Clinton in Denial

From a political POV, one can only hope that he keeps this up through 2008. It gives the GOP the opportunity to go back and remind folks why you don't want Democrats in office.

Joseph Botwinick

 

It seems, however, that Clinton is the one that is getting credibility on this issue from the same 60% of the voters who say that Bush isn't doing an acceptable job. In spite of his personal flaws, one thing that Clinton always had was credibility. Even Rush Limbaugh had to admit that his facts were usually right, and if he was wrong about something, he would admit it.

By the time the election rolls around in 2008, this issue will be long forgotten.

It doesn't seem like anything is helping the poor GOP out. Bush makes a round of speeches a couple of weeks back on national security, the issue that is supposed to be the GOP ace in the hole, and they lose a percentage point in the polls the following week. Chavez calls Bush a devil at the UN and the polls in the subsequent couple of days show another 1% drop for the GOP.

The best thing for this country would be for both political parties to fold. Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen, so the next best thing is for the party in power to get a slap in the face in November.

 

So it is possible to be a proven liar and yet still credible?

Also, don't forget Clinton had some extremely low approval ratings during his time.

 

He was disbarred from practicing law in Arkansas.

He was barred from going before the Supreme Court.

He was fined 25,000.00

He was impeached.

For lying to a Federal Grand Jury. Perjury

No evidence of the numbers that find him credible. Any numbers given on that are pure speculation with no foundation.

If your pastor had an affair, lied about it to a Grand Jury, and then on public television. What would you expect of him?

Being President is actually a step down from that. But if he promotes your socialist/ communist agenda give hima pass huh.

 

Ok, remind me again what was it that Bush did before 9-11 to get bin Laden? And what since March 2003?

 

Oh but he was credible and a great president!!! :BangHead: (roll eyes)

 

I seem to remember that he was president for 9 months and was busy fighting legal challenges to the will of the people from that crybaby Al Gore (which, in turn, prevented him from getting his cabinet in place in a timely manner), and was busy dealing with a crisis in China before 9-11-01.

Clinton on the other hand, was president during several terrorist attacks on America and American interests and bombed an aspirin factory and did absolutely nothing to get Bin Laden even when he was handed to him on a silver platter.

After 9-11-01, we invaded Afganistan, where OBL was based and ran his thugs into the mountains and out of the nation. We still have American troops there searching for OBL.

Joseph Botwinick

 

There was a president who didn't lie, cajole and have women on the side?

I have that proverbial bridge in Brooklyn for sale....cheap!

Cheers,

Jim

Wait, I forgot Mr. Jimmy Carter and Mr. Washington or was that Mr. Lincoln!

 

So, I'll take that as a "nothing" then?

Yes, there was a short period before he & Rumsfeld got bored with Afghanistan & OBL.

So, I'll take that as a "not much".

 

1. Granted he was a bit preoccupied. I realize that he should have been able to single handedly save the world in 8 months, but hey, I guess he doesn't bomb aspirin factories as well as Clinton.

2. We are still there.

3. If that is an indication of how little you think of our military who are still there searching for OBL, I guess you could say we're doing nothing. What would you rather he do, find an aspirin factory to bomb? Oh well, at least Clinton did do something:

I guess Clinton was a bit preoccupied himself.

LINKIE :laugh:

Joseph Botwinick

 

First, it would depend on your definition of IS. Without being more specific it would be difficult to either deny or confirm your alagations.

Secondly, this would make him a credible liar. This means he consistantly lies so we know anything from his mouth is a lie and so we shouldn't believe anything he says. This makes him unusual in politics, most go back and forth so you don't know what to believe. I can appreciate a man who is consistent in his behavior.

Lastly, I think he lost the beer drinking, women chasing part of the population by his choice in Monica. Some forgave him for Paula because he was only a governer but a president could have done better than Monica. This is not my opinion but it reason Clinton lost some approval ratings. Not my $00.02

 

Single-handedly? No, he actually had an administration, with a military and a couple of intelligence agencies. Perhaps if he'd made terrorism rather than education his top priority, as the outgoing administration had suggested, he might have brought OBL to justice before 9-11.

Too true, but OBL dropped pretty far down on the priority list when Rumsfeld & Cheney got Saddam in their sights.

I think well of our military but they are severely hobbled by their civilian command; besides, the "not much" post March 2004 was in reference to Bush. Nice misdirection, though.

Better to bomb an aspirin factory than to trash a country, allow the terrorists we were trying to capture to fester where they hadn't been, start a civil war and throw a region into major turmoil.

 

Why is it you neocons always mention the terrorists attacks during Clinton's administration, but fail to mention the attack in Beirut during Reagan's presidency, which killed, I believe, 240 marines.

 

I look at this Clinton bashing, much of it coming from whinybabies who screech and howl about Bush bashing, and I have to smile.

I know conservatives feel bound to support Bush to the bitter end, but all you have to do is read that 9-11 investigative report (a product of the Bush administration, BTW) objectively to see that there was absolutely no excuse for Bush to have allowed this to happen on his watch. They pretty much ignored, or smiled and said "thanks but no thanks" to the mountain of intelligence that the Clinton administration provided them.

Lying seems to be a characteristic that conservative evangelicals admire in one of their own, but throw a fit when it is someone from the other side. At least as far as it goes in my lifetime, it seems that Nixon set the standard that most everyone else has tried to adhere to since then, with the possible exception of Ford and Carter, and look how long they lasted.

As long as people keep lining up behind two established political parties who are so polarized, and stuck on a platform mentality, nothing is going to change. Christians have been promised for years that Roe v. Wade would be overturned, and have continued to vote for politicians who know full well it is a single issue determining factor for millions, yet never seem to get around to actually doing anything about it. They pass a little measure here and there, but the bottom line is that none of it makes any difference, and the number of abortions continues on a steady pace. If the current rate continues, more will occur during the eight years of Bush than the eight years of Clinton.

The argument that a third party won't work, that it is a vote "for the other side," is hogwash. The Christian vote is as tightly wrapped up in the GOP as the African-American vote is for the Democrats. Both groups have neutralized themselves regarding their own issues. The only thing the Christian right has done for the GOP is give them a razor thin edge in elections that has allowed them to legislate advantages for the wealthy and corporate interests. To me that's as much of a sell-out as African-American Christian leaders like Sharpton and Jackson have done for the Democrats, and it is just as bad.

I think I'm going to take my brother's advice, and not talk politics among the religious any more.

 

A pox on both the parties, and both the Presidents. They are both liars and rotton to the core.

 

If the Clinton administration had all this, why didn't they do more to stop it?

 

We can only hope, but in these type matters he's to smart.

 

In my opinion, no. He proved himself incapable of upholding the dignity and integrity demanded by the office of POTUS. and I expect honesty of everyone I associate with.