Clinton More Trustworthy Than Bush?

[jillian]

i dont care what 3,000 liberals allow thier daughters to do....my daughter will not be interning for mr clinton

Clinton had 3,000 interns? lol...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'm pretty sure your info isn't real reliable or is completely distorted.

Pretty Sure?

Which fact do you dispute?

 

[dilloduck]

Clinton had 3,000 interns? lol...

In his dreams-- :funnyface

 

[Annie]

Everything has a slant. But some things are more reliable than others. When sites like newsmax and the washtimes lie, exaggerate or misstate repeatedly, they aren't worth looking at, IMO.

I agree regarding discrimination and choosing what you think is realistic. But I'm kind of curious as to where you think Media Matters ever lied. BTW, I know you said it's backed by Soros, but I'm not certain that's correct, nor do I think that necessarily hurts it's credibility. What hurts something's credibility is when you can point to lies. For example, I know that Rush has lied because I hear him describe things said by people and then hear the statements made by the people whose statements he's mischaracterized. And he's rarely truthful. Annie Coulter, too... many of her statements are proven lies or out and out unsubstantiated garbage. Makes it kind of easy to figure out who/what to ignore.

Slant and agendas are different, for that reason alone one should always look at funding. Soros while very rich, has said enough to know that his agenda means much more to him than money, and he IS tied to Media Matters and other publications/organisations. The same could not be said of NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ, Tribune Enterprises, which is why they could change if their owners decide that the editorial staff are not excercising discernment in their interests.

Blogs on the other hand, regardless of 'owners' slants, are much easier to peg and less likely to change. Even group blogs are limited in number of members and their costs are next to nothing, so one takes them for what they are, though it's a good idea to have awareness of what they are.

I'll use three sites I read pretty often, meaning more than once a day-"Instapundit". The owner/blogger is basically liberal on social issues, conservative on fiscal/security issues, had been strongly libertarian before the war. The premier function of the site is to link to other bloggers that present things he agrees, disagrees, or is interested in.

"Little Green Footballs" also a basically Libertarian type conservative, with a special focus on Israel/Palestinian affairs. Strongly biased for Israel. Also a great site for distance biking and repairs.

"Daily Kos" extreme left on all issues. Was 'glad' to see the burnt and battered American corpses hanging from the bridge in Iraq. While he is 'not the DNC' he represents a significant number of the DNC membership, especially those that vote. His comment section is more interesting than what is posted.

 

[jillian]

Slant and agendas are different, for that reason alone one should always look at funding. Soros while very rich, has said enough to know that his agenda means much more to him than money, and he IS tied to Media Matters and other publications/organisations. The same could not be said of NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ, Tribune Enterprises, which is why they could change if their owners decide that the editorial staff are not excercising discernment in their interests.

Like I said, I've never seen any proof that Soros is affiliated with Media Matters. If you have any credible evidence of it, would be interesting to see. And note, I said credible.

BTW, IMO, WaTimes and newsmax and the like are no more than the admin's propaganda arms. So there ya go. As for the NYTimes, if they didn't at least try, Judy Miller wouldn't have gotten to spread her distortions around prior to entry into Iraq.

Blogs on the other hand, regardless of 'owners' slants, are much easier to peg and less likely to change. Even group blogs are limited in number of members and their costs are next to nothing, so one takes them for what they are, though it's a good idea to have awareness of what they are.

I'll use three sites I read pretty often, meaning more than once a day-"Instapundit". The owner/blogger is basically liberal on social issues, conservative on fiscal/security issues, had been strongly libertarian before the war. The premier function of the site is to link to other bloggers that present things he agrees, disagrees, or is interested in.

"Little Green Footballs" also a basically Libertarian type conservative, with a special focus on Israel/Palestinian affairs. Strongly biased for Israel. Also a great site for distance biking and repairs.

"Daily Kos" extreme left on all issues. Was 'glad' to see the burnt and battered American corpses hanging from the bridge in Iraq. While he is 'not the DNC' he represents a significant number of the DNC membership, especially those that vote. His comment section is more interesting than what is posted.

I'm not familiar with Instapundit. But Little Green Footballs was absolutely extreme rightwing. Guess it depends on which side of center we're reading from.

Daily Kos...I don't know about "extreme left" because extreme left would be socialist/communist. But it's certainly got a liberal bent. But as you said, I can pick the things I believe and the things I don't. Same with commentators I listen to on TV or radio.

 

[KarlMarx]

Funny. When the illegal things Bush does are raised, and Cheney, and Rove and Libby and everyone else associated with this admin, all I see written is how there's no "proof". AND THAT'S WITHOUT ANY INVESTIGATION WHATSOEVER because no one in this Republican Congress is doing their oversight job. Who's going to investigate things if no one will even give the Dems a hearing room to ask the questions. Even people like Arlen Spector, who try to do the right thing, are threatened with the loss of their committee chairmanships if they make noise. Tom DE-LAY changed the configuration of the ehics committee after he was censured because he didn't like the fact that the Republicans on the Commiittee didn't like what he was doing.

Tom DeLay resigned, not censured, unless of course you listen to Sen Russ Feingold, who WANTED to have Tom DeLay censured.

What did Tom DeLay do exactly? There is no evidence that he was directly involved in, nor was even aware of any wrong doing by his staff.

So let's talk about truth.... Clinton had the Republicans up his butt for six years and Starr mentioned Whitewater once in his report and the blue dress about 1,000 times.

The double standard is astounding.

Yes, Clinton did have the Republicans up his butt.... of course, the Democrats have been playing proctologist with GWB for the past 6 years also. Let's see, there was the 9/11 commission, which found no wrongdoing on Bush's part, but that doesn't stop anyone from saying he knew about it. Then there's the insistence that Bush lied about WMDs although a Congressional investigation found no such evidence. There are the calls for his impeachment (for what?). Bush has Cindy Sheehan and half of the anti-war crowd camped outside his ranch. Bush's judicial nominees have been filibustered almost to the point of shutting down the judiciary. Of course there was the investigation as to whether Bush leaked the name of Valerie Plame (again no evidence).... Then there was the charges that Bush used cocaine and was arrested for DWI (again, no evidence). Bush was then accused of being AWOL during his stint in the National Guard by none other than Dan "The Man" Rather and all of CBS. After it was found that the documents were blantant forgeries (the font used in the documents wasn't available until the creation of Microsoft Word more than 15 years after Bush left the National Guard), there were cries of foul. Of course, Bush could have sued CBS for defamation of character, had CBS executives arrested for being accessories to a forgery.

Then when the target isn't Bush, it's Cheney or Rove... Cheney has a hunting accident and there are cries for his head and a big investigation... Kennedy's son gets stopped for DWI and it's swept under the rug. How about Sandy "Burgler" Berger, National Security Advisor under Clinton, who was caught smuggling CLASSIFIED documents out of the National Archives in his socks! I know for a fact that the penalties for the theft of classified documents result in major fines in the 10's or 100's of thousands of dollars and long prison sentences. And what does he get? What amounts to a slap on the wrist. His security clearance was revoked and he got probation.

Talk about a double standard!

And, frankly, I don't care who the President sleeps with. Clinton just should have said "its none of your damned business" when the questions were asked.

Not when you're being sued for sexual harrassment! Then your sexual history IS relevant. This according to the law passed by none other than Clinton himself.

And they GOT NOTHING!! And the Republicans got rid of the Special Prosecutor law as soon as they took power. Gee...wonder why that was. Could it be because they got to see first hand how it could be misused?

And it resulted in the impeachment of Clinton!!!!!! Clinton was the first president to be impeached in over 125 years! Gee... I wonder why that was? Could it be that he committed perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice? No, it must have been that vast Right Wing Conspiracy that Hillary told us about. Could it be that Congress blinked when it fell short of convicting Clinton by just a few votes? Yes, that's it.

No, they didn't get rid of the office of the special prosecutor the first thing they came into power. The office of the special prosecutor was established in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. It had to be renewed every 10 years or so. The Bush administration was investigated by the office of the special prosecutor --- remember the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame affair? That was investigated by a special prosecutor.

Rove indicted? This week? I have a feeling that won't happen.

 

[CSM]

Nice try but from your article:

"When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers -- 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush -- falling within the poll's margin of error."

Big difference between performance and trustworthiness. Obviously some don't know the difference or think we don't.

 

[Huckleburry]

I think I would go with competence over trutworthiness. Of course Bush is neither.

 

[KarlMarx]

I think I would go with competence over trutworthiness. Of course Bush is neither.

Yes, Bush is so incompetant that....

1. We haven't had a terrorist attack in this country or against any American targets overseas since 9/11/2001. During Clinton's watch, we had Waco, the first WTC bombing, Khobar towers were attacked, the USS Cole was attacked, the American embassies in Kenya and Tansania were attacked.. Yep, Clinton handled the terrorist situation with finesse!

2. When Bush was handed the reins of power, we were headed into a recession. We are now close to full employment and the DJIA is at the same level as it was during the Clinton Administration. While I'll be the first to criticize Bush for not reining in government spending and pressing for bigger tax cuts, I have to give him credit for not botching up the economy (which we all know government can do).

3. During the Bush administration we've had few scandals. During the Clinton administration we were treated to the scandal-du-jour for 8 years. Clinton lied, a lot and did so shamelessly.

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

http://prorev.com/legacy.htm

4. Hey.. what about that North Korea deal? Huh? That Clinton Administration really handled that situation well. That is, if you think that allowing the North Koreans to lie about their nuclear programs in exchange for nuclear technology is a good thing. And that missile deal with China for that million dollar campaign donation from Bernard Schwarz of Loral. Why, thanks to Clinton and Shwarz our west coast cities can now be flattened by Chinese nukes. This of course, is now left up to the Bush Administration to clean up and sort out.

5. Remember socialized health care? Bill Clinton thought that was a great idea. If Clinton had his way, we'd now be a first world country with a third world health system. We'd all be standing in line for health care and paying trillions of dollars for the privilege. Not that I'm a fan of the Medicare "reforms" that will transfer the cost of prescription drugs for seniors directly to the taxpayer. But it is no comparison to the Clinton health care plan.

 

[CSM]

I think I would go with competence over trutworthiness. Of course Bush is neither.

I suppose there are some who admire a well run dictatorship. Personally, I prefer the less efficient democracy.

 

[Huckleburry]

CSM,
The term is oligarchy, you mistakenly used democracy.

KarlMarx,

How about the time when Donald Rumsfield told members of the senate that He knew where Sadam's WMD's were and then Bush started a war but never found anything.

Or that time when a high level offical leaked the name of a CIA opperative to the press because the administration did not like her husband.

Or how about the time when the president's personal friend's (and campaign contributors) were responsible for the two largest corporate meltdowns in the history of the world.

Or the time when the Vice President's former company was found goujing the government on contracts it had been awarded, without having to bid for them.

Or maybe the time when the president's personal friend failed to respond to the biggest national catastrophy in US history.

Or maybe the time when the president's chief political advisor was investigated for fraud.

While I am unsure if infidelity counts as a high crime or misdemenor, I am quite sure that misleading the American people to pursue an insane glory quest is.

 

[Dr Grump]

Yes, Bush is so incompetant that....

1. We haven't had a terrorist attack in this country or against any American targets overseas since 9/11/2001. During Clinton's watch, we had Waco, the first WTC bombing, Khobar towers were attacked, the USS Cole was attacked, the American embassies in Kenya and Tansania were attacked.. Yep, Clinton handled the terrorist situation with finesse

You can't attribute those things to Clinton's watch and try and gloss over 9-11. If you want to blame Clinton for the above (especially the first WTC bombing that happened within the first 60 days of his presidency), then Bush can take the 9-11 catastrophe (a full 8 months after the start of his presidency).. personally, I blame the bombers, not the presidents...

 

[Annie]

You can't attribute those things to Clinton's watch and try and gloss over 9-11. If you want to blame Clinton for the above (especially the first WTC bombing that happened within the first 60 days of his presidency), then Bush can take the 9-11 catastrophe (a full 8 months after the start of his presidency).. personally, I blame the bombers, not the presidents...

I don't blame Clinton for WTC I, but I do for his continued actions to treat terrorists as a 'criminal problem' rather than a serious threat to the country.

I blame him for creating the wall that prevented the intelligent services from effectively working with each other, as well as local police agencies.

 

[KarlMarx]

You can't attribute those things to Clinton's watch and try and gloss over 9-11. If you want to blame Clinton for the above (especially the first WTC bombing that happened within the first 60 days of his presidency), then Bush can take the 9-11 catastrophe (a full 8 months after the start of his presidency).. personally, I blame the bombers, not the presidents...

I have to admit that you make a good point. The first WTC bombing was only a few weeks after Clinton's innauguration. However, I have to agree with Kathianne that Clinton was negligent when he didn't pursue the terrorists more aggressively.

 

[KarlMarx]

How about the time when Donald Rumsfield told members of the senate that He knew where Sadam's WMD's were and then Bush started a war but never found anything.

How about the fact that Rumsfeld relied on intelligence provided by the CIA and other countries' intelligence agencies? That is where he got his information from. That isn't lying, that's using the resources that you have at hand. What if Bush had done nothing and there were WMDs? Then you and your buddies would be bitching and moaning that Bush should have done more.

Or that time when a high level offical leaked the name of a CIA opperative to the press because the administration did not like her husband.

That is not a true statement. Valerie Plame was not an operative at the time, she was assigned to a desk job. Except for the one official that you mention, no other indictments have been made.

Or how about the time when the president's personal friend's (and campaign contributors) were responsible for the two largest corporate meltdowns in the history of the world.

Enron and WorldCom did their dirty deeds during the Clinton Administration. The Bush Administration prosecuted Ken Lay and other high officials (and continues to this day). In fact, the Bush Administration over-reacted, IMO, by passing the Sarbanes-Oxley bill which requires all corporations to comb through their finances with a fine tooth comb. The problem is that meeting the requirements of SOX (as we in the industry call it) requires each company hire a small army of people to ensure their corporations are meeting the letter of the law.

Or the time when the Vice President's former company was found goujing the government on contracts it had been awarded, without having to bid for them.

No bid contracts have been around for quite some time. This is a cost savings measure. Rather than open hundreds and thousands of small jobs to bid, the DoD periodically awards a contract to a company for a period of years (this process, however, IS open to bid) for those small jobs. This has been going on for decades. In fact, the Clinton Administration awarded Haliburton no bid contracts for logistical support during the Kosovo operation.

Or maybe the time when the president's personal friend failed to respond to the biggest national catastrophy in US history.

Who?

Or maybe the time when the president's chief political advisor was investigated for fraud.

You mean Karl Rove? Yes, that's what most of us call "political maneuvering"... if you can't beat your opponent politically, find something to nail him on in court. Even if he's found innocent, you've tarnished his reputation.

While I am unsure if infidelity counts as a high crime or misdemenor, I am quite sure that misleading the American people to pursue an insane glory quest is.

Of course, the facts that Saddam Hussein: broke every term of the 1991 cease fire; defied the UN repeatedly; kicked UN arms inspectors out of Iraq for a period of 5 years; bought and sought out materials that could be used for WMDs in direct violation of the terms and conditions of the 1991 cease fire agreement; fired missiles at military aircraft flying over his country; pocketed billions of dollars intended to feed the Iraqis under the UN Oil for Food program and used the billions more to bribe UN officials, reporters, officials of other governments; massacred a million innocent people; used nerve gas on his own people; jailed, tortured and raped innocent men, women and children; was suspected of manufacturing WMDs not only by our CIA but by every major intelligence agency in the world had NOTHING to do his decision to invade Iraq.

So, why did we bother getting into such a hornet's nest? Why did he risk political suicide and low poll numbers just to get himself off?

 

[Dr Grump]

I have to admit that you make a good point. The first WTC bombing was only a few weeks after Clinton's innauguration. However, I have to agree with Kathianne that Clinton was negligent when he didn't pursue the terrorists more aggressively.

You and Kathianne make a valid point. What I would like to know is though, exactly how Clinton affected those outcomes. Would the Cole not have been bombed due his actions in Washington...ditto the embassies and even 9-11 with regard to Bush. I think the intelligence on these guys was very little to say the least. I don't think either president could have done much due to these organizations being porous (for want of a better word)...

 

[Bonnie]

Depends on what you think is moral. I'm sure Bush's morals as regards his wife are just fine. It's his morality as regards the rest of the world that I think is a problem.

Clinton and he had it reversed...Clinton's morality as regards his wife was horrible... but as regards the rest of the world???

You really need to ask yourself though Jillian, if Clinton could lie like that to his wife and daughter, the two people closest to him in the world, how can he be a moral person in the rest of his dealings????

Selective morality? I don't think so.

 

[jillian]

You really need to ask yourself though Jillian, if Clinton could lie like that to his wife and daughter, the two people closest to him in the world, how can he be a moral person in the rest of his dealings????

Selective morality? I don't think so.

Oh...I see your point. And I understand why you feel that way. I guess I just don't see Clinton as having done anything particularly different from Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy or Bush I. I think that's between them and their wives and wasn't anyone's business. That said, had I been his advisor, I'd have told him to say it wasn't anyone's business rather than wag his finger at us.

The one thing I'll ask you, though. If you were married to Hillary, and someone asked if you were cheating ... and she could hear the answer, wouldn't you have lied about it, too?

 

[Stephanie]

This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions expressed
therein.
:rotflmao:

 

[jillian]

This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions expressed
therein.
:rotflmao:

Uh uh...not so fast, Kimosabe. That only applies to the poll at the top of the page which was a daily thing on aol. The article following was a real poll.