Clinton More Trustworthy Than Bush?

[Stephanie]

Clinton was impeached in 1998 over(lying) testimony he gave in a deposition about an extramarital sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinksy.

Funny how they left off that word in the article

 

[Bonnie]

Jillian..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?

Well to answer that I would have to remove myself from all that scary imagery... However If I were in a situation in which a friend asked me if I was cheating on my husband I would say no because I would not be cheating, it wouldn't matter if he was within hearing distance or not. Anyone's sexual conduct behind closed doors is indeed no one's business, however he wasn't behaving in a very discreet manner by doing what he did in the Oval office, and being distracted by his exploits while our boys were getting dragged through the streets by armed terrorists/thugs. Additionally he lied under oath which makes it very much the publics' business as it then becomes a crime. In my opinion and many others, when you show a lack of integrity in one area of your life you have very little elsewhere. Clinton would have made millions as a snake oil salesman. The fact that France, and other countries dont' agree with what Bush is doing to protect our country doesn't make Bush immoral especially coming from cowardly countries like France And Germany who will undoubtedly be the first ones crying to us when they get hit hard by terrorism. We can go back and forth with whether the people in Iraq are better off, to me it seems very obvious for the most part they are. Clinton was and is popular with much of the liberal world because he did nothing to ruffle feathers and partly as a result 9/11 happened. Clinton is well liked, he had and has no guts, that doesn't make him moral and Bush immoral.

 

[jillian]

Again. I see where you're coming from. I just don't see it the same way. I don't see 9/11 as being a character issue. Nor do I think Bush taking action which I see as wrongminded is better than taking a different type of action. I think no one really expected anything like 9/11, though I do seem to recall shouts of "no war for monica" and "wag the dog" every time Clinton attempted to take any military action.

I would also suggest that Clinton is no more responsible for 9/11 than Bush I is for the first WTC bombing. I also don't think one fights terrorism with traditional warfare because terrorism is a tactic, not a nation. Now...how that manifests, I believe, one deals with through greater internal security and better intelligence. The FBI had all the info it needed on the 9/11 hijackers...including where they were staying. Had Bush asked about it after he received the PDB of August, 2001, they'd have told him what was out there. Now, that said, I don't think Bush or anyone else anticipated something on the magnitude of 9/11 or would have intentionally allowed it to happen.

BTW, I'm not so much concerned about what France thinks. And I think the U.N. is pretty messed up. But if we're going to fight a global war on terror (and let's face it, it has insinuated itself all over the world), I think it behooves us to have good relations with the world to the extent possible.

 

[dilloduck]

Again. I see where you're coming from. I just don't see it the same way. I don't see 9/11 as being a character issue. Nor do I think Bush taking action which I see as wrongminded is better than taking a different type of action. I think no one really expected anything like 9/11, though I do seem to recall shouts of "no war for monica" and "wag the dog" every time Clinton attempted to take any military action.

I would also suggest that Clinton is no more responsible for 9/11 than Bush I is for the first WTC bombing. I also don't think one fights terrorism with traditional warfare because terrorism is a tactic, not a nation. Now...how that manifests, I believe, one deals with through greater internal security and better intelligence. The FBI had all the info it needed on the 9/11 hijackers...including where they were staying. Had Bush asked about it after he received the PDB of August, 2001, they'd have told him what was out there. Now, that said, I don't think Bush or anyone else anticipated something on the magnitude of 9/11 or would have intentionally allowed it to happen.

BTW, I'm not so much concerned about what France thinks. And I think the U.N. is pretty messed up. But if we're going to fight a global war on terror (and let's face it, it has insinuated itself all over the world), I think it behooves us to have good relations with the world to the extent possible.

I think that's pretty much what is being attempted but goodwill only goes so far. Bush decided to confront islamo-terrorists militarily but he tries to convince everyone (including himself) that Islam isn't responsible for creating this hatred.

 

[jillian]

I think that's pretty much what is being attempted but goodwill only goes so far. Bush decided to confront islamo-terrorists militarily but he tries to convince everyone (including himself) that Islam isn't responsible for creating this hatred.

But he didn't confront the people who attacked us once he pulled us out of Afghanistan and pulled us into Iraq.

And I really hate discussing this. Last time I commented on this subject I got neg-repped for my opinion.

 

[dilloduck]

But he didn't confront the people who attacked us once he pulled us out of Afghanistan and pulled us into Iraq.

And I really hate discussing this. Last time I commented on this subject I got neg-repped for my opinion.

I know--life sucks for a lib on this board rep wise--pay no attention to the green crap. ( you KNOW you got caught up in it !!!! human nature is SOOOOO wanting power and pats on the back) :

 

[jillian]

I know--life sucks for a lib on this board rep wise--pay no attention to the green crap. ( you KNOW you got caught up in it !!!! human nature is SOOOOO wanting power and pats on the back) :

But I like my green lines


not pandering or anything...heh!

 

[dilloduck]

But I like my green lines


not pandering or anything...heh!

are too are too

 

[jillian]

are too are too

lol...spot ya later. :cof:

 

[Bonnie]

Jillian..BTW, I'm not so much concerned about what France thinks. And I think the U.N. is pretty messed up. But if we're going to fight a global war on terror (and let's face it, it has insinuated itself all over the world), I think it behooves us to have good relations with the world to the extent possible.

Agreed, but let's remember France et al have their own self interests as do we, getting along is nice but we can never risk catowing to other countries at our own peril, they sure as hell do what they think is in their best interests, why shouldn't we? France and other countries seem to have a "put your head up your ass and all will be well" policy when it comes to dealing with terrorists, not a great idea right now.

 

[jillian]

Agreed, but let's remember France et al have their own self interests as do we, getting along is nice but we can never risk catowing to other countries at our own peril, they sure as hell do what they think is in their best interests, why shouldn't we? France and other countries seem to have a "put your head up your ass and all will be well" policy when it comes to dealing with terrorists, not a great idea right now.

I agree that we have to do what's in our best interests. I just think our best interests lie in cooperation TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. But yeah...France has pretty much been useless on this issue. But there are more countries out there than France.

 

[Annie]

I agree that we have to do what's in our best interests. I just think our best interests lie in cooperation TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. But yeah...France has pretty much been useless on this issue. But there are more countries out there than France.

Which do you have in mind?

 

[KarlMarx]

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)...

Clinton treated the war on terror as a criminal case when he should have treated it as a military action. Bombing the WTC, attacking American embassies and naval vessels are each an act of war.

I disagree with your statement, that, had Bush been president at the time instead of Clinton the outcome would have been the same. Bush did quite a bit to shut down Al Qaeda. For one, he not only attacked them, but went after their money supply. Without money, a terrorist organization shrivels up and dies. Secondly, the Bush Administration has captured and detained many suspected terrorists, including some of the master minds of Al Qaeda. In addition, the Patriot Act, has helped in the War on Terror. The reason being that the police and intelligence agencies can now share information.

 

[Dr Grump]

I disagree with your statement, that, had Bush been president at the time instead of Clinton the outcome would have been the same. Bush did quite a bit to shut down Al Qaeda. For one, he not only attacked them, but went after their money supply. Without money, a terrorist organization shrivels up and dies. Secondly, the Bush Administration has captured and detained many suspected terrorists, including some of the master minds of Al Qaeda. In addition, the Patriot Act, has helped in the War on Terror. The reason being that the police and intelligence agencies can now share information.

yeah, but that was all post-9-11...are you saying Clinton wouldn't have done similar? Or any president for that matter....

 

[Annie]

yeah, but that was all post-9-11...are you saying Clinton wouldn't have done similar? Or any president for that matter....

If Clinton had acted in a similar fashion to WTC I, Kolbi Towers, USS Cole, etc., the later ones may not have happened, not to mention 9/11.

 

[Diuretic]

I know I'm going to regre this - but what's the point of exchanging hypotheticals?

 

[KarlMarx]

yeah, but that was all post-9-11...are you saying Clinton wouldn't have done similar?

He certainly would not have. To back this up, just look at the reaction the Democrats had to The Patriot Act, the detainees at Gitmo and the furors over treating enemy combatants as citizens with a right to trial. Not to mention the "quagmire" predictions about Afghanistan and the incessant "Bush lied People Died" drumbeat of the liberals.

 

[jillian]

He certainly would not have. To back this up, just look at the reaction the Democrats had to The Patriot Act, the detainees at Gitmo and the furors over treating enemy combatants as citizens with a right to trial. Not to mention the "quagmire" predictions about Afghanistan and the incessant "Bush lied People Died" drumbeat of the liberals.

Libertarians have had the same response to the Patriot Act. Most of the powers contained in it were already within the scope of government power and an awful lot of us don't believe in handing over that kind of police power to the government.

As for Gitmo, the problem is and has always been that there is no evidence or information on these people. Anyone can come to your house, say you're an enemy combatant, put you in Gitmo, deny you contact with an attorney or your family and keep you without charges. If they have evidence against these people, charges should be brought. If not, they should be freed. It's not a function of being a "democrat". It's that this type of power can be horribly abused. Even if it's well-intentioned now, what's to keep that from changing in someone else's hands. Government is not always well-intentioned or honest.

No one ever said Afghanistan was going to be a quagmire....at least I for sure didn't. I was right there with Bush on that one. It was the switch over to Iraq that was and is the quagmire.

 

[KarlMarx]

Libertarians have had the same response to the Patriot Act. Most of the powers contained in it were already within the scope of government power and an awful lot of us don't believe in handing over that kind of police power to the government.

The Patriot Act did not create powers that the government did not have before Clinton's executive order prohibiting any communication between law enforcement and Intelligence.

As for Gitmo, the problem is and has always been that there is no evidence or information on these people. Anyone can come to your house, say you're an enemy combatant, put you in Gitmo, deny you contact with an attorney or your family and keep you without charges. If they have evidence against these people, charges should be brought. If not, they should be freed. It's not a function of being a "democrat". It's that this type of power can be horribly abused. Even if it's well-intentioned now, what's to keep that from changing in someone else's hands. Government is not always well-intentioned or honest.

No, the government cannot come into my house, declare me an enemy combatant and detain me without charges.... have you ever heard of "a writ of habeus corpus"?

Prisoners of War, who have taken arms against our military in a foreign land, however, are enemy combatants. They aren't entitled to a trial by jury. Prisoners of War are not entitled to attorneys, because they aren't being held on criminal charges. They're members of an army belonging to a hostile foreign power.

No one ever said Afghanistan was going to be a quagmire....at least I for sure didn't. I was right there with Bush on that one. It was the switch over to Iraq that was and is the quagmire.

I didn't say you did, but Ted Kennedy, the NYT, and most Democrats were calling it a quagmire and predicting tens of thousands of body bags before the first soldier landed in Afghanistan.

 

[Mariner]

published in the NY Times a few days ago, gives George Bush the third lowest approval rating of any president in the past 50 years (only Carter and Nixon scored lower).

Remember two years ago, when I was saying we'll look back on Bush as the worst president in modern history, and everyone laughed at me?

Mariner.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/w...4000&en=96f3cf1ade4c373d&ei=5087&nl=ep&emc=ep