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!
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.
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…
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.
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, 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”.
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.
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.
Oh, how quickly we forget. 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.
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.
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.
In any comparison between the immediate past President and the current one, there is no question that in the category of
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
