Criticizing Bush

from PolMach Forums
Why is it that conservatives are up in arms about criticisms of Bush when they did not give Clinton a chance from day one. The Monica Lewinsky scandal was not the beginning of the criticism, it only allowed the criticism to take a sharper form. George Bush has not had even a fraction of what Bill Clinton had even in his first administration. The right brought on the outright disrespect of the President, they should live with it when it comes back to bite them.
The Republicans were up in arms about the Democratic convention turning negative, which it did not do, then they run one of the most negative conventions in recent memory. It seems the right likes to complain about the left, but can't stand equal criticism. They put down the rules, then ignore them when it deals with their own misaction.
politics
15,300 views 22 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why is it that people feel compelled to point out the shortcomings of "the other side"? Speaking as a relatively neutral person, I think I can honestly say that what Clinton received in criticism was not significantly less or more than what Bush has received, in total. I do think that the criticism of Bush is rather more vituperative, but that's because his actions have had much wider repercussions than a mere blow job or simple bombing run.

I see conservatives railing about how rabidly liberals bash Bush, and I see liberals railing about how Bush is getting a free ride compared to Clinton. Both sides should take off their polarized lenses and look at the real world. The bashing that "your side" does is not "honest, hard-hitting exposure of the administration's errors" any more than what "their side" did when your guy was in office. And their "crass insistence on bringing up issues that should have been laid to rest already" is no more excusable than what you're doing now.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with whoman. Ever since Clinton won, the republicans initiated a massive campaign against him. Practically his entire presidency, which he conducted very well, except for that ML thing, was not an issue to repubs. They were on the witch hunt from day one. They harrassed anyone who knew him in Arkansas. They harrassed his family. They tried to skewer them, and particlarly Hillary for the White Water deal, in which she actually lost money. But, the only people who paid that price were associates who may or may not have had anything specific to do with Hillary.

Finally, finally, finally they found something. But, they had to pay off that lowlife bitch Linda whatsername to monitor her conversations with ML. They got him for lying about an illicit sexual relationship. Oh no!! That was all they had, so they played it, and the American people, for all it was worth. Cost this country millions, but they even impeached him. Wasn't exactly high crimes and misdemeaners, fer cryin out loud.

When Hillary stated that there was a right wing conspiracy against her husband, she got hammered by them for that remark. Amazingly, it was true, and we all know it now. But, Clinton prevailed because on every other level, and as a president, he was excellent. Left the administration with more jobs, a big surplus, and respect. He beat those bastards, and he paid a very high price doing it. Not to say that his affair with ML was acceptable. It was sick. So was ML and that LInda bitch. The whole affair, including the republican response was sordid, at best.

However, Bush seems to have the blessing of so many people. No matter that he was AWOL during Viet Nam. No matter that he cannot string a coherent sentence together. No matter that he has a past, and possibly a present defined by drug and alcohol abuse. No matter that he ignored intelligence and took this country to war. No matter that he's sunk this economy into a huge hole, wasting the environment, dissing other nations on treaties that we had already entered into, etc., etc., etc.

Whoman, as I see it, you are so right. Bush is getting by in office without a brain, and nobody seems to notice. In fact, they prefer it that way. That way, the neocon war criminals get to dictate our global policies by having this neocon puppet monkey in office. Why has this country slid down this horrendous path? I dunno. I see it as a pendulum thing. Unfortunately, they will have to make matters so intollerable, be held accountable for the chaos they've created, before the pedulum swings back to center.

We live in an America now made up of 50% of whom are neocon puppet monkeys. It's so sad.
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #2 By: dabe - 12/9/2004 7:17:25 AM
I agree with whoman. Ever since Clinton won, the republicans initiated a massive campaign against him. Practically his entire presidency, which he conducted very well, except for that ML thing, was not an issue to repubs. They were on the witch hunt from day one. They harrassed anyone who knew him in Arkansas. They harrassed his family. They tried to skewer them, and particlarly Hillary for the White Water deal, in which she actually lost money. But, the only people who paid that price were associates who may or may not have had anything specific to do with Hillary.

Finally, finally, finally they found something. But, they had to pay off that lowlife bitch Linda whatsername to monitor her conversations with ML. They got him for lying about an illicit sexual relationship. Oh no!! That was all they had, so they played it, and the American people, for all it was worth. Cost this country millions, but they even impeached him. Wasn't exactly high crimes and misdemeaners, fer cryin out loud


Get a grip will ya! they didn't get him for having an illicit affair. They got him for "lying" about it under "oath"! Get real!
However, Bush seems to have the blessing of so many people. No matter that he was AWOL during Viet Nam. No matter that he cannot string a coherent sentence together. No matter that he has a past, and possibly a present defined by drug and alcohol abuse. No matter that he ignored intelligence and took this country to war. No matter that he's sunk this economy into a huge hole,
He was NOT AWOL during Nam. No proof! He did NOT ingnore intel. Again no proof! Although he did use *faulty* intel. You need to read some current stuff. All the major economists are saying (and rightly so) that the economy has recovered!
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
We live in an America now made up of 50% of whom are neocon puppet monkeys. It's so sad.


I like how you show your high intellect by pigeonholing millions of people into a stereotype because you can't accept that people who believe differently than you can be on the same level as you.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why is it that conservatives are up in arms about criticisms of Bush when they did not give Clinton a chance from day one.


It's because you have to support* the President* because he is always right* and if you don't you're being unpatriotic* and are a bad person*






*Only applies when the President is a Republican
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's because you have to support* the President* because he is always right* and if you don't you're being unpatriotic* and are a bad person*






*Only applies when the President is a Republican




Sad, but true.

Messy, I'm sorry for the pigeonholing. And it's not that I cannot agree with people on issues of being republican or democrat, and solely on those philosophical issues, though admittedly there is some of that. It's that I cannot, for the life of me, understand why so many people refuse to accept the mounting and reliable evidence that bushie and his neocons duped this country into a war that we sure didn't need, and one that we can never benefit from, and one that is killing thousands of people. That's what I was referring to. No, I am not intellectually deficient. It's that I am continually educating myself, unlike others here, who are content to have bought the "argument" hook, line and sinker. I will continue to criticize them until they are no longer in office. And I will continue to point out their failings and their questionable, at best, tactics for getting us into this god-awful mess.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with Dabe here. Some righties think it's ok for the president to lie when its their guy behind the wheel. There's a big difference between lying about getting a blowjob and a lie that has killed almost 1100 americans.

Neither is ok, but Bubba's lie was the lesser of two evils.
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
Get a grip will ya! they didn't get him for having an illicit affair. They got him for "lying" about it under "oath"! Get real!


that's not exactly true. Had Kenneth Starr not gone overboard in his persecution of Bill Clinton it would have never come to that point. Can anyone here point to another one on one civil case that has gone to a grand jury? The case was in grand jury because Starr put it there. In a civil case Clinton would not have been compelled to testify. Additionally, right or wrong, Clinton believed from the definitions given by the judge that oral sex was not considered sexual relations.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #8 By: whoman69 - 12/11/2004 10:06:21 AM
Get a grip will ya! they didn't get him for having an illicit affair. They got him for "lying" about it under "oath"! Get real!


that's not exactly true. Had Kenneth Starr not gone overboard in his persecution of Bill Clinton it would have never come to that point. Can anyone here point to another one on one civil case that has gone to a grand jury? The case was in grand jury because Starr put it there. In a civil case Clinton would not have been compelled to testify. Additionally, right or wrong, Clinton believed from the definitions given by the judge that oral sex was not considered sexual relations.


Come on. Kenneth Starr or not... Clinton *still* lied under oath! No matter how you try to color it you can't change that!
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #7 By: thatoneguyinslc - 12/11/2004 10:06:19 AM
I agree with Dabe here. Some righties think it's ok for the president to lie when its their guy behind the wheel. There's a big difference between lying about getting a blowjob and a lie that has killed almost 1100 americans.

Neither is ok, but Bubba's lie was the lesser of two evils.


And just what lie are you refering to?
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
Why is it that conservatives are up in arms about criticisms of Bush when they did not give Clinton a chance from day one.


Clinton lied and put himself in the position of being criticized. Had he not lied no one would have been critical. Let's not forget with Lewinsky that he had a choice to come clean and he didn't . Remember the "I didn't have..." speech? I wasn't really concerned about it until he lied to MY face. America gave him a pass anyway, even after he forced the nation into a constitutional crisis. Think of all the trouble he could have saved if he just would've admitted it then.

hey were on the witch hunt from day one. They harrassed anyone who knew him in Arkansas. They harrassed his family.


Don't be no naive. This is politics and it has been this way for a long time now. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. On balance though Clinton never had to deal with what Bush has. He has been called a diabolical liar, a murderer, and even likened to Hitler. What's the worst thing Clinton has to deal with? Cigar jokes? Do you think that Bush doesn't care about the soldiers that have died? That he doesn't know the gravity of his actions? Bush is making the hard decisions that are necessary to keep us safe. Unlike your beloved Mr. Clinton who had to take a poll to see what side of the bed he should get up on. The fact that Bush is still able to smile is amazing given what the opposition has done to belittle him and his family. Hey Democrats have you ever heard of the "Loyal Oppostion"? You say you're patriotic and that you support our troops. How can you say that when every day you proclaim America is the perpetrator of wrongs in the world and that you don't support the troop's mission. Your actions speak louder than your words. Your actions speak disloyalty. Instead of criticism and whining, where is your "Plan B" for defeating terrorism and creating democracy in Iraq. So far your answer seems to be to do nothing. Maybe if you came up with realistic and viable alternatives to Bush's plans maybe we wouldn't question your motives so much. Join the "team" and help us win instead of heckling Bush from the stands.

so many people refuse to accept the mounting and reliable evidence that bushie and his neocons duped this country into a war that we sure didn't need, and one that we can never benefit from, and one that is killing thousands of people.


This idea that Bush lied to get us to invade Iraq is false. He was the victim of bad intelligence. In the post-9/11 world we cannot let threats fester and just hope nothing bad happens. That is the pre-9/11, Clinton mentality. To think that while we hunt the world for Islamic terrorists that Saddam was just going to sit on his hands and do nothing is naive at best. He has been tied to Palestinian suicide bombers, harbored terrorists like Abu Nadal, and was a hinderence to stability and peace in the region. You may blame Bush for getting us into Iraq, but I blame Clinton for letting 9/11 happen. 8 years of prosperity? More like 8 years of having our head up our asses.
Reply #12 from PolMach Forums Top
Come on. Kenneth Starr or not... Clinton *still* lied under oath! No matter how you try to color it you can't change that!


If there is no Kenneth Starr, there is no lying under oath. He took the American public for $70 million for a civil suit involving one person against another. That is clearly the definition of persecution.

This idea that Bush lied to get us to invade Iraq is false. He was the victim of bad intelligence. In the post-9/11 world we cannot let threats fester and just hope nothing bad happens. That is the pre-9/11, Clinton mentality. To think that while we hunt the world for Islamic terrorists that Saddam was just going to sit on his hands and do nothing is naive at best. He has been tied to Palestinian suicide bombers, harbored terrorists like Abu Nadal, and was a hinderence to stability and peace in the region. You may blame Bush for getting us into Iraq, but I blame Clinton for letting 9/11 happen. 8 years of prosperity? More like 8 years of having our head up our asses.


False, we have from multiple sources that post 9/11 he was searching for anything to hang on Iraq and Saddam even if the intelligence did not come to that conclusion. Palestinian suicide bombers are a security problem for Israel not the US, 60 countries in the world have terrorist organizations so why Iraq when the intelligence commitee says that Iraqi ties to terror are tenuous at best, hinderance more than Iran or Syria. The Clinton administration warned the Bush administration but it was put on the back shelf until August and then only at a low level meeting was it lightly discussed. Like it or not, under the Clinton administration more terrorist plots were foiled even in considering the "hightened alert level" post 9/11. In fact Al Quaida had to take 1997 off.
Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top
If there is no Kenneth Starr, there is no lying under oath.


If Clinton doesn't LIE there is no LIE. Stop making excuses for his irreprehensible behavior.

we have from multiple sources that post 9/11 he was searching for anything to hang on Iraq and Saddam even if the intelligence did not come to that conclusion.


After 9/11 Bush made a promise that not only were we going to go after Al-Queda, but we going to go after threats that could lead to other 9/11-like events. No longer were we going to wait to be attacked in order to get rid of our enemies. Now instead of trying to infiltrate America and go after our interests around the world, those who would wage jihad on America can walk to Iraq right into the gunsights of the US military. Better to fight them there with soldiers than to fight them at home with police, paramedics, and firefighters.

The Clinton administration warned the Bush administration but it was put on the back shelf


And what did he DO about this threat? NOTHING!

Like it or not, under the Clinton administration more terrorist plots were foiled


I assume you're referring to Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, and the Africa Embassy bombings?

And, you know this because why? The neocon death cult tells you so? Talk about naive..........................


Why? Common sense and the facts tell me so. "Neocon Death Cult" I kinda like that. Sounds like a good metal band!
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
This idea that Bush lied to get us to invade Iraq is false. He was the victim of bad intelligence.


And, you know this because why? The neocon death cult tells you so? Talk about naive...........................
Reply #16 from PolMach Forums Top
After 9/11 Bush made a promise that not only were we going to go after Al-Queda, but we going to go after threats that could lead to other 9/11-like events. No longer were we going to wait to be attacked in order to get rid of our enemies. Now instead of trying to infiltrate America and go after our interests around the world, those who would wage jihad on America can walk to Iraq right into the gunsights of the US military. Better to fight them there with soldiers than to fight them at home with police, paramedics, and firefighters.


Laughable with the fact that Iraq did not have any ability to do the things you claim to protect us against. You bought into Saddam's bluff.

Like it or not, under the Clinton administration more terrorist plots were foiled


Foiled were an attempted assasination of President Clinton during a trip to the Phillipines, a plot to blow up planes taking off from LAX and many others. We were so successful in fighting terrorism that Al-Quaida had to take a year off to reorganize. Guess what, terrorism is on the rise right now throughout the world. Going to keep blaming Clinton after four years?
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Going to keep blaming Clinton after four years?


They have nothing else to hang their collective hat on. So, it's gonna be clinton's fault no matter what. I remember reading this book to my kids when they were little, called "The Gorilla Did It". It's about a kid blaming an imaginary gorilla for the mess he made of him room. Blaming clinton for all bush's messes is very reminiscent of that book. Maybe bush did finally finish My Pet Goat and Laura is now reading The Gorilla Did It to him.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Messy, I'm sorry for the pigeonholing. And it's not that I cannot agree with people on issues of being republican or democrat, and solely on those philosophical issues, though admittedly there is some of that. It's that I cannot, for the life of me, understand why so many people refuse to accept the mounting and reliable evidence that bushie and his neocons duped this country into a war that we sure didn't need, and one that we can never benefit from, and one that is killing thousands of people. That's what I was referring to. No, I am not intellectually deficient. It's that I am continually educating myself, unlike others here, who are content to have bought the "argument" hook, line and sinker. I will continue to criticize them until they are no longer in office. And I will continue to point out their failings and their questionable, at best, tactics for getting us into this god-awful mess.


Go ahead and criticize the administration. There's nothing wrong with that. As for why people are "blind" to what you "know" is true, perhaps it's the fault of the messengers. Do you really think that people will listen to those who don't even try to be objective and reasonable? Should people listen to Jerry Falwell about homosexuals or somebody who tries to understand both sides of the issue and present it as objectively as possible? I personally have stopped listening to what the fringe on the left says until they stop looking like people with chips on their shoulders that don't try to understand others.


Also, people come to different conclusions to the same evidence presented.


Laughable with the fact that Iraq did not have any ability to do the things you claim to protect us against. You bought into Saddam's bluff.


So, Bush lied about Saddam being a threat, but Bush also fell for Saddam's bluff that he had the means to be a threat? I'm glad to see we're being logical here.

Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top
So your saying that if you had been in charge that you wouldn't have? And just how do you figure he didn't have that capability? Did the hijackers on 9/11 have some fancy weapons? Nope! Anything that was used on 9/11 Saddam had access to.


Are you one of those who believe that Saddam has a connection to 9/11? Talk about making a leap of faith.

Forget about these did we?


The facts remain that under the Clinton administration more Al Quaida plots were thwarted. Terrorism worldwide is on the rise despite the White House putting out in August that we are safer from terror. Don't give me that crap about no terrorist attacks on US mainland since 9/11. Going by that, Clinton went 7 years without an attack on the homeland.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #16 By: whoman69 - 12/11/2004 4:39:39 PM
After 9/11 Bush made a promise that not only were we going to go after Al-Queda, but we going to go after threats that could lead to other 9/11-like events. No longer were we going to wait to be attacked in order to get rid of our enemies. Now instead of trying to infiltrate America and go after our interests around the world, those who would wage jihad on America can walk to Iraq right into the gunsights of the US military. Better to fight them there with soldiers than to fight them at home with police, paramedics, and firefighters.


Laughable with the fact that Iraq did not have any ability to do the things you claim to protect us against. You bought into Saddam's bluff.


So your saying that if you had been in charge that you wouldn't have? And just how do you figure he didn't have that capability? Did the hijackers on 9/11 have some fancy weapons? Nope! Anything that was used on 9/11 Saddam had access to.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

Let's not forget with Lewinsky that he had a choice to come clean and he didn't .


hilarious choice of phrasing if nothing else. 

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #16 By: whoman69 - 12/11/2004 4:39:39 PM
Like it or not, under the Clinton administration more terrorist plots were foiled


Foiled were an attempted assasination of President Clinton during a trip to the Phillipines, a plot to blow up planes taking off from LAX and many others. We were so successful in fighting terrorism that Al-Quaida had to take a year off to reorganize. Guess what, terrorism is on the rise right now throughout the world. Going to keep blaming Clinton after four years?


Forget about these did we?


Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, and the Africa Embassy bombings