Who was worse - The Clinton or Bush Administration - and why?

Remove all ads!

If this is true, and can be verified, then GWB should be turned out of office and locked-up in prison, where he may belong:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26030573/

But don't look for the spineless Democrats to do anything about it, unless they can smell a political gain out of the deal. But I'm sure they will make their accusations and complain (something they are good at) about how GWB "misled" everyone, but they will never bother with a full-scale investigation that would inform us either way. Why run the risk of sacrificing "good politics" for the truth?

 

My best friend's more or less a libertarian. His view is that the primary failing of conservatives/Republicans in 2004 was an unwillingness to recognize that losing the Presidency was not the worst thing that could happen to the GOP.

 

Regarding CtR's comment - I agree completely. Now everyone is coming out and saying "We never said that!" and "we don't know where Suskind got his information, but it wasn't from me!" and similar protestations. There's only one problem with using that as the basis of your arguement - Suskind taped all his meetings...

 

Chandos:

This either indicates a gross lack of understanding of American history, or some pretty thick dem glasses. Even if you think Bush is a terrible, aweful president who has put the US in a weak position, he's not even close to the worst we've ever had.

*raises hand*
If people would actually listen to this stuff, it'd be a dream come true. Additionally, look into the idea of a 10th Amendment Committee and a return of personal responsability.

 

Really? I can only name two that I would rank lower: Buchanan (Dem) and Harding (Rep). Bush is slightly worse than Nixon and Grant, although those last two would round out my list of 5 worst ever. So I'd say Bush is pretty close to the worst - certainly the worst in close to 100 years. If these latest allegations are true, he committed a war crime - he is personally responsible for the death of over 4,000 US troops, tens of thousands of Iraqis, and who knows how many serious injuries. It doesn't get much worse than that... unless you hasten the dissolution of the nation like Buchanan did.

 

NOG - Despite your comment, I still believe that you are generally a gentleman, who just happens to feel passionately about GWB. I understand why you might attack someone who does not share your feelings about our current "leader," because there are a few presidents whom I feel very strongly about as well: The first is Thomas Jefferson, who is often considered the founder of the Democratic Party; the other is Abe Lincoln, the first president of the oppposing party - of course, the Republicans . IMO, they are examples of first-rate presidents despite their many flaws, which are often pointed-out by historians (and that they are of opposing parties). Nevertherless, my view of GWB is supported by some professional historians, and some of them agree with my view of GWB as being the "worst president" in American history:

http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html

 

OK, i saw this & thought it was very funny from a republican/non-liberal viewpoint, so i have decided to post it. There you go tal, are you freakin happy now??

I'm trying to get all this political stuff straightened out in my head. Right now, we have one guy saying one thing, then the other guy says something else. Who to believe? Let me 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 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...

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.

Ahh, it's so confusing!

 

Incredibly lame

Wow, martaug - you can copy/paste verbatim from Free Republic with the best of 'em. Much easier than an original thought, I know. Two words: the google.

EDIT and REPHRASE: Ignore list or not - Please, if you have something to add you didn't think of yourself, it is only common courtesy to credit the source. Attempting to pass someone else's thoughts off as your own is incredibly damaging to one's credibility, especially while mocking the opinions of others in the process. And if you must plagiarize, try not to be so obvious and clumsy about it. That is all.

 

Martaug, you should really consider crediting your source. That said, who ever said awarding Halliburton no-bid contracts in Yugoslovia was a good thing? The republican congress that approved the contracts sure didn't seem to mind, though. Unlike Iraq, Serbia's dictator really was committing genocide at the time, and they were invading their neighbors, and the vast majority of the Albanians that Milosevic was slaughtering most assuredly weren't terrorists. Who said that bombing terrorist camps was bad? Since when has ****ing an intern - even lying about it in court - been a felony? Clinton's "refusal" to take custody of Bin Laden was a hoax that was debunked long ago? When did Clinton say that Saddam had nukes (Clinton just said that Saddam had sought the technology in the past...which he did) and when did he call for regime change in Iraq while he was in office? Who said that destroying the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan was a bad thing? The democrats supported the war in Afghanistan, remember?

 

Chandos, I didn't really mean to attack you as to point out that there have been several bad presidents in the history of the US, some true incompetants, and more than one that went through impeachment procedings. Bush's history in office may not be finalized, but he'd have to do one deal of a hum-dinger to make the "worst president in its history" as you put it.

 

Considering how and why we got into Iraq, knowing what we know now, many would consider that alone quite eligible for hum-dingerdom*. I think placing him at the rock bottom is probably pushing it, especially this early in the game (we likely won't know the real extent of his administration's damage to our economic and political standing for several decades), but I think placing him the bottom 3 or 4 is more than warranted, even coming from a bi-partisan viewpoint.

* Yes, that's a word.

 

Drew, did you here anybody complaining about haliburtons contract in yugoslavia? No, however when a republican does it "oh my! what a terrible thing"

On December 16, 1998, Bill Clinton informed the nation that he had ordered military action against Iraq. No less than three times Clinton referred to Iraq's nuclear arms or nuclear program.
1) "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

2) "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons."

3) "And so we had to act and act now. Let me explain why. First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years."

He lied & the media let him get away with it.
When you contrast Clinton's unequivocal yet insupportable arguments about Iraq's nuclear program with the qualified yet accurate 16-words President George Bush used in his January 28, 2003, State of the Union Address to describe Iraq's effort to secure uranium,you can see why so many feel there is a liberal bias in the mainstream media. The Democrats(of course) are, and will remain, unsatisfied with any answer given by the Bush administration. That is their political strategy.

One of the biggest accusers is Michigan senator Carl Levin. Now did he ever question clinton's allegations about Iraq? No.
In fact, on the senate floor in oct '98 he stated "With respect to Iraq's history, the Security Council noted Iraq's threat during the Gulf War to use chemical weapons in violation of its treaty obligations, Iraq's prior use of chemical weapons, Iraq's use of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks, and reports that Iraq attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear weapons program contrary to its treaty obligations."

However, in 1998 the U.N.'s IAEA, McCurry, and Foley had no evidence that Iraq was attempting to acquire materials for nuclear weapons, which is why they all decried the lack of U.N. inspectors in Iraq. Clinton's report to Congress, which Levin would have seen, provided no evidence. In other words, Levin, like Clinton, and many other Democrats, did, in fact, mislead(you know, lied to) the American people.

Wow Drew your memory must be going. You DO remember that clinton signed into law The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 don't you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
You know, the one that states "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime"

Clinton stated in february of '98 "Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits

As far as the "debunking" of clinton's refusal to get bin laden, he stated in feb '02 "Mr. Bin Laden used to live in Sudan ... And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again. They released him. At the time, '96, 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."
Now if that is the case than i don't have a problem with him not taking bin laden

In 2004, a former CIA officer in charge of operations against Al Qaeda from Washington, Michael Scheuer, revealed that,

"etween January 1996 and June 1999 ... I speak with firsthand experience (and for several score of CIA officers) when I state categorically that during this time senior White House officials repeatedly refused to act on sound intelligence that provided multiple chances to eliminate Osama bin Laden - either by capture or by U.S. military attack. I witnessed and documented, along with dozens of other CIA officers, instances where life-risking intelligence-gathering work of the agency's men and women in the field was wasted."
Yes,yes, the democrats like to poo-poo him but he was in the right place to see & document everything he said.
Sorry to spoil your . . . . . . well i want call it an attempt to cover up the truth, maybe you just forgot a few items

 

Did Bill Clinton work for Halli? Was there a conflict of interest?

Judicial Watch also sued Bill Clinton, btw.

Don't worry. We're here to help you. And "Charlite" too.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1168912/posts

 

Let's look at the speech in context, shall we? EDIT: The speech is just too long to warrant re-posting, here. Here's a link to the transcript. I'll trust any interested to check it out on their own.http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Martaug, at the time Clinton made references to Iraqi nuclear programs, the intelligence community concurred with his assessment, so he wasn't lying. He may have been wrong but he wasn't lying. Not only that, but at the time Clinton made his speech, Iraq had just kicked out the weapon inspectors and stated that it would no longer cooperate with them. When Bush made his announcements about Iraq's WMD and so-called attempts at gaining nuclear capabilities, the intelligence community did not concur. Why, you ask? Because the intelligence community had more evidence due to the fact that, after Clinton attacked, Iraq let the inspectors back in, and used that evidence to conclude that the agressive sanctions put in place under George H.W. Bush and continued by Bill Clinton were working.

Let's look at the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 in context, shall we? To save space, I'll just post the summary. (It's all I need.)

Yes, Clinton wanted a new government in Iraq, but he didn't want to prosecute a war in order to accomplish it. He planned to accomplish those goals by providing radio assistance, military training, and humanitary assistance to the Iraqi people and pursuing criminal charges against Saddam; not by destroying their infrastructure and occupying their country. That said, I, as well as many other democrats, have long been critical of Clinton's aggressive posture towards Iraq (as evidenced by some of the many scrapes I've gotten into with Chandos about the Clinton legacy). It should be remembered that Bill Clinton was a moderate. The democrats, especially the liberal democrats, weren't happy with everything he did.

How about we go to a non-partisan source for this one? http://www.factcheck.org/l
Here are the relevant snippets:

Wait. Here comes the really good part...

 

My view is shared by of a large number of professional historinans, who are gathering and cataloging the primary sources today, which later historians will also use as a PART of a complete picture of just how bad this regime has been. I believe that years from now many historians will conclude that GWB and his henchmen are responsible for one of the most incompetent, corrupt regimes in American history. The Bushmen are what happens to a country when people love their political party more than their country.

 

Actually chandos, i've never seen or heard of that web-site. the list was on one of my marine sites & i thought it very funny, so i posted it here.

Drew, YOU said clinton never advocated regime change & i showed you were he did. There is no use to try to argue caveats when the underlying premise is the same.

You said when clinton accused iraq of having nukes that the intelligence community agreed, when they didn't as shown below.

During a sept '98 State Department press briefing, Secretary of State Madeline Albright's spokesman, James Foley, was asked about Iraq's nuclear capabilities.

Question: "I was just asking about the Iraqi progress towards nuclear weapons. There [are] two reports in the past two years, apparently, that the United States has been told that Iraq is building atomic bombs, at least the nuclear shells, the nuclear weapons without the atomic cores. Can you comment on that?

Mr. Foley: "Well, I'm not aware that the United States has been told any such thing. But what I can say in response to your question and the articles is that we are aware of allegations that Iraq retained weapons-related components, but we cannot confirm these allegations. ...

... In terms of the allegation itself, again, it's not something we can confirm; it's important, though, to understand the potential ramifications. Having several components of a warhead does not mean that one necessarily has a usable nuclear weapon. In this regard the IAEA, we're told, feels confident, that Iraq does not have sufficient fissile material or the ability to produce that material for a weapon.

Again, this really underscores our concern about the lack of intrusive UNSCOM and IAEA inspections. The limited ongoing monitoring program can help deter obvious Iraqi attempts to rebuild the WMD capability during this period, but we are very concerned, obviously, about the longer run."

During a Sept '98, Clinton reported to Congress on "Iraq's non-compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions." In the section of the report labeled "Nuclear Weapons," Clinton's report stated:

In an interim report to the UNSC July 29, the IAEA ["International Atomic Energy Agency"] said that Iraq had provided no new information regarding outstanding issues and concerns. The IAEA said while it has a 'technically coherent picture' of Iraq's nuclear program, Iraq has never been fully transparent and its lack of transparency compounds remaining uncertainties. The IAEA noted Iraq claims to have no further documentation on such issues as weapons design engineering drawings, experimental data, and drawings received from foreign sources in connection with Iraq's centrifuge enrichment program. The IAEA also reported that Iraq was 'unsuccessful' in its efforts to locate verifiable documentation of the abandonment of the nuclear program....

he had no more proof than did bush.
Later in sept., in response to the UN security council's vote to suspend iraqi sanction reviews, clinton issued a statement thet said " ... The Security Council has made crystal clear that the burden remains on Iraq to declare and destroy all its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."

now how could they DECLARE something that it was never proved they even had???
Clinton's statement regarding Iraq's "nuclear weapons" was completely false.

During a Sept. 30th, '98 press briefing, Mike McCurry contradicted Clinton's earlier sept. statements. McCurry stated :

... We are aware of the allegations that Iraq retained weapons-related components, but we can't confirm the specific allegation that they have acquired those devices. There's little doubt that they have sought nuclear capability. That's been one of our long-standing concerns and one of the reasons why we have insisted on support for the international efforts by the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor and to investigate suspected activities in Iraq. It's why we've supported UNSCOM, as well, for similar and related issues.

Iraq's current refusal to allow inspections by both the IAEA and UNSCOM ... is totally unacceptable. We continue to believe that there is a lot more to know about Iraq's nuclear program. We've sought clarification before we're willing to consider what kind of final punctuation mark you can place on efforts by Iraq to acquire nuclear related technology.

So, McCurry made clear that the Clinton administration could not confirm that Iraq had actually acquired "devices" for producing nuclear weapons, or even the extent to which Iraq was attempting to acquire "nuclear-related technology."


So drew just were is this intelligence community agreeing with him at?

And you must have missed where i said "At the time, '96, 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."
Now if that is the case than i don't have a problem with him not taking bin laden

Sorry Tal, i had to use 4 smileys(i think the limit is supposed to be 3 in a post)

[Not really... as in, not at all. -Tal]

 

Martaug, I don't want to play the quote game where you post a bunch of out of context snippets and then I post them in context. It is, quite frankly, a waste of time, and while it is now obvious and clear that Iraq had no nuclear capability and never did, back in 1998, neither the Clinton administration nor the intelligence community was sufficiently satisfied to write it off the threat list. Had he the opportunity, he most assuredly would have attempted to gather such materials, and Saddam at the time was not cooperating with weapons inspectors. As I have stated several times, I was never happy with Clinton's aggressive stance towards Iraq, but I am happy indeed that Clinton had the sense not to waste our time attacking them.

What I find most offensive about that quote you ripped from another website and claimed as your own is it you runs on the (erroneous) assumption that the democrats were actually happy and agreed with everything the Clinton administration did. They were not. The main reason for the stature that Clinton once held within the democratic party (his behaviour during the primaries and his re-writing of history regarding his supposed opposition to the Iraq war has diminished that stature quite a bit) is that democrats were much happier with the Clinton administration than they were with Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Bush. During his tenure, if you'll recall, Clinton was constantly under fire from both the right and the left. Neither side was particularly happy with the moderate democrat from Arkansas. The left wasn't happy with NAFTA, Clinton's abandonment of several of his campaign issues, his deregulation of segments of the banking and insurance industries, his cutting of several social programs in order to balance the budget, his welfare reform... I could go on, but I think you get the point. Bill Clinton is hardly the poster child for liberalism, nor is he the poster child for the democratic party, as the post you plagiarized implies.

 

The underlined part may be the only thing you have said i agree with.
Members of the intelligence community weren't convinced until we had invaded & searched the country for ourselves

As i stated at the post above to chandos, i got the list from one of the marine sites(possibly togetherweserved, marinemoms, one of the devil dog blogs, etc. i really don't remember.)

Oh yes, please show me where i claimed credit for it please. Otherwise i think you know what to do with that claim.

 

You, sir, are rewriting history. So many intelligence officials have gone public with the truth, that the only way to believe that the intelligence community actually believed there were WMD in Iraq at the time we invaded is by ignoring what the intelligence community has to say about it.

Presenting someone else's arguments, verbatim, as your own is, in effect, claiming them for yourself. It's one thing to use someone else's facts (although checking them first is usually a good idea), since facts are what they are, but to take and reprint someone else's argument lock, stock, and barrel without even bothering to cite it is the very definition of plagiarism.