Why would you be paranoid to think that a political party wants to win every election? Of course they do.
Sometime we must discuss your opinion of FDR, Churchill and any number of other leaders who acquiesced to mass bombings of innocents and/or prisoner abuse.
GWB probably is more in the class of William McKinley than either FDR or Churchill. Parallels include wars on shaky pretenses (the Spanish-American War for McKinley). As for civilian deaths, McKinley is way ahead of GWB, seeing as the war in the Philippines alone generated over 200,000 dead, the vast majority civilians.
Aren’t we supposed to learn from history’s mistakes, not repeat them?
Saying “But <insert name here> also did <insert name of bad thing here>, and/or worse” isn’t so much an excuse for bad behavior, but rather an indictment.
I wish GWB had done some things differently…planned Iraq a little better, not spent so much money, chill out about stem cell research…but I don’t dislike him as a person. That said…
I grew up in Arkansas. I have been aware of Bill Clinton as a political figure since 1978.
My disdain for Clinton is about 2/3 personal and 1/3 political. He will lie at the drop of a hat for any reason that suits his purpose. He will tell you what you want to hear and do what he wants when he’s charmed you. He’ll shake your hand with one hand and grope your wife with the other. He came stumbling out of a hotel room in Arkansas in 1980 with “not-Hillary du jour” on his arm and nearly bowled over my father. I’ve heard too many specifics from too many people over his practice of using the Arkansas State Police as “procurement officers” for dalliances not to believe it.
Those who tout him as a moderate forget that he was quite a bit further left from 1992 to 1994. Gays in the military and the national health care system are two examples. When the voters kicked the Democrats out of power in 1994, he suddenly became a moderate because it suited his political purpose. His false sense of showmanship offended me. When he went to Normandy and “walked the beach in quiet contemplation”, he stopped and put some stones in the shape of a cross. It was later determined that the “spontaneous” act was scripted for the cameras. This scene played out for me as I remembered his famous letter from his youth when he said he “loathed the military”. I recall the famous video of Clinton approaching a funeral and laughing jovially until he saw the camera…and immediately affected a tearful pose.
For the Clinton defenders preparing to huffily demand cites, don’t bother. Please remain in the world you have created for yourself where Clinton is a beacon of promise.
If Bill Clinton lived 150 years ago, he would be a traveling snake oil salesman, leaving a trail of empty pockets and full wombs whereever he went.
That’s a reasonable point of view, and I’m not excusing the consequences of what this Administration has done.
But I think it shows an abysmal lack of understanding of history and weakens one’s arguments to pretend that GWB is some kind of unique blot on humankind.
Not “unique”. How about “special”?
Seems like there’s more hatred for Bush, especially since there are more than a few Republicans who don’t care much for the guy. But I don’t think “hate” is broad enough to explain the difference. For instance, Clinton was never thought to be stupid, even by his political adversaries. I wonder why that is. 
Mmmm, yes, of course, the “Arkansas Project”. Great moments in investigative journalism. Was this on the way to his secret cocaine-smuggling airfields?
What is “left-wing” about gays in the military? Recall Barry Goldwaters quote about not needing to be straight to pull the trigger.
Well, that was hypocrisy, of course, before GeeDubya returned dignity and honesty to the White House. Mmmm, yes. Quite.
Got a better idea. If you can’t cite your statements, how about you don’t bother?
Made it really tough to explain when he outsmarted them.
I had hoped that I was being too cynical about the necessity of making the above statement. Alas.
Luci, you and I are never going to agree on many things pollitical. You are probably a great guy to have a beer with, but we both think that the other is laboring under ideological delusion.
I made the remark about cites because “cite tag” seems to be a popular pastime among those who disagree with a poster. 1. Disagree. 2, Ask for cite. 3. Find a reason to discredit cite and (a) ask for another or (b) claim “victory”. Lather, rinse, repeat.
The OP asked why I dislike Clinton. I responded.
You don’t have to believe in any shadowy conspiracy theories to ascribe some conservative hatred for Clinton to the unexpectedness of his victory.
Bush 41 had 90ish-% approval ratings following the Gulf War. And while I can’t remember any liberals ca. 1999 who expressed smug certainty that Democrats would be in power permanently, because, dammit, it was supposed to happen, I knew plenty of conservatives who felt that way in 1991.
If I recall my history correctly, Bush’s high approval ratings might very well be the reason Clinton, instead of some other Democrat, won in '92. The “smart money” said not to waste your time runing against Bush, so many prominent Dems thought they’d wait until '96. Just goes to show who actually was smart, doesn’t it?
So, how’s it going with those Iraqi WMDs?
Yeah, nothing like “flying” a jet out to an aircraft carrier where the crew “spontaneously” decided to hang a “Mission Accomplished” banner directly in view of the cameras.
But I suppose you’re just demonstrating typical Republican thinking – political grandstanding is a horribly unforgivable sin, until it’s your guy doing it…
Then you’re playing in the wrong sandbox. GD, where you are expected to bring it. Don’t start shit, won’t be shit. If you can’t stand the heat, take your clothes off.
My faith is boundless, that you may be gently guided from the path of error.
You would think so, but I have it on good authority that after a couple of drinks, he starts singing “My Ding-A-Ling” and swings from the light fixtures. :eek:
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot! Takes at least three!
Luci, rjung, you’re not doing your cause any good by arguing like Republicans.
Rather than counter arguing, all either of you are doing here is saying “But your guy did it too!” Not really a debate. I realize you are both probably tired of arguing the point with the other side (The Enemy) but right now you are both looking silly.
I’ll remain clothed for the sake of everyone…for the moment anyway. You keep using half my sentences as quotes to make your points, Luci. If I was making a point of fact that could be argued was incorrect, calling for a cite is…and should be…common practice. But since my opinion was solicited, my opinion was given.
Of course, some people would call for a weather report and a candlepower assesment on a given set of GPS coordiates if I said the sun was shining…and then say the data was faulty because the machine that measured the light intensity was manufactured by a company that once gave money to a GOP PAC.
See the first sentence of my original post in this thread for evidence of non-locksteppery. Try it, luci. Surely some point or two that the Republicans advocate are whispering a gentle siren song in your ear…
Consider the votive candles at your altar of choice lit, Rjung. Now say three “Hail Nancy’s” and be on your way to bring the truth to the unenlightened.
Even out here on the lonesome prairie the disconnect on reality between Clinton and Bush is remarkable. For instance, a number of friends who are Republicans because Lincoln won the war insist that Clinton ruined the armed forces. While I suspect the idea of gays in the barracks may be at the root of this (disregard the observed fact that even during the Johnson and Nixon years there were constant prosecutions for sodomy and a regular nine month cycle of lesbian house-cleanings in the WAC detachment), these folks are not the least bit persuaded that they might be wrong when it is pointed out that the force that went to Baghdad in ten days or two weeks was Clinton’s army and that the present occupant has nearly destroyed what was in 2000 as good a fighting force as the world has ever seen, not barring the 13th Legion.
I can’t help but wonder if part of the problem is that Clinton’s public persona was so damned pious and phoney – the man, as charming and shrewd as he was, just dripped of sanctimonious balderdash. The man was smart but, as they say, too smart by half.
On the other hand we have the present occupant of the office. Credulous doesn’t seem to even come close to being an adequate description. I can’t, however, hate him just because it is apparent to me that he is the Charlie McCarthy to Cheney and Rumsfeld’s Edgar Bergan. You can’t despise the man as a self righteous fake as you could Clinton. But you can hold him in contempt as the dupe and pawn of forces he is incapable of understanding. The shallowness of his understanding of what is going on around him is obvious every time he is caught in an unscripted situation. You could never accuse Bill Clinton of not knowing what he was doing or talking about.
I don’t think I’d ever let either of them date my daughter. Different risks but still risks. I think I’d be willing to loan Clinton my debit card. Not Bush.