Clinton Symposium To Attack Bush

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
How did it affect his job? Maybe he likes a little pick me up before getting down to work, regardless it did not affect his job, but stalking him probaly did.

heh heh "job" (this is what bugs you all -the repression you crave)

Some guys like a lil extra nooky, and women like guys in power, mistresses are as old as leaders have been around, big deal.

I know its been said over and over but getting a blowjob did not get anyone killed.

The former FBI director (who was extremely anti-Clinton) stated that the investigations stopped Clinton from doing his job. Of Course the Director stated it from an angle that the investigations were Clintons fault. :roll:

 

[irwincur]

Funny that for centuries there was an unwritten rule that past preseidents would stay out of current politics - and would never bad mouth a sitting president. Seen as bad blood in the brotherhood.

Looks like the Dems have no problem breaking all of the rules... Trashy politics at best and unprecedented in its levels of disrespect for the position. Perhaps this is why people see them Dems as useless trash.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

if John Mccain were president do you think Clinton would be bashing him like he is doing to Bush today?

the answer is a resounding NO and we all know this. the reason Bush is being attacked by nearly everyone and their grandma is because he is a horrendous failure. he is one of the worst presidents in United States history. that's your answer right-wingers.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Hey, when the terrorists come and knock America on it's ass again, then you'll be begging daddy "Bush" to take action again. The problem we have in this country, is you have too many spout offs who want this and that done, as retaliation, but then when you get what you really thought you wanted, you did not like the magnitude of the revenge that your minds conjured up. :Q

Damn straight, you tell 'em!

But next time we invade a weak, unrelated country, let's choose one with a better climate. Grenada? Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. How about Aruba? It's close -- the troops could easily fly home for a long weekend -- comparable in military strength -- at least locally, not sure how their ties to the Netherlands might come into play -- and they probably "harbor terrorists" (or at least rapists, which we can rename "terrorists"). I'll bet their WMD stockpiles are almost as "massive" as Iraq's too.

I like a president who stands up and sends a message out to the world, which says: We take no sh!t from any terrorists. You mess with us, we're coming to get you.

Booyah! Exactly right. That's why we invaded Saudi Arabia and Egypt. We showed 'em, by George.

If we go elect a bunch spineless weinies in the future, you'll wish Bush was president. No wonder we are a loathed country

Yeah, that's it. It can't be because we constantly meddle in the internal affairs of other countries, generally to the detriment of their citizens. It can't be because we're the world's bully, unilaterally attacking other countries on the flimsiest (and phoniest) pretexts, in violation of international law. It can't be because we tend to ignorantly paint all Muslims as evil, or that we flout universal standards of fundamental human decency. No, it's because we might elect "spineless weinies" instead of warmongering chicken hawks like you.

Most of that is jealousy. But what I hate most is people who are here because they hated their circumstances where they were, then have the audacity to talk down the very institutions that let them come to this country to begin with. I've listened to immigrants who talk smack about Americans right here on our own soil.

Damn First Amendment anyway. Time to get rid of it, that's the ticket.

And, you know, people who must bitch and complain about living here, really need to go do it your way....somewhere else. I think you'll find that life isn't any rosier elsewhere.

Because America is PERFECT; there's no room for improvement at all. La la la la la.

I'm sorry that 2000+ have died. There is a price to pay for everything. I don't agree with the way it was all handled, but given the circumstances that brought us to this, I believe we did what we needed to do. Now support our mission and let it follow through. Dissention is not going to draw this country out of this any faster. Get on board, or shut up.

Why do you hate America?

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: loki8481
I find it ammusing that the same guys who impeached Clinton over perjury are calling the indictment against Scooter Libby under the same charge a baseless fishing excersize orchastrated by the vast left wing conspiracy :laugh:

You're comparing apples to oranges. Clinton had already been sanctioned for lying under oath. Libby hasn't even had his trial yet.

Thanks for playing

No, genius, he's comparing your party's hypocrisy over indicting Clinton vs their cry baby nonsense attacking an indictment against Libby that hasn't even gone to trial yet.

:thumbsup:

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Clinton made 2 mistakes that got him in trouble.

1. He was not a republican

2. He did not pay a male prostitute 200$ an hour for his BJ

You pay that much? Pretty rich, huh?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

The Bushies exhibiting exactly the mentality that led to a failed impeachment over a bj while they ignore and defend serious crimes at the highest levels of government that have led to tens of thousands of deaths, hundreds of billions of dollars wasted, increasing terrorism, and destroying America's name throughout the world.

Keep laughing you loons, just remember, you're laughing in the minority now. The rest of America is finally waking up and they're mad as hell, not laughing.

I believe I heard a similar statement just before the last election. Got this next one in the bag too?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Funny that for centuries there was an unwritten rule that past preseidents would stay out of current politics - and would never bad mouth a sitting president. Seen as bad blood in the brotherhood.

Looks like the Dems have no problem breaking all of the rules... Trashy politics at best and unprecedented in its levels of disrespect for the position. Perhaps this is why people see them Dems as useless trash.

Ya gotta spell it "Dims".

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: BBond

The Bushies exhibiting exactly the mentality that led to a failed impeachment over a bj while they ignore and defend serious crimes at the highest levels of government that have led to tens of thousands of deaths, hundreds of billions of dollars wasted, increasing terrorism, and destroying America's name throughout the world.

Keep laughing you loons, just remember, you're laughing in the minority now. The rest of America is finally waking up and they're mad as hell, not laughing.

I believe I heard a similar statement just before the last election. Got this next one in the bag too?

[/quote]
If the American people are stupid enough to vote their hatred instead of their conscience and continue down this path to destruction then so be it.

A nation that stupid will get exactly what they deserve. More of the same.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
if John Mccain were president do you think Clinton would be bashing him like he is doing to Bush today?

the answer is a resounding NO and we all know this. the reason Bush is being attacked by nearly everyone and their grandma is because he is a horrendous failure. he is one of the worst presidents in United States history. that's your answer right-wingers.

The reason Bush is being attacked from that particular direction is that Clinton still runs his Dimocratic political machine and they are trying to soften up the public for a possible virgin birth in 2008!

On the subject of softening up the public, just had the third global warming MSM movie on TV tonight in as many months.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

No Condor, the reason Bush is being attacked by so many people is because of the monumental failures of his administration. Maybe it's time you take the blinders off and realize that America is not doing so well right now, we can definitely do a lot better. I'd hope that you share that same sentiment.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
No Condor, the reason Bush is being attacked by so many people is because of the monumental failures of his administration. Maybe it's time you take the blinders off and realize that America is not doing so well right now, we can definitely do a lot better. I'd hope that you share that same sentiment.

I can't think of a single administration that has gotten good reviews while in a war. That is why some administrations will allow attacks on the country without answering them. Good enough that Bush had the courage to possibly squander his time in office by responding to a call for war in a strong manner.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
No Condor, the reason Bush is being attacked by so many people is because of the monumental failures of his administration. Maybe it's time you take the blinders off and realize that America is not doing so well right now, we can definitely do a lot better. I'd hope that you share that same sentiment.

I can't think of a single administration that has gotten good reviews while in a war. That is why some administrations will allow attacks on the country without answering them. Good enough that Bush had the courage to possibly squander his time in office by responding to a call for war in a strong manner.

And exactly what was Bush's rationale for his unprovoked invasion of Iraq? Why did he need to take America to war "in a strong manner"? What "attack on the country" did Iraq commit?

Put down the pipe. You're way over your quota.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

I like to think of the Iraq War as misdirected anger. We focused our energy and resources on the wrong war.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
No Condor, the reason Bush is being attacked by so many people is because of the monumental failures of his administration. Maybe it's time you take the blinders off and realize that America is not doing so well right now, we can definitely do a lot better. I'd hope that you share that same sentiment.

I can't think of a single administration that has gotten good reviews while in a war. That is why some administrations will allow attacks on the country without answering them. Good enough that Bush had the courage to possibly squander his time in office by responding to a call for war in a strong manner.

Jefferson maybe??? Mckinley????? Ya I'm pretty sure congress severly critisized Masidon and the people were calling for peace after the British started burning Washington D.C.

 

[Shuxclams]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
A bush bash? Cool....lemme grab the V.W. Bus and I'll meet ya at the party.
Peyote anyone?

Steve?!?!? Dude! Great to see you around!




About this whole deal.... If we draw comparisions to Clinton and Bush.... well Bush supporters should be worried if 'Slick Willie' gains traction with the American people. I mean it really comes down to trying to nail down a president for anything and the best they could do was get him for something all those jackasses are guilty of..... now how guilty is the current Administration of things the Congress and American people DONT WANT TO know or have no RECOURSE in finding out.







SHUX

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Why do you hate America?

The irony meter is off the scales again.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
No Condor, the reason Bush is being attacked by so many people is because of the monumental failures of his administration. Maybe it's time you take the blinders off and realize that America is not doing so well right now, we can definitely do a lot better. I'd hope that you share that same sentiment.

I can't think of a single administration that has gotten good reviews while in a war. That is why some administrations will allow attacks on the country without answering them. Good enough that Bush had the courage to possibly squander his time in office by responding to a call for war in a strong manner.

And exactly what was Bush's rationale for his unprovoked invasion of Iraq? Why did he need to take America to war "in a strong manner"? What "attack on the country" did Iraq commit?

Put down the pipe. You're way over your quota.

You should loosen that string at the bottom of the bag. Maybe oxygen would help.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
I like to think of the Iraq War as misdirected anger. We focused our energy and resources on the wrong war.

I don't think so. I think that if we had waited another fifty years, it would have been even tougher. You have to keep perspective on this. The Muslim extremeist had been trying to build strength for decades. They even sided with Hitler in WWII because he was killing their sworn enemy. They came out of that on the losing side and got screwed. They just have not been able to accept it and move on. They have been spoiling for a fight for 1400 years. This may not resolve the whole issue, but it will weaken them and set them back a decade or so.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
No Condor, the reason Bush is being attacked by so many people is because of the monumental failures of his administration. Maybe it's time you take the blinders off and realize that America is not doing so well right now, we can definitely do a lot better. I'd hope that you share that same sentiment.

I can't think of a single administration that has gotten good reviews while in a war. That is why some administrations will allow attacks on the country without answering them. Good enough that Bush had the courage to possibly squander his time in office by responding to a call for war in a strong manner.

Jefferson maybe??? Mckinley????? Ya I'm pretty sure congress severly critisized Masidon and the people were calling for peace after the British started burning Washington D.C.

If you read the hsitory of the time and read novels by John Jakes (who studied extensively for his works), you will find that there were some half of the settlers in the colonies who supported the crown.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
I like to think of the Iraq War as misdirected anger. We focused our energy and resources on the wrong war.

I don't think so. I think that if we had waited another fifty years, it would have been even tougher. You have to keep perspective on this. The Muslim extremeist had been trying to build strength for decades. They even sided with Hitler in WWII because he was killing their sworn enemy. They came out of that on the losing side and got screwed. They just have not been able to accept it and move on. They have been spoiling for a fight for 1400 years. This may not resolve the whole issue, but it will weaken them and set them back a decade or so.

The problem is that Hussein was not a Muslim extremist, in fact he was a sworn enemy of the Muslim extremists. Now that he's out of the way there those Extremists are gathering power, maybe not militarily but ideologically. If you wanted to fight the extremists you'd be better off in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Of course we aren't willing to do what it would take because we are a civilized people (with the exception of Afghanistan which directly backed and supported a group that commited an act of war against us)

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The problem is that Hussein was not a Muslim extremist, in fact he was a sworn enemy of the Muslim extremists.

That is debatable. If that were the case, what the heck were Iraq officials meeting with Al Qaida for in the year before we went to war?

One could argue that while Hussein himself wasn't a muslim extremist, he certainly didn't mind offering assistance to those that were.

Now that he's out of the way there those Extremists are gathering power, maybe not militarily but ideologically. If you wanted to fight the extremists you'd be better off in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Of course we aren't willing to do what it would take because we are a civilized people (with the exception of Afghanistan which directly backed and supported a group that commited an act of war against us)

Well if you look at the current situation, that's what we're doing. We're already in Afghanistan and Iraq, and these extremists from Pakistan, Iran, Syria, SA, et al are all funneling in to Iraq. Why travel when we've already got them in our sights?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The problem is that Hussein was not a Muslim extremist, in fact he was a sworn enemy of the Muslim extremists.

That is debatable. If that were the case, what the heck were Iraq officials meeting with Al Qaida for in the year before we went to war?

One could argue that while Hussein himself wasn't a muslim extremist, he certainly didn't mind offering assistance to those that were.

No where near the assistance our friends in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were giving. If anything the assistence was negligable.

Now that he's out of the way there those Extremists are gathering power, maybe not militarily but ideologically. If you wanted to fight the extremists you'd be better off in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Of course we aren't willing to do what it would take because we are a civilized people (with the exception of Afghanistan which directly backed and supported a group that commited an act of war against us)

Well if you look at the current situation, that's what we're doing. We're already in Afghanistan and Iraq, and these extremists from Pakistan, Iran, Syria, SA, et al are all funneling in to Iraq. Why travel when we've already got them in our sights?[/quote]At the cost of destabalizing the Middle East, destroying the credibility of the United States and being the best recruiting instrument those Extremist could have imagined.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
No where near the assistance our friends in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were giving. If anything the assistence was negligable.

That's debatable.

At the cost of destabalizing the Middle East, destroying the credibility of the United States and being the best recruiting instrument those Extremist could have imagined.

I'm not sure the Middle East and "stable" have ever been in the same sentence.

It seems to me that instilling Democracy in Iraq is the perfect way to begin bringing down the dictators of the ME which, IMHO, will lead to (more) stability in that region.

At some point, Iraq's neighbors (the masses, not the extremists) will begin to wake up and say "Wait...how come they have all these freedoms and we don't?"

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
No where near the assistance our friends in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were giving. If anything the assistence was negligable.

That's debatable.

At the cost of destabalizing the Middle East, destroying the credibility of the United States and being the best recruiting instrument those Extremist could have imagined.

I'm not sure the Middle East and "stable" have ever been in the same sentence.

It seems to me that instilling Democracy in Iraq is the perfect way to begin bringing down the dictators of the ME which, IMHO, will lead to (more) stability in that region.

At some point, Iraq's neighbors (the masses, not the extremists) will begin to wake up and say "Wait...how come they have all these freedoms and we don't?"

Well it seems the only freedoms they have right now is the freedom to get blown to smithereens. With the sectarian violence which has come about due to the overthrow of the Hussien regime I believe counting on Iraq to become a stable democratic government able to stand on it's own is probably a pipe dream at best. We'd probably have better results if we and the World Community would carve that country up into three different autonomous entities loosely aligned in some kind of federation.

I definately don't believe that the Dub, his administration and the Neocons are the ones capable of doing the job right. How can I after seeing the mess they made over there.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well it seems the only freedoms they have right now is the freedom to get blown to smithereens. With the sectarian violence which has come about due to the overthrow of the Hussien regime I believe counting on Iraq to become a stable democratic government able to stand on it's own is probably a pipe dream at best. We'd probably have better results if we and the World Community would carve that country up into three different autonomous entities loosely aligned in some kind of federation.

You've got to give it time. Jeez, it has only been 2 1/2 years since we first came back to Iraq. And less than 2 years since the fall of the Hussein regime.

Taking a country that has lived under brutal dictatorship for decades and moving it to Democracy is not going to happen in 2 years.

I definately don't believe that the Dub, his administration and the Neocons are the ones capable of doing the job right. How can I after seeing the mess they made over there.

I don't believe anyone else is any more capable. If we had left it up to the alternative circa 2004 one has to wonder just what might have been, and relish in knowing that we'll never have to find out.