about a sloppy blowjob itself, but that he lied about it to his wife and friends and the public; that he did it at all when he knew his conduct was under scrutiny; that he did it with an intern half his age; and, worst of all, tried to blame the lies and the presents on his secretary, Betty Currie, makes him unworthy of respect.

[elucidator]

All true about Senator Wellstone (Paul!), mostly true about Free Willy, and so what? In case you've failed to notice, Gobear, no virgin ever gets elected Queen of the Harlots. You takes the best choice you can, and you take the one with the least obvious running sores. My first vote, I got to choose between Nixon and McGovern.

And Moto, tis true you don't need California. Not as long as you got Scalia.

[Stoid]

gobear, I agree with you about the welfare bill and DOMA. I have never, ever said that Clinton was everything I ever dreamed of in a president. But he's the closest I've seen in my lifetime. (Okay, so in my lifetime we've also had JFK, Johnson and Carter, all of whom had aspects about them or things they actually did which ranked high, but I'm talking about since I became an aware adult. )

In any case, the OP specifically left out discussion of policies and politics...long before we ever get to that, I expect a president to have certain qualities that facilitate making intelligent decisions that effect the entire planet. Clinton has perhaps more than his fair share of such qualities. Koko has virtually none.


Boris may disown me for saying this, but of the presidents I've lived through, the list of ones who had what it takes to lead the most powerful nation on earth has to include Nixon, a man who could have been great within the context of his party and his politics, but was brought low by his own petty weaknesses, just like Clinton. Perhaps it is part of the package, and it has been our good fortune in the past to have been spared the spotlight on our leaders' foibles. [note to Boris: you know I'm not saying that Nixon's crimes and Clinton's are comparable, it's the big picture I'm going for]

[gobear]

In case you've failed to notice, Gobear, no virgin ever gets elected Queen of the Harlots. You takes the best choice you can, and you take the one with the least obvious running sores.

Doesn't mean you gotta be nostalgic for the clap. Clinton was a bad leader who betrayed the progressives who voted for him. I'd vote for Wellstone for president in a New York second.

Sure, Clinton looks statesmanesque compared to Dubya, but hell, so would Harold Stassen.

[december]

During the fuss over W's alleged dumbness, someone released his SAT scores. They were respectably good, though not as good as Gore's. Time Magazine also managed to get SAT scores from some other Washington figures. Paul Wellstone's SAT's were under 800 combined. http://www.time.com/time/2001/education/sat_test2.html

[gobear]

I agree with you about the welfare bill and DOMA. I have never, ever said that Clinton was everything I ever dreamed of in a president. But he's the closest I've seen in my lifetime.

But that's why I'm so pissed at Clinton. Anything positive Bush does I'm prepared to cheer, because I expect nothing positive from him. He's unintelligent, uninformed, and easily led by his advisers.

But Clinton had it all: sharp intelligence, education, experience in government and public policy. He had such great potential and he squandered it.

To paraphrase C.S, Lewis, a bad angel falls farther and harder than a bad ant.

[xenophon41]

I'd just like to note for everyone who didn't read the fine print, because you're not likely to see this sort of thing very often, but Stoid just praised a Republican president.



Thank you. Carry on.

[gobear]

Time Magazine also managed to get SAT scores from some other Washington figures. Paul Wellstone's SAT's were under 800 combined.
And if we were discussing which man was the better high school student, that would be relevant; but we aren't and it isn't. And SAT scores are not marks of innate intelligence (class of 79, 710 verbal, 650 math, he said immodestly). I would think that the ability to learn, to adapt and to take in and assimilate information would be more accurate gauges of intelligence, and by that scale Wellstone and Clinton beat Dubya by a considerable margin.

GOPers need to stop pretending that Bush is anything other than a weak man riding on his father's name. You also ought to apologize to the rest of us for letting Bush beat McCain in the primaries. I don't agree with his politics, but McCain is an intelligent, hardworking man who has more ability than Dubya in any given capacity. Not to mention that McCain served his nation honorably in Vietnam while Dubya shirked his cushy National Guard obligation.

[Stoid]

An evil Republican president to boot. :D

[december]

McCain graduated fifth from the bottom of his class. It's true that W rode his father's name, but so did McCain. His father and grandfather were navy admirals.

[gobear]

McCain graduated fifth from the bottom of his class. It's true that W rode his father's name, but so did McCain. His father and grandfather were navy admirals.

Yeah, I'll bet that came in real handy during McCain's years as a POW. I've read his book, too.

[Scylla]

What is the basis of the popular opinion that Clinton has such a staggering intellect?

I see no way around the fact that risking his marriage, his credibility, his presidency, and his integrity, for a blowjob is stupidity on an almost cosmic scale.

I think the way he went whacko with his executive orders is also just plain stupid.

What did he get on his Sats?

How did he do in school?

What feats of intellectual prowess has he accomplished?

[december]

I never doubted that Clinton was intelligent. He was a Rhodes Scholar and he graduated from Yale Law School.

OTOH there's some amusing evidence (http://www.rsballard.com/weblog/archives/000649.html) the other way.

[Mtgman]

You mean people actually watch Letterman? :eek::eek::eek:

[december]

Originally posted by Mtgman
You mean people actually watch Letterman? :eek::eek::eek: It's my daughter's primary news source, except for Buffy.

[light strand]

december, I'm pretty sure that the Clinton binoculars don't have lens covers on them.

If you look at the pictures you can see that each Pres is looking through a different type of binoculars. I think the ones Clinton is looking through have a green sheen over the lenses so as to be more camouflaged, and less reflective. My husband just brought home an M16 scope with a similar lens style.

[Scylla]

No. Those are lenscaps. You can see the tabs

[lieu]

See the connector for the cap just inside Bill's left hand? It's folded. The cap is on.

[elucidator]

From: Commissar Elucidator
To: Comrade Xenophon
Subject: Comrade Stoid

We of the Central Committee for the SDMB Trotskyist International are aware of the recent aberrations you have mentioned. As of this moment, we do not yet concur that Comrade Stoid should be removed from her position as Political Cadre for the Emma Goldman Battallion, SDMB.

As you know, Comrade Stoid has been a loyal agent of the Fifth International, engaging in exhaustively stressful rhetorical and disinformation campaigns against such running dogs as December and The Unnamed One.

We are mindful, as well, the Comrade Stoid is a Californian, and that this recent loss of rationality may be the result of a chemical overindulgence, and she might soon regain her dialectical objectivity.

However, we are mindful of the risks. Hence, efforts to recruit a replacement, if needed, are underway. I am sure you are aware that our most successful agents result from subversion. This is especially true when recognized reactionary's are subverted and/or blackmailed to the uses of the Cause.

Pursuant to this, please forward a photograph of yourself dressed as a doughnut shop girl for evaluation.

Yours in Revolution,

Comrade Elucidator

[light strand]

I concede. I just e-mailed Mr. Strand, and he said "yup, the caps are on".

His real question was: "What king of fucking idiot would hand the president a pair of binoculars with the caps on?"

[xenophon41]

From: Comrade Operative X----41
To: Commissar Elucidator
Subject: Proposed Subversion and Blackmail of Subject Codename greekmonster

There are some duties this humble servant of the cause is yet unwilling and unqualified to perform. Even for a quarter.

Down with The Man

Comrade X----41

[Scylla]

I love the caption

I have looked into North Korea, and I feel the pain of the North Koreans. The entire country is as dark as night.

[lieu]

His real question was: "What king of fucking idiot would hand the president a pair of binoculars with the caps on?"

Someone familiar with his foreign policy views.

[Dr. Lao]

Originally posted by Scylla
I see no way around the fact that risking his marriage, his credibility, his presidency, and his integrity, for a blowjob is stupidity on an almost cosmic scale.Not if he simply does not place much value on his marriage, presidency, credibility, or integrity. Or he places lots of value on blow jobs.

[xenophon41]

Or if his pecker is even smarter than his brain...




Insert "magna cum laude" joke here

[ElvisL1ves]

Scylla, you're actually right in pointing out how severely Clinton underestimated the raw, irresponsible, hypocritical vindictiveness of his enemies in the GOP conservative wing, and in the Beltway media clan that he had offended by so often going around them. Oh, wait, you're criticizing him and not them? Typical.

As to why Clinton gets credit for intelligence while Bush does not, that may have something to do with all them big words and long sentences he uses - correctly, and correctly pronounced, too. If Bush could ad lib non-shallow, non-platitudinous statements anywhere nearly as well, there might be some basis for giving him credit for it as well.

Cute binocular photo - snapped in that split-second between the time he was handed them,. expecting them to be usable, and the time the person handing them over realized the error. Sometime I'll have to scan in the photo of Poppy Bush giving the finger to an audience for you.

[Avalonian]

I'm sorry, but are we really talking about SAT scores as a basis of measure for intelligence? Christ on a pogo stick, has anyone here actually taken the SAT's? I find it hard to imagine a worse measure of intelligence. How well you know the test and can fill in little bubbles with a pencil, fine, but intelligence. Come on, pull the other one.

Well, maybe the TAAS is worse.

And hey, what red-blooded American male doesn't place a high value on blow jobs? Even Shrub would agree with that, I should think. Or maybe not. Dammit, not an image I wanted in my head. (rimshot)

Hey, it is the Pit, and I'm having a shit day. I need to vent.

[elucidator]

Hey, Avalonian Laura B. is a librarian! When you wanna talk red hot volcano of Eros, you're talking librarian!

[Barney111]

Personally, I was much more offended and disappointed by BC's 8-year march to the right than I was by his penchant for dalliances with willing, if naive, co-participants.

Clinton, for whatever reason, has the uncanny ability to engender true hatred and disgust from the conservative right. But make no mistake - few of the complainers are truly morally outraged. They have just seized on a very easy topic on which to grind their political swords.

Believe me, I am no apologist for BC, but the fact is he was hounded by a cabal of right-wingers whose goal was to see him leave office in disgrace. Using a scorched-earth policy ( think Whitewater to Paula Jones to Vince Foster to pork bellies to Travelgate to Monica, ad nauseam), they would have settled for busting him on unpaid parking tickets if it would have discredited him. BC's hubris may have dishonored the office of President of the United States (if you subscribe to that way of thinking), but I don't think the hellhounds that caught him polished any stars for our government, either.

That being said, I believe that being articulate is vitally important when it comes to international relationships. Words carry great impact and have endless shades and subleties. A great leader should be a statesman first and a warrior second. ( I am not a pacifist - sometimes the gun is necessary. Going to Afghanistan was necessary.). Dubya is a distant second to Clinton in this respect: Clinton was a concensus-builder and Dubya is a might-makes-right guy. Dubya's way may get more immediate results - no wishy-washiness or niggling doubts to get in the way - but ignoring our allies' concerns may reap a whirlwind later on.

[JungleLove]

Originally posted by Bricker
Bill Clinton has an extraordinary ability to project warmth, caring, and concern, and to connect with people. He is not a stupid man by any stretch of the imagination; he understands issues and can beautifully communicate that understanding...He is a people person, and smart to boot....
I didn't like many of his ideas, and his facile ability to connect to people masked a deficit in his integrity that I found incompatible with what I wanted to have in a President.

But if you're looking for charisma, Clinton has it in spades. No argument there.

- Rick

Hear. Hear.

I never felt more keenly the difference in leadership abilities and talents between Clinton and Bush than on viewing Clinton's masterful performance on Letterman.
I don't miss Clinton the person as president, but I profoundly miss his political skill, abilities and priorities during this troubled time.
He's definitely a flawed individual, but I wish we had a more gifted and natural leader in the Presidential office at this crucial time.

I ashamed that we have a Commander in Chief who is a joke to other world nations and leaders.
He's not intelligent, nor articulate, nor has the experience to be the President of the United States. I just hope he doesn't drag America into a war that's going to spawn more terrorism. :(

[Stoid]

Originally posted by elucidator

As you know, Comrade Stoid has been a loyal agent of the Fifth International, engaging in exhaustively stressful rhetorical and disinformation campaigns against such running dogs as December and The Unnamed One.

We are mindful, as well, the Comrade Stoid is a Californian, and that this recent loss of rationality may be the result of a chemical overindulgence, and she might soon regain her dialectical objectivity.

Comrade, never fear, my loyalties are intact, complete and unshakable. It's called "throwing a bone" to the misguided...

(Funny you should mention my location, since I have spent the last two days traveling the coast of this fair state. How in heaven's name does someone decide to live anywhere else? Bonded with some nice pachydermy pinnipeds, from a distance, of course.)

[Milossarian]

So, how do you feel about bosses having sex with interns in the workplace where you work?

[elucidator]

To: Comrade X---41
From: Commissar Elucidator
RE: Status of subversion mission

As you see, recent communication from Comrade Stoid indicates that further pursuit of mission unnecesary. I have little doubt this meets with your concurrence.

Receipt of photo noted, with following criticisms:

It is the opinion of the Cental Committee, upon research, that the desired image of Donut Shop Girl is compromised by your refusal to shave your legs. It is entirely clear, judging from the results, that extra thick panthose is not an acceptable alternative.

Your lack of enthusiastic cooperation in this matter is most disappointing. However, since the crisis appears past, we have plenty of time to consider what alterations may be necessary so that we can retain preparedness.

Burn this message before reading.

Yours in revolution,

E.

[mademoiselle]

I wasn't upset that Clinton wasn't president on Sept 11 2002. I was upset that he wasn't on Sept. 11 2001. Actually, I was upset on Sept. 11th 2002...

:(

please, please don't flame me!

Great OP Stoid

[mademoiselle]

Originally posted by Milossarian
So, how do you feel about bosses having sex with interns in the workplace where you work?

I don't work*, but I'd be much more concerend if I didn't have a job at all because of the economy or some of my coworkers were about to die over my boss & his father's personal vendentta.

* this is because I'm in school, not because I'm a moocher! ;)