What best describes Bill Clinton

[Ivan Seeking]

So in retrospect, what do you think best describes him?

 

[The_Professional]

I would like to see him run for mayor of NY

 

[Dissident Dan]

How about: "Very smooth, otherwise typical politician"?

 

[member 5645]

Hate his politics (except maybe 10%), think he was a kitty about the lewinsky scandal, brilliant politician.
I'd hate to have him as our leader again, but would LOVE to put him into an ambassador position.

 

[kat]

lucky.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm sorry, Ivan, you're going to need to be more specific...wait, maybe you won't - they are pretty much interchangeable, aren't they? :tongue:

How about: "Very smooth, otherwise typical politician"?

Isn't that redundant?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Clinton didn't just lie to save his own hide, he would lie just to lie. At no time did he ever string ten sentences together before I began to wonder if he hadn't thrown in a whopper.

If I have murdered someone and need a lawyer to pull out every dirty trick in the book to get off, he's my man. A man of no integrity, whatsoever.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I dunno, Russ. I never considered Dan Quayle particularly smooth. (Nor Bush Sr., for that matter).

 

[check]

I miss Clinton. Damnit, I miss everything about the 90s! :(

 

[Ivan Seeking]

but would LOVE to put him into an ambassador position.

I completely agree. Like him or hate him, his skills in diplomacy are recognized world wide.

 

[BoulderHead]

I miss all that Clinton g..., err, bashing.

 

[Gza]

Clinton didn't just lie to save his own hide, he would lie just to lie. At no time did he ever string ten sentences together before I began to wonder if he hadn't thrown in a whopper.

Thank god we have an honest leader in GW.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I just don't see George W. making up wild stories for no apparent reason. The supposed "lies" that I have seen so far either comprise (1) facts that have yet to be proven or disproven, (2) statements that were proven false but (possibly) thought to be true at the time. But no stories of burning churches, astroturf in El Caminos, or affairs with interns.

Now, maybe I have missed some stories that don't fall within the two exceptions. If so, let's hear them.

I think Kerry follows Clinton's lead in telling tall tales. I can understand the big fish story once in awhile, but to these guys it appears to be a habit.

 

[Prometheus]

I just don't see George W. making up wild stories for no apparent reason.

We can win the war quickly, and the Iraqis will welcome us. We can establish democracy in Iraq. Mission accomplished.

Perhaps you do not consider these wild stories. Or, are you suggesting that Bush is not smart enough to have made them up, and that he just told them. Or, are you saying that he had an apparent reason, no matter how dumb it might be?

 

[JohnDubYa]

We can win the war quickly...

Wasn't George W. the one warning us that the war could take a long time, maybe even years?

, and the Iraqis will welcome us.

I don't recall him ever saying this in such a fashion. Besides, some Iraqis have.

We can establish democracy in Iraq.

Who says we can't?

Mission accomplished.

Context? (What mission is he talking about?)

Does anyone have a GOOD response to my inquiry about George W.'s supposed lies? That one sucked.

 

[Gza]

Wasn't George W. the one warning us that the war could take a long time, maybe even years?

nope.

I don't recall him ever saying this in such a fashion.[Bush's statement that the Iraqis will welcome American troops].

were you by chance, hiding under a rock last year?

Who says we can't? [establish democracy in Iraq]

how do you start a democracy in a country that never wanted us there in the first place? I shouldn't even localize it to country, that entire damn region hates our presence there (as evidenced by the numerous insurgent kidnappings of civilians.)

Context? (What mission is he talking about?)[referring to the mission accomplished banner displayed on the US carrier Bush landed on during his flightsuit debacle]

what mission do you think he could possibly be talking about? If you want context, how's this: we're in the midst of a WAR. The president has just claimed MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. And unless he was talking about completing his mission of fitting into that rediculous flight suit, I'm pretty sure the mission is the war.

 

[member 5645]

nope.

Yes.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/01/sprj.nitop.bush/

were you by chance, hiding under a rock last year?

Were you by chance just posing another statement without backing?

how do you start a democracy in a country that never wanted us there in the first place? I shouldn't even localize it to country, that entire damn region hates our presence there (as evidenced by the numerous insurgent kidnappings of civilians.)

Never wanted us there in the first place? In the middle of the height of the insurgency, before the interim government took place, people were split 50/50 on whether they wanted us there. So your statement is invalid. Secondly, the same poll says Iraqis are looking forward to their future and positive about it. They also voted that they want a democracy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3514504.stm

what mission do you think he could possibly be talking about? If you want context, how's this: we're in the midst of a WAR. The president has just claimed MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. And unless he was talking about completing his mission of fitting into that rediculous flight suit, I'm pretty sure the mission is the war.

"Rediculous" flight suit?? Are you not aware that said flight suit is a safety feature when riding in a military jet, and you'd be a moron for turning it down?

 

[Prometheus]

Yes.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/01/sprj.nitop.bush/
Were you by chance just posing another statement without backing?

Look who is talking. Did you bother to look at the date on your citation? Try again, and see if you can't come up with a better citation, one that was made before the war. No one is denying that Bush changed his tune after it was too late, once the mission had already been accomplished in his mind.

Never wanted us there in the first place? In the middle of the height of the insurgency, before the interim government took place, people were split 50/50 on whether they wanted us there. So your statement is invalid.

You own statement refutes your claim.

"Rediculous" flight suit?? Are you not aware that said flight suit is a safety feature when riding in a military jet, and you'd be a moron for turning it down?

This would be a wonderful argument if it did not completely avoid the entire point under discussion, and instead present a completely irrelevant statement about nothing.

 

[member 5645]

edited for my knobbery

 

[Gokul43201]

I did loook at the date, and it's irrelevant. Your statement was that Bush DID NOT say it would be a long term effort..

Of course the date's relevant. Gza was listing examples of 'Bush lies', and clearly, before the war, Bush was suggesting that it will be quick. If he changed his mind after the fact, that doesn't null the original 'lie'.

It's the link that's irrelevant - not the date - as it does not counter the intent of the claim.

 

[Prometheus]

speaking of changing tunes, good job on changing your original generalized statement.
I did loook at the date, and it's irrelevant. Your statement was that Bush DID NOT say it would be a long term effort.

Please provide a citation that supports your claim that I stated that Bush did not say this. I think that you are quite confused.

No, it doesn't. I never made the statement that they WANTED us there. You made the absolute statement that they didn't, and it was wrong.

Please provide a citation that supports your claim that I made this absolute statement. I think that you are quite confused.

It's not an argument, just pointing out the ignorance in your own irrelevant statements.

Once again prometheus, you have ignored your original statements with no backing. Try to bring some links next time.

I think that you are confused. You certainly seem to be confused about anything that I have posted. If you are equally confused about everything else you have ever said, then I and others who read your postings should take them all with a grain of salt. Perhaps you confuse me with someone else here. You are showing your ignorance, by making absurd accusations against me when I never made the statements that you are challenging. Does that make you ignorant and irrelevant in your mind?

 

[member 5645]

Prometheus. I looked at the damn page 10 times, and thought you were the one who I originally replied to, it was Gza DOH!
My humble apologies

 

[member 5645]

clearly, before the war, Bush was suggesting that it will be quick.

Why do you people keep doing this?? Post a link!

 

[Prometheus]

Prometheus. I looked at the damn page 10 times, and thought you were the one who I originally replied to, it was Gza DOH!
My humble apologies

Accepted. It could happen to any of us.

 

[Gokul43201]

Why do you people keep doing this?? Post a link!

Okay, I see why you're complaining.

Perhaps, George W Bush himself never directly stated that the war will be quick (I'm not sure...this was over a year ago...and Bush himself said very little) , but surely that was the impression given to the public by all the White House folks - from Cheney, to Rummy to Fleischer. And surely the President is ultimately responsible for what the people hear from the White House.

And the common public opinion was that the war would be quick, with minimal loss of life.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Perhaps, George W Bush himself never directly stated that the war will be quick (I'm not sure...this was over a year ago...and Bush himself said very little), but surely that was the impression given to the public by all the White House folks - from Cheney, to Rummy to Fleischer. And surely the President is ultimately responsible for what the people hear from the White House.

Okay, so you couldnt' find any Bush lies, so now you turn your attention to his staff. And even that is suspect.

So who stated that the war in Iraq would be easy? And this time, how about some (get this) actual quotes?

Here is an article about Rumsfeld. Point out any point in the story where he says the war would be easy.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/22/sprj.irq.main/index.html

By the way, being overly optimistic is hardly a lie. A person can think he is going to win a marathon, but that doesn't make him a liar if he doesn't.

And the common public opinion was that the war would be quick, with minimal loss of life.

And only the President could have instilled such an opinion in the public? What about past experience fighting in the Persian Gulf? You don't think the public remembered that war and how relatively easy it was? You don't think the Left played up Iraq's weaknesses in order to diminish our successes?

 

[Gokul43201]

So who stated that the war in Iraq would be easy? And this time, how about some (get this) actual quotes?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A44801-2003Mar28&notFound=true

And only the President could have instilled such an opinion in the public? What about past experience fighting in the Persian Gulf? You don't think the public remembered that war and how relatively easy it was?

Yes, I'm sure the memory of the Gulf War I played a big role in shaping public opinion. But clearly, the White House helped that image along with "subtle persuasion".

You don't think the Left played up Iraq's weaknesses in order to diminish our successes?

This is possible, but I honestly can't recall hearing or reading that.

 

[Prometheus]

Okay, so you couldnt' find any Bush lies, so now you turn your attention to his staff. And even that is suspect.

You are pretending to have a short memory. How believable.

So who stated that the war in Iraq would be easy? And this time, how about some (get this) actual quotes?

Here is an article about Rumsfeld. Point out any point in the story where he says the war would be easy.

Again, an irrelevant quote made in October 2003. Nobody is disputing that once the war had begun and Bush and friends realized what a mistake they had made in estimation of timing that they changed their estimation. Why do you continue to make this case using evidence from so late in the war?

Check out http://www.americanprogress.org/AccountTempFiles/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/PRIRAQCLAIMFACT1029.HTM .

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” – President Bush, 5/1/03

The war “could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [2/7/03]

“We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly... (in) weeks rather than months.” – Vice President Cheney [3/16/03]

While we are at it:
There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04

“You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam.” – President Bush, 9/25/02
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020925-1.html

“We know where the [WMD] are.” - Don Rumsfeld, 3/30/03
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t03302003_t0330sdabcsteph.html

By the way, being overly optimistic is hardly a lie. A person can think he is going to win a marathon, but that doesn't make him a liar if he doesn't.

Your analogy is flawed, in my opinion. A person believing that he will win the marathon is not a good analogy to a president making large numbers of "optimistic" statements that are mistaken yet meet their purpose of leading us to war.

And only the President could have instilled such an opinion in the public? What about past experience fighting in the Persian Gulf? You don't think the public remembered that war and how relatively easy it was? You don't think the Left played up Iraq's weaknesses in order to diminish our successes?

Bush made numerous claims that led to war. In the most polite view, he "erred". Your personal optimism based on past experience in the Gulf war should not be used as an excuse for his mistaken portrayal of the war, its purpose, and its cost.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm the public, I paid very close attention to what was being said before the war...reading direct transcripts etc. I never got the idea that the Iraq war was going to be "quick". I'd like to see any direct statements that would support such an impression. Please share the wealth.

Wow, you and I get our news from very different places !

Did you actually try clicking the little blue colored link... ?

I'm guessing you also chose not to read Prometheus' post !

EDIT : Hey, where'd you go ?

 

[Gza]

I'm the public, I paid very close attention to what was being said before the war...reading direct transcripts etc. I never got the idea that the Iraq war was going to be "quick". I'd like to see any direct statements that would support such an impression. Please share the wealth.

You seem to have missed (or ignored) Prometheus's post, Kat. Here is what you are looking for.

The war “could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [2/7/03]

“We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly... (in) weeks rather than months.” – Vice President Cheney [3/16/03]

You should really try to pay closer attention.


EDIT: come to think about it, I should pay closer attention. Gokul already brought this up.

 

[kat]

lol, oops sorry..I took so long to post that you had posted before mine went up and welp...Ignore it.. for now...

 

[JohnDubYa]

So here are the quotes from George W. Bush offered so far:

"A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict." This was hardly a reversal due to misfortune, as he spoke it on the day of the invasion.

"the fierce fighting currently underway will demand further courage and further sacrifice." (is that a lie?)

"military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures." (is that a lie?)

So where are the Bush lies? If anything, his statements have proven prophetic.

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”

In terms of invasions, he was right. It depends on how you define "major." And even if major combat operations didn't end, if he had no way of knowing that fact it hardly constitutes a lie.

“You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam."

Taken out of context. He was talking in terms of danger to the world, not that they were actively cooperating.

As for Dick Cheney, he is entitled to his opinion, which he admitted throughout was based on mostly conjecture. That doesn't make his statements lies.

It seems that we need to iterate the definition of a lie. If a person makes a statement that he thinks it is true, it is not a lie. To show that Bush lied, you need to show that he knew better at the time he made the statement. Even Cheney's optimism is hardly a lie. In fact, he pointed out more than once that he was just expressing his own outlook.

When the war began, no one knew for sure what would happen. Each government official gave their own opinions on how long they thought it was going to last. Some were more optimistic than others. That hardly constitutes a lie.

Your analogy is flawed, in my opinion. A person believing that he will win the marathon is not a good analogy to a president making large numbers of "optimistic" statements that are mistaken yet meet their purpose of leading us to war.

Show me the large numbers of "optimistic" statements that the president made concerning this issue. Once and for all, where are they? Or was this just a "lie"?

 

[Gokul43201]

In my opinion, Bush never really has lied - he just says what Rove, Cheney and Rummy want him to tell.

Can't blame him for that !

 

[Gokul43201]

"the fierce fighting currently underway will demand further courage and further sacrifice." (is that a lie?)

The art of lying has nearly been perfected by this administration. Perhaps no one in the administration ever said this literally, but strangely, half the people believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Wonder where they got that idea from ?

“You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam."

Taken out of context. He was talking in terms of danger to the world, not that they were actively cooperating.

I agree. But the real gem is the statement that follows : "And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive." <don't be distracted by the grammar>

As for Dick Cheney, he is entitled to his opinion, which he admitted throughout was based on mostly conjecture.

Damn, didn't know the Veep could go about proffering opinions 'based on mostly conjecture' to the masses.

And he's admitted this ? When ?

But perhaps we digress...this thread is about Clinton, not Bush.

 

[JohnDubYa]

In my opinion, Bush never really has lied - he just says what Rove, Cheney and Rummy want him to tell.

So in other words, Bush' realistic appraisals of the upcoming war were in fact the opinions of Rove and Cheney? So they were all in agreement that the war was going to take a long time to begin with?

Damn I wish you would sort out your logic before posting. If you want to brand Bush a liar, and he has expressed relatively pessimistic views on the war, and his staff expressed relatively optimistic views on the war, then you want to claim that Bush directed their opinions -- not the other way around!

The art of lying has nearly been perfected by this administration. Perhaps no one in the administration ever said this literally, but strangely, half the people believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Wonder where they got that idea from ?

You mean that since we have now established that Bush did not lie about the war prognosis, we are going to play this silly game with Saddam's involvement in 9/11?

This is the ever-shifting target. You offer a hare-brained idea that Bush stated overly optimistic quotes about the war, but when challenged and unable to offer any evidence, you switch to an entirely new subject.

Where are the quotes? Show us the quotes.

I agree. But the real gem is the statement that follows : "And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive." <don't be distracted by the grammar>

Grammar? His statement was verbal.

And what about the quote? I see nothing there. From what I have seen of Saddam's cruelty, he is every bit as evil as Osama. In my opinion, many times more so.

Damn, didn't know the Veep could go about proffering opinions 'based on mostly conjecture' to the masses.

Do we live in Moscow? Of course he can profer opinions based on conjecture. Everyone does it. Otherwise, the answer to nearly every question asked would have to be "dunno."

When reporters ask how long a war is going to take, how can you possibly answer without resorting to conjecture?

And he's admitted this ? When ?

On CBS's "Face the Nation" on March 16, Cheney said the fight would be "weeks rather than months. There's always the possibility of complications that you can't anticipate, but I have great confidence in our troops." Cheney also predicted the fight would "go relatively quickly, but we can't count on that."

"I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."

"significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside."

All are examples of conjecture.

Now, this is getting real silly. If you are unable to parse the conjecture in a sentence such as "I think I am getting a Honda for my birthday," then there is no point in continuing this discussion.