OK for the more political savvy democrats, help please

Ok here is the thing I want to answer this email I got but can't for the life of me recall much about the Clinton years, I was working and raising kids and just was not interested in politics at the time other than going to vote. Yes I paid attention to the political debates and who to vote for but after that I'm sure I tried to keep up but between raising a family and working I never had much time. Now I'm not saying I'm more politically savvy now but I at least have time to catch my breath and watch the news, so could someone help me out on this one. TIA



Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists- good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad...

I would like to make a small point here:

In partisan discussions, Republicans often think that Democrats have the same relationship with Clinton as the Republicans do with Regan (ie. considering him the epitome of that party's ideals.) This is not the case.

It's quite common to find people saying that Clinton was a good president: the economy improved under his watch, and Americans generally became more optimistic, especially considering the recent recessions in the 80s and early 90s, so it's not surprising to hear that. You'll also find most rank-and-file Democrats saying that in spite of his administrative success, Clinton's personal behavior while in office was reprehensible.

So let's get this straight, here and now: I, as a registered Democrat, find Clinton's behavior in office unacceptable. He lied to the nation, and worse, he lied to his family. He broke an oath, and that's a very bad thing. I would buy neither a car nor a horse from that man. I find his continued attempts to bask in the public eye embarrassing, much as I find Michael Moore's demagogary embarrassing. I don't like Clinton.

Good? Understood? Alright.

Now, let me make a further point: Just because I don't like Clinton, it is not fair to say that I, in turn, like Bush. I also dislike the current president. I think that, while he has not lied to his wife, he has lied (or at least grossly exaggerated) to the nation. I find the policies enacted by the current administration dangerous to America's liberties at home and America's global power. I want to see him voted out of office come November 3rd.

In any other year, I would be voting for a 3rd party candidate, and I plan to do so for a number of local elections. The presidential race, however, is too close. I find Kerry a desirable alternative to Bush, not because Kerry incites my passion, but rather because I want the president and the legislature to be controlled by different parties. As it does not seem likely that the Democrats will regain control of the House and Senate, I would like to see them regain control of the Whitehouse. The less the government does, IMNSHO, the better off the rest of us are.

My most "politically savvy" advice?

Don't argue with spam.

And if this is from a friend, you need new friends.

If you feel you must respond to this type of "debate" known as hitting the "forward" button, try this...

Reply: NIXON

Anyone bringing up Clinton to debate something about Bush needs the word NIXON branded on their forehead anyway.

Not because it makes sense, but because it makes as much sense as their point... should one ever be discovered in the truth recovery effort these piles of Internet crap usually require.

Originally posted by goose
...so could someone help me out on this one. TIA

This unfrozen caveman reasoning is all over the internet. Conservatives love it because they HATE CLINTON SO MUCH. Tell whomever sent it to you to start thinking for themselves...

Personally, I would point out that Bush isn't running against Clinton, but let's go blow by blow.

Here goes:

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Actually, neither one of these is good. What's different is that Halliburton has been allowed to overcharge American taxpayers for their contracts in Iraq on an unprecedented scale. They're even being sued for it. Did that happen in Yugoslavia? Did Al Gore work for Halliburton? Let's say "bad" and "worse."

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

87 billion??? Try 200 billion for STARTERS. Plus, we didn't spend billions to install a new government and rebuild the country in Serbia, we went over there because of an ethnic cleansing. Why did we go to Iraq? Read on...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

This speaks for itself. Was it the regime change that was bad, or the way they each went about doing it? Clinton actually admitted his mistakes in Serbia. George Bush calls Iraq a "catastrophic success." Clinton went in with the U.N. - Good. Bush went in without the U.N. like a stupid cowboy - Bad

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists- good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

That's rich. The Albanian "terrorists" were actually being slaughtered by the thousands in an ethnic cleansing. Milosevic was probably responsible for 10 time the number of folks Saddam killed in one tenth the time. Nobody called what was happening in Iraq a "genocide" before we went in and killed 10,000 civilians with our own bombs. The genocide in Iraq is courtesy of George W Bush. Just about everyone agrees we waited too long to go into Serbia. Ask Madeline Albright.

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

No, actually NATO bombed the Chinese embassy by mistake and apologized. How many terrorist camps did they find in Iraq that Bush "bombed?" Must have lost all that evidence during the Shock and Awe. Anyway, any terrorist camps that Bush bombed would have been a good thing, if he had. Clinton actually bombed a bunch of terrorist camps in Afghanistan and the republicans said he was "Wagging the Dog?" Remember "NO WAR FOR MONICA"?

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

Someone tell me where it says that Clinton lying about a BJ was a good thing. Is someone saying that was "good?" Regardless, his lying under oath (during a conservative smear campaign that didn't work) didn't get soldiers killed. Bush may never have lied under oath; that's why he wouldn't testify to the 9/11 commission under oath. Ask someone why THAT is.

No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...

Ignorance and lies. They are still finding mass graves in Serbia and suspect they will find more. Here's just one of many they have found:

www.alb-net.com...

Still no WMD. So this one is just an out and out LIE.

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...

[sarcasm=on]I remember democrats everywhere celebrating the Crash of 2000. Really. And everywhere you look today, the economy is on the upswing.[sarcasm=off] Why am I wasting my time responding to these?

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...

Another lie: Clinton never had the option to "take custody" of Osama. He tried everything he could to apprehend him, and the rebublicans did their wag the dog thing, and he failed. Bush actually had a much better shot at Tora Bora, but he failed to provide enough troops and allowed him to escape.

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

Clinton urged UN inspections and multilateral action against Saddam - Good
Bush kicked out UN inspectors and bombed the place to hell - Bad

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

See above.

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

CLINTON BOMBED TERRORIST CAMPS IN AFGHANISTAN WHILE HE WAS IN OFFICE! STOP LYING! (whoever wrote this) Sheesh...

www.cnn.com...

Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad...

Milosevic is still on trial. He'll be convicted by an international court of law. Just where will Saddam be tried? Actually, they won't try him yet because Iraq is not secure and Bush fears an uprising. Which one of these things is good?

When I see stuff like this, it just makes me shake my head at how willing folks are to believe things that are tacitly untrue. Silly ignorant cavemen.

Remember this:

Facts - Good
Lies - Bad

That's a good place to start with stuff like this.

...it's fun to see when these things make it on to ATS. I thought jrsdls, Flyerfan or Herman would have beaten you to it, though.
I was a tad distracted during Clinton's tenure too; what with the growing of the business 300% and all.
I think that's the key to good management - not in your face, but on your bottom line. The in your face alternative always owns an abysmal bottom line....as evidenced by our current president's performance.

I'd also like to point out the following:

MARITAL INFIDELITY IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW.

Furthermore, it's fairly common among politicians and among Presidents. This doesn't excuse it, but frankly some of the US Presidential antics while in office are fairly scandalous (Warren G. Harding had the Secret Service hold his wife at bay (she was screaming and throwing things) while he finished his tryst with his mistress in a closet.))

I'd also like to point out the following:

MARITAL INFIDELITY IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW.

Furthermore, it's fairly common among politicians and among Presidents. This doesn't excuse it, but frankly some of the US Presidential antics while in office are fairly scandalous (Warren G. Harding had the Secret Service hold his wife at bay (she was screaming and throwing things) while he finished his tryst with his mistress in a closet.))

Clinton went in with the U.N. - Good. Bush went in without the U.N. like a stupid cowboy - Bad

No, the UN never authorized action in Kosovo. That was a NATO operation actually in direct defiance of the UN.
NATO asserts right to act without U.N. approval

Just about everyone agrees we waited too long to go into Serbia. Ask Madeline Albright.

You're probably right there, the question is whose side should we have been on. Siding with the militant fanatic Islams and bombing the Christians from 35,000 feet probably wasn't the smartest thing to do.

Ignorance and lies. They are still finding mass graves in Serbia and suspect they will find more. Here's just one of many they have found:

www.alb-net.com...

Interesting that you post an article saying that not much has changed since the NATO intervention, and no justice has been served to those responsible for the mass graves. Bush actually wants thing to improve in Iraq, not just bomb a bunch of people till the current scandal blows over, pardon the pun, and then continue on as if nothing ever happened.

Another lie: Clinton never had the option to "take custody" of Osama. He tried everything he could to apprehend him,

Clinton never had the option to "take custody" of Osama. He tried everything he could to apprehend him,

Well, I guess people are just taking Clinton at his word when he said in February 2002 that he turned down Sudan's offer to turn Osama over to the US, because Osama had committed no crime against America. Are you saying Clinton was lieing in 2002?

Originally posted by vatar

Well, I guess people are just taking Clinton at his word when he said in February 2002 that he turned down Sudan's offer to turn Osama over to the US, because Osama had committed no crime against America. Are you saying Clinton was lieing in 2002?

You are completely cowed by conservative propaganda. Here's what Clinton actually said. Did you ever read it yourself? Or are you taking Rush Limbaugh at his word?

"On the accusation that he had opportunities to get Osama bin Laden, had opportunities to have him delivered by the Sudanese, he said, 'absolutely, flatly untrue,' describing it as 'bull,'" Rather tells the Washington Post on Thursday.

"He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

"They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

Do you really think that Clinton just let him go? Why would he do that? He said he regretted not getting him, but in actuality the Saudis never would have allowed it. Here's a great, non-partisan page for you to look at (you should all read it if you really think Clinton did something wrong here)

www.makethemaccountable.com...

Stop peddling your lies. Stick to the facts, not what you heard on Conservative talk radio. Sheesh. This is yet another useless thread...