Bush vs. Clinton

Lemme see, have I got this straight?
________________________________


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...

Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good...
Entire world says WMD in Iraq - bad...

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

Stock market crashes and recession starts in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Recession ends and economy takes off 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 in custody - bad...

Ah, it's so confusing!
Maybe the democrats are just better whiners and complainers?

Now thats not all intirely true.

Both presidents have been right and wrong about certain things, and some of the good/bad points you state aren't good/bad at all.

Bush supporter I take it...

Bush jumps to conclusions based on very poor evidence, and starts an invasion, commiting american soldiers lives to a cause based on unverified intelligence -- bad (Buck stops were? Oh yea Buck stops at George Tenant not the guy who gave orders to invade)

Clinton is an unemployed civilian now -- good. (Bill Clinton cannot be president again).

X

Originally posted by Xeven
Bush jumps to conclusions based on very poor evidence, and starts an invasion, commiting american soldiers lives to a cause based on unverified intelligence -- bad (Buck stops were? Oh yea Buck stops at George Tenant not the guy who gave orders to invade)

Clinton is an unemployed civilian now -- good. (Bill Clinton cannot be president again).

X

I don't understand why Bush supporters most common argument is some kind of comparision of Clinton to Bush. Aside from the fact that Clinton never started a universally condemned war which resulted in the deaths of 15,000 civilians and 1,000 US troops (more or less), the simple fact is: Clinton is not the president! Bush is!

Now.. is it more productive to exercize ones right to criticize a circuit lecturer, or the President of the United States?

Also, some of the juxtapositions are just nonsensical. I mean:

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

Who said bombing the Chinese embassy was a good thing? If I recall, Clinton and the CIA took a lot of flak for this. I don't remember anyone at all saying bombing the Chinese embassy was a good thing. (Except maybe a few of those foaming-at-the-mouth hawks eager to start a war with China.)

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

If I recall correctly they found several mass graves in Serbia.

Stock market crashes and recession starts in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Recession ends and economy takes off under Bush - bad...

Clinton presided over the most prosperous times in US economic history. The White House Bio of him even says as much. And I don't see the economy "taking off" under Bush.

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

I seem to recall Clinton making an attempt to take out some suspected terrorist facilites in the Sudan, and a bunch of republicans whining that he was only doing it to detract the media from his personal affairs.

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

Where are you getting these figures from? Seems a little high for Serbia. The IISS rates the costs of each war as follows:

Croatia: 1.4bil
Bosnia: 840mil
Albania: 19mil

And this is TOTAL cost, much of which was borne by NATO and the EU.

-koji K.




[edit on 31-7-2004 by koji_K]

[edit on 31-7-2004 by koji_K]

Originally posted by Xeven
Bush jumps to conclusions based on very poor evidence, and starts an invasion, commiting american soldiers lives to a cause based on unverified intelligence -- bad (Buck stops were? Oh yea Buck stops at George Tenant not the guy who gave orders to invade)

Clinton is an unemployed civilian now -- good. (Bill Clinton cannot be president again).

X

Bush, as well as Congress (including Kerry, BTW) comes to the conclusion that Hussein has chemical and biological weapons because of the fact that he has used them, has not cooperated with inspections - ever, and international intel says his party was cooperating with terrorists. Enough reason to attack. Where's the chemical/biological weapons? We don't know. That is bad, really bad.

I get what you are saying, but there are some mistakes:

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

Milosevic did commit genocide, not to mention all the people who died in Iraq, give me a break man.

And like someone else said, not all these things are considered good and bad.

This actually really pisses me off the way you are trying to portray things. Things are not black and white like you want to think they are. Not being a democrat, I don't understand how can you speak on behalf of all of them. There are many different opinions about everything.

I would have liked this thread a lot better if you left that good and bad crap out, including this little comment at the end:

Ah, it's so confusing!
Maybe the democrats are just better whiners and complainers?

Seems like you are doing a pretty good job at it, keep up, the, er, work.

How do you compare these two by the way:

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

Why don't you say Clinton committing felonies, Bush lying to the public.

Yea man, you are obviously biased, lol, thanks for the comparisons though, all I will remember is Clinton Good, Bush Bad. But seriously, do you understand that you are just trying to be the complete opposite of Democrats, neither one of the sides is completely right or wrong.

How about we quit with the partisan politics on the demos and repubs...

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne


Bush, as well as Congress (including Kerry, BTW) comes to the conclusion that Hussein has chemical and biological weapons because of the fact that he has used them, has not cooperated with inspections - ever, and international intel says his party was cooperating with terrorists. Enough reason to attack. Where's the chemical/biological weapons? We don't know. That is bad, really bad.

I don't think international intel said that.

"484. We conclude that the JIC made clear that, although there were contacts between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaida, there was no evidence of cooperation. It did warn of the possibility of terrorist attacks on coalition forces in Baghdad."

Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction (The Butler Report), Page 120. www.butlerreview.org.uk...

-koji K.

Originally posted by rwsdakota
Ah, it's so confusing!
Maybe the democrats are just better whiners and complainers?

Maybe Republicans are just better at 'cutting and pasting'? I mean jeez, why are people just copying everything they see from an e-mail or blog these days?
This is like the 300th time I've seen this, and it's still not funny.

Curme (by the way, have I ever told you how much I love your ava? ) - the sorry thing is, most people will take this kind of "information" at face value and not even try to research it and compare it with other sources.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Originally posted by Xeven
Bush jumps to conclusions based on very poor evidence, and starts an invasion, commiting american soldiers lives to a cause based on unverified intelligence -- bad (Buck stops were? Oh yea Buck stops at George Tenant not the guy who gave orders to invade)

Clinton is an unemployed civilian now -- good. (Bill Clinton cannot be president again).

X

Bush, as well as Congress (including Kerry, BTW) comes to the conclusion that Hussein has chemical and biological weapons because of the fact that he has used them, has not cooperated with inspections - ever, and international intel says his party was cooperating with terrorists. Enough reason to attack. Where's the chemical/biological weapons? We don't know. That is bad, really bad.

Thomas,

You are right my friend, there is plenty of blame to go around, and all of them should be voted out IMO.

George W. Bush was the only one though, that could give the command to invade. He is absolutely responcible. He had the moral and eithical responcibility to make sure that when he gives orders to our troops that puts their lives on the line that he does so in defence of our Nation and in this case he did not.

Iraq did not pose an imeditate threat to US, based on the justification, and information, HE had, before he gave the orders. Our country deserves better leadership than that. Its not like he lied about a new tax or something...

X



[edit on 31-7-2004 by Xeven]

Originally posted by koji_K

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne


Bush, as well as Congress (including Kerry, BTW) comes to the conclusion that Hussein has chemical and biological weapons because of the fact that he has used them, has not cooperated with inspections - ever, and international intel says his party was cooperating with terrorists. Enough reason to attack. Where's the chemical/biological weapons? We don't know. That is bad, really bad.

I don't think international intel said that.

"484. We conclude that the JIC made clear that, although there were contacts between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaida, there was no evidence of cooperation. It did warn of the possibility of terrorist attacks on coalition forces in Baghdad."

Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction (The Butler Report), Page 120. www.butlerreview.org.uk...

-koji K.

You're quoting selectively Koji K. The paragraph above reads:

"Intelligence nonetheless indicates that...meetings have taken place between senior Iraqi representatives and senior Al Qaida operatives. Some reports also suggest that Iraq may have trained some Al Qaida terrorists since 1998. Al Qaida has shown interest in gaining chemical and biological (CB) expertise from Iraq,but we do not know whether any such training was provided. We have no intelligence of current cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaida and do not believe that Al Qaida plans to conduct terrorist attacks under Iraqi direction." (italics added.)

So it seems that one can say that there was no "cooperation" between Saddam and Al Qaeda only if one does not consider training terrorists to be cooperation.

Curious...

Originally posted by gurnio

Originally posted by koji_K

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne


Bush, as well as Congress (including Kerry, BTW) comes to the conclusion that Hussein has chemical and biological weapons because of the fact that he has used them, has not cooperated with inspections - ever, and international intel says his party was cooperating with terrorists. Enough reason to attack. Where's the chemical/biological weapons? We don't know. That is bad, really bad.

I don't think international intel said that.

"484. We conclude that the JIC made clear that, although there were contacts between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaida, there was no evidence of cooperation. It did warn of the possibility of terrorist attacks on coalition forces in Baghdad."

Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction (The Butler Report), Page 120. www.butlerreview.org.uk...

-koji K.

You're quoting selectively Koji K. The paragraph above reads:

"Intelligence nonetheless indicates that...meetings have taken place between senior Iraqi representatives and senior Al Qaida operatives. Some reports also suggest that Iraq may have trained some Al Qaida terrorists since 1998. Al Qaida has shown interest in gaining chemical and biological (CB) expertise from Iraq,but we do not know whether any such training was provided. We have no intelligence of current cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaida and do not believe that Al Qaida plans to conduct terrorist attacks under Iraqi direction." (italics added.)

So it seems that one can say that there was no "cooperation" between Saddam and Al Qaeda only if one does not consider training terrorists to be cooperation.

Curious...

No, the paragraph I cited does not read so. The paragraph you are citing is 482 of the Butler Report, and is a quote contained within the report, not a finding or conclusion of the report itself. You are citing from the very intelligence sources the report is criticizing. The paragraph I posted was paragraph 484, the conclusory paragraph, as it contained the bold text reserved for conclusions in the Butler Report. I posted the conclusions of the Butler Report as regards Iraqi cooperation with Al-Qaeda in full.

You have decided to omit the fact that your cite was neither the same paragraph I cited, nor actually a finding of the Report, and you accuse me of citing out of context?


-koji K.





[edit on 1-8-2004 by koji_K]

[edit on 1-8-2004 by koji_K]

[edit on 1-8-2004 by koji_K]

Uh, yes, a foreign intel did give clear word that the Baath party was counseling the enemy before the attack. There's the problem with recent history; you cannot rewrite it while those of us who remember it are still alive.

Clear evidence was thee, Congress voted for action, the president led us into action, the threat from Hussein is gone - simple. The question is, once again, where did the chemical/biological weapons go, and when are they going to surface in some Western city? There is no doubt to any of this, except in the minds who simply hate Bush. To the rest of us, the historical facts are clear. I am not a blind Bushie, nor am I a dumbed-down Domocrat, I simply follow the facts.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Uh, yes, a foreign intel did give clear word that the Baath party was counseling the enemy before the attack. There's the problem with recent history; you cannot rewrite it while those of us who remember it are still alive.

Clear evidence was thee, Congress voted for action, the president led us into action, the threat from Hussein is gone - simple. The question is, once again, where did the chemical/biological weapons go, and when are they going to surface in some Western city? There is no doubt to any of this, except in the minds who simply hate Bush. To the rest of us, the historical facts are clear. I am not a blind Bushie, nor am I a dumbed-down Domocrat, I simply follow the facts.

Your point about WMD's not being found is well-taken. I think Saddam did have WMD's and am surprised and worried that they haven't been found yet. (One reason I was against the war was because it was clear that Saddam would have to dump his weapons fast into the hands of anyone willing to take them from him if he thought an invasion was imminent.)

But, I seem to recall quite a lot in the press lately, as well as reports from both the US and the UK governments, saying that the intel they recieved was faulty at best. Unless you get your intel first hand, I don't see how remembrance of what you've seen or read in the news is any guarantee that what you heard was accurate.

EDIT: someone on ATS just started a thread on this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Still, this debate isn't anything new, and I agree with you inasmuch as it is nessecary to find the weapons, and fast.

-koji K.

[edit on 1-8-2004 by koji_K]

It would be very nice rwsdakota if you would post a link to material written by other people.

Google Search

Now I'm not sure which of the many sites that have this, you got it from...but citing the source would be a good thing, rather than implying that you wrote it yourself.

Citing a source for written material - good
Taking credit for other peoples work - bad


[edit on 1-8-2004 by ZeddicusZulZorander]

Let's compare then shall we?

Kerry has stated many times that he was firmly behind every action made during the Clinton years, 8 years of prosperity, peace and respect for America by our allies and enemies alike.

During those 8 years the deficit was almost completely eliminated, the American economy was the best it has been in over 30 years.
For most average Americans their annual income increased by an average of 6% per year, 2.5 million jobs were created in 8 years of the Clinton administration.

In contrast, shrubs whitehouse has, in just 3.5 years, created the largest deficit spending EVER in American history, supassing the previous record holders, Reagan/Bush1 which took 12 years to create. shrub has nearly tripled uncle Ronnie and daddys mess in one-fourth of the time!!! Americans have watched as their jobs and careers were shipped to foriegn shores, while their companies recieved nice fat tax breaks from shrub, just for screwing nearly 6 million American workers!! Most middle class Americans, still lucky enough to have a job, have had their wages stagnated by wage freezes and wage cuts (I myself, still one of the lucky ones to remain employed, have not recieved a wage increase for all 4 years of the shrub regime).

The military was upgraded, modernized and equipped with the best technology available. If anyone refutes that just look at how the US forces knived through the Iraqi war machine looking for the non-existant WMD's.
YES, that was Clintons military that shrub directed or misdirected at Iraq, rather than staying on focus in Afghanistan looking for the real terrorist.

Under shrub the armed forces have been stretched beyond its capacity, been forced into multiple war-front fighting and have been sent into harms way ill equipped, unsupplied and under-fed!!! Over 1000 American Soldiers & Marines have been killed for the corporate whores who pilfer the Iraqi oil fields and the American treasury, sucking the tax payers dollars away that should be spent to protect our armed forces, not to pay the haliburtons and bechtal corporate scumbags who are raping the American treasury for over $200 billion so far!!

On terror, the Clinton whitehouse stopped no less that 5 terrorist attacks, including the newyears millinium plot and tunnel attackers. So far shrub and his crooks have ignored the urgings of the Clinton folks during the transition in 2000 and the American people paid for that with the lives of over 3000 people on 9-11 and with the lives of over a thousand military men and women in Iraq & Afghanistan!!!

Oil for blood, peace for war, American tax dollars for corporate profiteers?

Have you had enough of this sharade?

If you are not outraged you are obviously not paying attention or you are a billionaire friend of shrubs who has profitted from this farce you call a presidency!!!

America deserves better!!!

Help is on the way!!

Take back America from the crooks who are fleecing America!!

VOTE FOR YOUR OWN BEST INTEREST, NOT THE CORPORATE WHORES WHO BACK SHRUB AND THE BUSHCRIMEFAMILY!!!

Kerry - Edwards in November!!!