uuuggg...the presidential address

[fluffhead]

I wouldn't classify the Clinton administration as thugs and imbeciles. A Rhodes scholar president and a eco-goodytwoshoes-boring VP, with the worst scandals being marital infidelity and questionable commodity investments?
I agree that Waco was a travesty, but I think Reno truly regretted it, and from her writings, it seems that it partially destroyed her.
I certainly don't agree with alot that happened during the Clinton years, but wouldn't put them in the same universe as the crap that's going on now.
And just because we've had some whopper thugs in the white house before, including LBJ and Andrew Jackson, doesn't excuse the wholesale looting of our country by Halliburton & Friends.
/{step_off(soapbox)}

[PrincessFiona]

And just because we've had some whopper thugs in the white house before, including LBJ and Andrew Jackson, doesn't excuse the wholesale looting of our country by Halliburton & Friends.
/{step_off(soapbox)}

I couldn't agree more.....

[Rapunzel]

Wow. There are some short memories here.

The Clinton list of thuggery was pretty long and included some federal offenses! I just took some Benedryl so I'm dozing off and have to be brief but we're talking about all levels of criminal activity up to a number of charges of rape and the possibility of murder. I think that qualifies anyone as a "thug" - let alone a sitting POTUS. And, again, since our memories appear to be quite short - Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. I can't believe that anyone would just brush off the fact that a sitting president committed a felony. Presidents are not above the law. Many in the mafia were finally brought down on seemingly "small" things like tax evasion. Clinton was brought down on the relatively small item of perjury (small in comparison to the other crimes he could have been charged with). Clinton got a slap on the wrist when any other person in the US would be doing prison time in a federal penitentary. Anyone who can defend his criminal behavior and at the same time profess to be offended and/or angry over perceived criminal behavior of another president is simply a hypocrite.

I'll agree that Reagan wasn't perfect - he was human after all. But, I'll bet money he was a good person who acted in the best interest of his country (as opposed to in the best interest of himself or his political party or special interests). Mistakes are par for the course - I'm talking about what fits the terms "imbecile" and "thug".

But, my oh my, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Wilson, Carter - all either incompetent or corrupt (or, sometimes BOTH). When I wake up tomorrow I'm sure I can come up with some more egregious examples of past POTUS's of the last century.

[Rapunzel]

I wouldn't classify the Clinton administration as thugs and imbeciles. A Rhodes scholar president

Are you really that blinded by a title like "Rhodes scholar"? Does him being a Rhodes scholar give him a free pass from prosecuation or scrutinization of criminal behavior? Do you equate his Rhodes scholarship with wisdom? Clinton's foreign policy was simply awful (on the order of stupidity) and his behavior was alledgedly and literally criminal.

[fluffhead]

Are you really that blinded by a title like "Rhodes scholar"? Does him being a Rhodes scholar give him a free pass from prosecuation or scrutinization of criminal behavior?

No. The point I was making was that he was not an imbecile.
If you could try to desist from personal attack phrasings like "are you really that blinded" and such, I might be able to engage in civil debate with you.
And I don't equate lying under oath about personal affairs with sending the country to war under false pretenses.
Here's the link to the joe interview.
http://newhavenadvocate.com/gbase/News/ ... oid:138863

[Laker]

Clinton did nothing to combat terrorism.

[PrincessFiona]

True...but let's be honest....can we really name a republican or democratic president in recent history that really has? Didn't think so...

[Laker]

True...but let's be honest....can we really name a republican or democratic president in recent history that really has? Didn't think so...

Where have you been since 9-11?

Where have you been since 9-11?

I'll tell you where I've been since 9/11:

Trying not to vomit as I've watched more than 2,000 young men and women die in a war that was misdirected, poorly planned, and poorly executed.

Trying to understand the machinations of an administration who makes a decision, puts on blinders and does not stop to assess a situation and see where adjustments must be made.

I do not think that the "changes" that the Bush administration has put in place have made us safer. I think that they've made us considerably poorer, and have basically helped to fuel the fire and hatred of our country throughout the world (not just in the middle east).

[PrincessFiona]

True...but let's be honest....can we really name a republican or democratic president in recent history that really has? Didn't think so...

Where have you been since 9-11?

You're kidding, RIGHT?

[PrincessFiona]

The fact that we even exist fuels their hatred towards Americans. It is their ultimate goal to destroy this nation.

I don't know about that, Tara. I would also argue that we're donig much more political/economic positioning than we are actually 'spreading freedom'. You can't force freedom.

If I read correctly, the criticism was against Clinton not having done anything to combat terrorism and the response was that no presidents in recent history had done all that much. Bush is current.

The implication I got was that neither Clinton, Bush Sr nor Reagan had done all that much in regard to terrorism, and it took an event of Sept 11 proportions to make it a primary concern.

[PrincessFiona]

Well, Reagan was a little busy destroying communism.

not really!

I guess when you do weapons deals with nations now considered part of the Axis of Evil to destroy Communism it doesn't count against you.

double