In the waning days of the Bush Administration, George Bush and Bush supporters have defended him by saying, if nothing else, he was successful at preventing another terrorist attack on US soil. However, these same people would never say the same thing about Bill Clinton.
Five weeks into Clinton's presidency, the World Trade Center was bombed. For the next 7 years, 10 months and 3 weeks President Bill Clinton protected America from any additional domestic attacks by Islamic radicals. Clinton also did this without invading other countries - especially ones harboring massive oil reserves.
So, if Clinton was not praised for his ability to protect our country, why should anyone praise Bush for "preventing" another terrorist attack? Based on our economy and our stressed military, one George Bush has done more damage to our country than one thousand Osama bin Ladens.
It is also worth noting that Connecticut-born Bush is selling his ranch in Crawford, TX - the one he bought in 1999 when this "cowboy" started his campaign for the presidency. What kind of cowboy sells his ranch to live in a recently minorities-excluded (except for maids) subdivision?
What are your thoughts?
Best regards,
Jay
Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net
My thoughts are this, 1. you definitely are not shy about expressing your liberal ideology and 2. It is very clear that you hate President Bush. These are my thoughts. It must be difficult living in a Red State.
Steven, thanks for your comment. Do you have any thoughts specifically related to the contents of my post?
I think these are valid points. I watched and what he said about protecting this country is just not true. Every DHS report ever made says we are wide open for attack.
Jay -
Mr. Blue State here.
Over the last few weeks, President Bush and his minyons have spent considerable time trying to rework his image, and his legacy.
Only time will tell which of his initiatives will be successful long-term, and which will be viewed as long-term errors of judgement.
One thing is for sure, however - there a few partisans that will defend anyone, no matter the outcome, because of the party label he wears.
A shame - but part of our political scene, I guess. It could be far worse!
Barack . . . onward!
DEAN & DEAN'S TEAM CHICAGO
American interests WERE attacked numerous times during Clinton's presidency. But, more importantly, he had the opportunity to collect UBL on more than one ocassion...
Link
Keep in mind that he had been named as a co-conspirator by prosecuters in NY in the first WTC bombing... But Clinton had Monica issues.
Now, on to Bush. He completed the Clinton Doctrine on Iraq, namely removing Saddam from power, as Clinton had urged with the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. I guess Bill didn't have time to deal with that, what with the scandals and all.
Besides, I think as a liberal you should be more worried about the unethical people that Obama is tossing to the Senate as his cabinet.
Shane, the reports I've heard on lack of radioactive detection at seaports is very disturbing.
Dean, I agree. And it's amazing how some die hard Bush supporters are now comparing him to Harry Truman. Truman made the decision to drop atomic bombs on a "country" that attacked our county. Bush made the decision to invade a country that attempted to assassinate his daddy. Bush is an average frat boy that needs to be remembered to ensure that future generations don't vote for a president because he seems like the guy they'd like to have a beer with.
Jay - I haven't been on AR in over a week and I owe some other responses, so this will be brief. The notion that Bush has prevented an attack on our soil is one of the most pathetic excuses for being in Iraq that I have heard. It a clear case of stupidity (note: not ignorance, just straight idiocy). The FBI, ICE, etc have done a fabulous job and I don't want to take anything from them - they're heroes. It's the link between this war in Iraq and terrorism here that doesn't jive. As if having a war there serves as a deterent. Sheesh!
Lane, a link to newsmax.com is as unbiased as one to michaelmoore.com. The whole Monica issue would have been a private matter without the Republicans... remember Larry "Bathroom" Craig on Meet the Press - he said "Bad boy, Bill Clinton. You're a naughty boy."
In terms of "American interests", we should be most interested in American lives. Many more American soldiers have died and been horribly wounded during the Bush Administration than during the Clinton Administration.
@ Lane: May I correct you ? Clinton did not have "Monica issues." The Republicans had "Monica issues..." because they had "Bill Clinton" issues. They wasted so much time and money on something so irrelevant... when they could have had their attention on things that really mattered to this country. I will, however, easily admit that Clinton was really stupid about lying about it. That being said... the issue should never have been "blown out of proportion" (LOL) like it was.
And... besides... what Bill Clinton did "to" Monica Lewinsky... George Bush and Dick Cheney did to this entire country for eight years !
Tchaka, it's good to have you back. I agree, our military and intelligence agencies deserve all of the credit for preventing attacks, not "W".
Karen, I was a Republican until their "Monica issues". The GOP's obsession with Monica was worse than Watergate.
I disagree with you to some extent Karen.......I believe Bill and Monica's events were limited to oral. What Bush and Cheney did to us was rear-entry sans lubricant.
@ Tchaka: You may most certainly be correct. I was not there... but then again... I am quite thankful I wasn't there... LOL. Nor have I ever experienced the scenario you describe... nor do I want to... LOL. Ewwww !
Yeah, I guess that was a slight bit over the top. >:-)
An advanced apology to any AR members who might find it too....descriptive.
@Tchaka - While the image you've provoked isn't the most appealing thing in the world, I do admire your visual cortex:)
I guess I consider myself a "left-centric" guy which doesn't necessarily make me right or wrong. I do believe that George W. Bush is a good man, though his presidency, decisions, & appointments has left a lot to be desired.
Personally, I'm a big fan of Mr. Lane Bailey above... though our political standpoints may say otherwise. In direct regards to the post, Jay... you make me grin from time to time.
"It is also worth noting that Connecticut-born Bush is selling his ranch in Crawford, TX - the one he bought in 1999 when this "cowboy" started his campaign for the presidency. What kind of cowboy sells his ranch to live in a recently minorities-excluded (except for maids) subdivision?" Come on man, are the Democrats or Liberals or party to re-elect the never elected Gus Hall any different? It's the dollar, the coin, the greed and power of what I can have now that resonates with most of these folks. And we elect them. I love a good debate and dissension (to some extent) should always be a part of the process... but this system needs an enema that would even make Richard Simmons blush, yet still bend over.
Hey Tchaka, how about that visual:)
Nice work, Jason! :-)
How long can we do this until Rich hands down pennance. LOL!
Who's Rich?
Jay~ Since 911 we have had no terrist attacks against American Citizens(minus active armed forces) No embassies etc. The longest period since befroe Carter.
One more day... Should we countdown the hours?
Even Peggy Noonan was talking yesterday about how wrong she thought Bush was to be spouting off about not being attacked again on his watch - it comes off as a really outrageous way of setting up the next administration.
New day dawning.
Liz
Jason - Rich Jacobson is an AR guru and The Decider when we get out of line. :-)
Hugh - With the exception of our Embassy in Serbia as well.
We'll see just how much "change" we actually get, especially with an almost exact carbon copy Cabinet.
Tchaka - Oh, thanks man. I had never heard of the lad until now. Duely noted, but I'm rarely out of line;)
I have to agree with you. I feel he gave Texans a bad name. For the record he was NOT born here, he can say he was all day long and it does not make it true. We don't want him. Austin has long been "the blue dot in the red state". I feel that will change as time goes on. The only true "red" counties were the rural parts of Texas where people are not as informed on issues. Travis county was for Obama. Travis county is also the home of our capital and many universities.
B
The post and the comments make for great reading on a dreary day...This is one of those threads where I'd like to observe everyone in a room doing this exchange verbally...By the way, I never gave a second thought to what Bill and Monica did in private...As my SO is fond of saying "Look behind any door".
Jay,
As usual your post is well thought and well written. The comments have been .... interesting. Of course I totally disagree with you. But I always respect your opinions.
As was already pointed out there were many attacks against US Embassy's and other interests during Clinton's term.
Bill & Monica - Anybody who thinks that it was about sex is clearly mistaken. It was about sexual harassment. For those of you who have poor memories, Bill Clinton was charged with sexual harassment by Paula Jones. These cases are hard to prove because there is usually very little evidence. Very often is is a case of "he said ...she said" One of the ways the cases are proved is by establishing a pattern of behavior. Bill Clinton lied under oath about the relationship with Monica.
The impeachment was about lying under oath. He was later disbarred from the AR. bar assoc and lost his privilege of arguing before the US Supreme ct. Not that he is interested in practicing law now anyway. As a past POTUS he has a pretty good life.
If a woman feels she has been sexually harassed then I'm sure you'll agree that she should have her day in court if she chooses to pursue it. The people who defend Bill Clinton in this matter clearly don't care about sexual harassment or a woman's right to be heard in court. Let me restate it ... If you think Bill & Monica was a private matter and nobodies business, then you obviously don't care about sexual harassment in the workplace or the idea that Bill clinton may have sexually harassed Paula Jones.
Bill Clinton was pretty good president and I think as time has passed he is being judged more fairly on his record. The whole Monica thing is less of an issue. It doesn't change the fact that I think he was a pig.
Jay, what is the benefit for you to continue to bash our President? Old habits are hard to break I guess. There are about 53 million people who do not agree with your assessment of President Bush including myself. Surely there is something more positive you can blog about now. Why not write about all the hope and change that'll be coming our way as of tomorrow?
Hey Jay, love the topic. Considering only 22% of Americans approve of bush's performance, it would seem his entire 8 years is an abject failure, as history will eventually tell us. One thing to mention here is that while we were not attacked again, we probably wouldnt have been attacked in the first place if bush had heeded the 52 FBI warnings he was given. However, terrorist attacks worldwide have accelerated at an alarming rate since we invaded Iraq. But then he seemed to thrive on ignoring information, as he also ignored the warnings issued by the NWS about the catasrophic damage that was expected from Katrina. His comment after the storm was "nobody knew it would be this bad." We did because we listened. And I would also imagine he ignored information regarding the doom of the economy, while he was saying the fundamentals of the economy are sound, we were already in a recession. In less that 24 hours we can finally say good riddance!
Brenda - A much much higher percentage didn't agree with dissenters' opinion of Hitler. As it turned out, his brand of Nationalism wasn't what the world appreciated.
Brenda ~ Let the three stooges celebrate together, not worth the effort.
Ok, so Bush has a 22% approval rating. That is just terrible... but doesn't that mean that he has TWICE as meany people approving of his job performance as the Democrat led House and Senate?
And PERJURY while trying to deny an American citizen her day in court is not really a made up issue that should be private. People go to jail for perjuring themselves. He impeded the investigation, and lied to a jury and a grand jury. Martha Stewart went to jail for it.
Bill Clinton was an average President... but got a substantial bump in his performance from Congress... after the GOP take-over, which was largely fueled by his failing agenda during the first two years.
I think the real thing you should be worrying about is what the 2010 elections will look like...
Oh, and please keep in mind that Bill Clinton was elected with the smallest percentage of the vote in... a very long time. Twice.
1. Congress' approval rating has been in the toilet before the Dems took over. And we're not comparing Presidents to Congress, are we? Unless you're happy with apples to oranges.
2. Martha Stewart didn't stop our entire legislative branch for a year and a half because of perjury.
3. Clinton was a better than average President who got a bump in his performance due to a need to cooperate with the GOP led Congress.
4. No worries, GOP will gain seats. As any scholar of US politics can tell you, the party not in the White House almost always gains seats in the off-years, barring something special.
5. You are correct. But then we could always rearrange stats to show that 2000 was much 'smaller'. I mean, why acknowlege and instance of an election with a significant 3rd party influence.
Jay,
These are my thoughts...I find it interesting how often you and yours try to play the race game...
What kind of cowboy sells his ranch to live in a recently minorities-excluded (except for maids) subdivision?
So, all maids are minorities? Nice, thanks for the info!
Tchaka, are you saying that it is ok for the President of the United States... the leader of the Executive Branch of government... which is charged with enforcing the laws of the land... to LIE UNDER OATH IN ORDER TO DENY A CITIZEN JUSTICE? But, on the other hand, since Martha Stewart was just a business person that was charged with impeding an investigation in which she was not charged with a crime... she should go to jail?
Congress did have crapper performance ratings... and they have done nothing but go down under Dem leadership.
No Lane, I'm pretty sure you know what I'm saying.
But I'll explain it for everyone else here. It is not OK for our Congress to spend a year and a half on what is akin to a witch hunt because of it. Go after him and punish him, yes. But don't waste my time and money and that of my fellow countrymen making that a priority while we have other important things to attend to. I find lying about WMDs to be a much bigger crime that has cost our country billions of dollars and thousands of lives....and probably one worthy of impeachment. But even if Congress had pursued it, I wouldn't be happy if that was their main agenda. Our country has had other needs.
Hi Jay,
I agree with you on Clinton vs. Bush terrorism policies. Here's my reasoning; Clinton like Obama have high IQ's, something Bush didn't have or will never have! Clinton & Obama both EARNED there status at their Ivy League universities, unlike Bush, who had "Daddy" keep him in, since he wasn't a "good" student or just short of "average". Diplomacy is always more rational than "bullying" other countries to "our way".
We went into Iraq to finish "Daddy's work" the previous Bush's policies. We originally put the Iraqi leader in and when he didn't agree with us any longer, we destroyed him! As far as Bush protecting our soils, WHAT A JOKE!!! Bush only protected his supporter's oil camps. That's it! We are still WIDE OPEN to a terrorist attack, just look at our waterways and our water ports. Most are never really carefully looked at for serious weapons or other destructive devices. So, where do these people think we are safer than before 9-11??
As far as Bush being a "leader"! We all could have done much better, if we had impeached him right from the start, when he "thought" he had won the election..... We have paid for him being our BLIND "leader" for 8 very long years, through our crumpling economy!!
;>0
Tchaka - Clinton thought there were WMDs in Iraq when he was in office. Remember, he pushed for and signed an act that called for regime change in Iraq. That was before Bush...
AnnMarie - You have NO idea how smart Bush is, nor Clinton, nor Obama. You assume based on what you see in the media. The accounts from people that have met him are that he is quite engaging and intelligent. But, unlike Clinton and Obama, he isn't a great public speaker. Sorry, but I would rather have a thinker than a speaker. Would like a list of leaders that were incredible speaker... but that were flawed in their thoughts?
"George Bush has done more damage to our country than one thousand Osama bin Ladens."
This is so true yet so many people prefer to live in their delusional state of denial.
Lane:
1. Nice redirect. I'm sure you can connect Clinton's signed act to the relentless pursuit of an impeachment by Congress.
2. You are correct that Bush has raw intelligence (sorry AnnMarie, but I've heard the same from people who have interacted with him). He's likely not at the level of Clinton and Obama, but he has brain-power. His problem according to many is that he's not a good public speaker, however, his real problem (to those who actually look beyond the surface) is his horrendous decision-making and his unwillingness to take input from outsiders. He has his closed circle and sticks with that. So when we (ie, people in the latter group) talk of how foolish Bush is, you now understand what we're getting at. His mediocre grades at Yale is just nice icing for talking points.
AnnMarie:
A lot of what you've said is correct - remember also that Clinton had a stint at Oxford. An important comment you've made is about our security, so many people in this country have NO IDEA how vulnerable we are to attack. "There haven't been any attacks on US soil since..." Yeah, like that's proof that we're safe. I cannot overstate how great a job a number of our federal authorities have done and the luck they've had. They are so outmanned it's not funny. ICE can't even come close to covering our ports, yet they give it their all. And I can't help but wonder how things would be without going to Iraq. Bush could have diverted some of that funding to Afghanistan (ie, a just war) and kept a lot of money here at home. We're spending $2B/week in Iraq......we could employ 20000 agents (at $50k/year) with half of that. Imagine the training and technology that could be obtained for 1 month of Iraq funding. That's a much better step in the direction of protecting this country.
Jay in reference to your statement, What kind of cowboy sells his ranch to live in a recently minorities-excluded (except for maids) subdivision?
Not sure if it is the same outside of Texas but until the 1960s.... there were restrictions in most every subdivision that were very racist. You are being a little selective on your comment there... unless you just didnt know. So, you could pretty much say that everyone in texas chose a subdivision that used to not allow minorities...
Have a good night!
I was not logged in on my previous comment above... and after thinking about it I think it was BEFORE the 60s (one too many crown and sevens tonight) but the Civil Rights act turned it all around.. WHICH IT SHOULD HAVE... Do you know if you had those restrictions in your state? Or was it just in Texas?
I was not logged in on my previous comment above... and after thinking about it I think it was BEFORE the 60s (one too many crown and sevens tonight) but the Civil Rights act turned it all around.. WHICH IT SHOULD HAVE... Do you know if you had those restrictions in your state? Or was it just in Texas?
P.S. Where did you get your information the President Bush "sold his ranch in Crawford" Just curious.
Tana, Bush's subdivision excluded minorities until 2000 (had it been the 1960s, I wouldn't have mentioned it in my post). Its covenant from 1956-2000 stated that "property shall be used and occupied by white persons except those shall not prevent occupancy by domestic servants of different race or nationality in the employ of a tenant."
Yes, Jay here in Texas most subdivisions have to have the racial clause omitted in the restrictions.... his is probably one of them, mine is too.. No biggie and no reason to point just his subdivision out. Thats just the way is was/is. When we look at our Owner Title Policys under restrictions 99% of them have a statement that says to omit the racial clause. If you ask ME you are being a little on the racist side suggesting that Maids or Servants are something other than white.
I ask you again though, where did you get the information that he was SELLING his ranch in Crawford?
It will be fun to watch your blogs in the coming years.. Where will all your hate towards Bush be directed.. You have to be mad at Somebody, right? Hes out of office now...move forward and be positive as WE ALL SHOULD.
Although I have been sadly disappointed with Bush, I believe much of the goings on in the economy and the world have only a fraction to do with what President is in office.
The economy was bad when Bush entered office, it got better, and then it tanked. The reasons why it tanked had a little to do with Bush, a lot to do with 30 years of government policies, a lot to do with the market cycle, a lot to do with greedy investors on Wall Street, and many other factors.
Regarding the attacks on 9/11. A lot of fingers could be pointed at a lot of people. And with all the money Bush has authorized in Afghanistan, Iraq, new Homeland Security, airport security, port security, etc, America is not much safer than they were pre 9/11. It is only a matter of time before an attack far worse than 9/11 happens again as long as the government has to be "politically correct." No doubt the invasion of Iraq was a horrible mistake. Yes we liberated the Iraqi people, but seriously is that the job of America to go around liberating countries with our military???
I hope Obama can turn something around, and I wish the man the best. But somehow I expect him to be a GIANT dud. I hope he proves me wrong.
I agree Rob...
Well said, Mr. Rob Arnold.
(from that quasi-liberal guy)
Rob: While some of what you said is spot on, I have to respond to the economy. Bush came into office with a massive surplus and a balanced budget.
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/new/html/Tue_Oct_3_113400_2000.html
Some highlights:
The Clinton/Gore Administration: largest surplus in history on track, paying off the Debt by 2012. (9/27/00)
Today, President Clinton will announce that we:
You said:
"It is also worth noting that Connecticut-born Bush is selling his ranch in Crawford, TX - the one he bought in 1999 when this "cowboy" started his campaign for the presidency. What kind of cowboy sells his ranch to live in a recently minorities-excluded (except for maids) subdivision?"
Are you suggesting or insinuating that Bush is a racist?
Just in case that is your take:
Bush has done more for the people of Africa ( who the last time I checked were majority Black) than any other human being has ever done. He saved over 2,000,000 lives, his AIDs initiatives and education were unsurpassed by even Gates. He saved millions of African children from being sold into slavery.
And even Reverend Sharpton could not and did not disagree with this.
Funny thing, the media never shed light on this and the liberal left won't talk about it and Ted Turner did not even know this. Katerina
I don't know about saving 2,000,000 lives - how that is quantified is something that would need to be explained to me before I accept it as true. Saving millions of children from being sold into slavery is going to be even harder to nail down.
On the plus (or real) side, Dubya did give more monetary aid and AIDS initiatives to Africa than any previous President. I prefer not to compare him to Gates because the funding for Gate's Foundation comes from him, Dubya's comes from the American people. I also can't agree that the media never shed light on this because I did infact see that broadcast (though I already knew it).