News Bush Administration: "Remarkably Clean

[pattylou]

"remarkably clean"

Calling Bush's administration "remarkably clean," he added: "The amazing thing is that they went almost five years without having any kind of scandal."

http://www.detnews.com/2005/politics/0510/29/polit-365208.htm

Hello? THe McCain smear in the 2000 primaries? The Florida election debacle? The 2004 election problems? etc etc etc re: bin Laden, etc etc etc?

Not to mention that to call *now* the moment of scandal, instead of 2003, is like saying Clinton went 8 years without scandal.

Weird.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is no longer any distinction between spin, and lies.

 

[The Smoking Man]

http://www.detnews.com/2005/politics/0510/29/polit-365208.htm
Hello? THe McCain smear in the 2000 primaries? The Florida election debacle? The 2004 election problems? etc etc etc re: bin Laden, etc etc etc?
Not to mention that to call *now* the moment of scandal, instead of 2003, is like saying Clinton went 8 years without scandal.
Weird.

To a Republican, that IS remarkably clean apparently.

Thank god we have not found out about the other stuff!

(I am using the 'tip of the iceberg' theory of politics)

 

[SOS2008]

http://www.detnews.com/2005/politics/0510/29/polit-365208.htm
Hello? THe McCain smear in the 2000 primaries? The Florida election debacle? The 2004 election problems? etc etc etc re: bin Laden, etc etc etc?
Not to mention that to call *now* the moment of scandal, instead of 2003, is like saying Clinton went 8 years without scandal.
Weird.

If you look up Bush (google, wikipedia, or what have you) the word "controversial" is very prevalent. Maybe they mean no one has gotten busted until now.

 

[polyb]

If you look up Bush (google, wikipedia, or what have you) the word "controversial" is very prevalent. Maybe they mean no one has gotten busted until now.

If you google the word http://www.google.com/search?q=fail...ent=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official" the first thing on the list is W's bio from the white house site. Of course you guys probably already know this!

 

[russ_watters]

Jeez, do you guys just not remember Clinton's scandal-of-the-week Presidency? Google "Clinton scandal" and see what you get.

Bush has a lot of work to do if he wants to catch up with Clinton's record-setting administration.

http://prorev.com/legacy.htm

 

[polyb]

High Crimes and treason is what has been commited by this administration as well as by all those that allowed such actions to take place, not many representaitives took a stand against it! The houses need to be cleaned!

Or is you partisan politics and ideology above the principles of what this country is supposed to be about?

 

[SOS2008]

Jeez, do you guys just not remember Clinton's scandal-of-the-week Presidency? Google "Clinton scandal" and see what you get.
Bush has a lot of work to do if he wants to catch up with Clinton's record-setting administration.
http://prorev.com/legacy.htm

I remember these very well. I just don't care about real estate deals and extra marital activities, or definition of words like sex.

Bush was able to catch up with one major offense, and that was putting our military in harms way with fabricated intelligence.

I continue to be bewildered that people can't see the HUGE differences.

 

[MaxS]

SOS I agree with what you're saying but there is a very big misconception that clinton's war (in kosovo) was somehow just or necessary, and that U.S. troops were sent in for a good reason.. in many ways that war was actually facilitated by the clinton administration.

 

[SOS2008]

SOS I agree with what you're saying but there is a very big misconception that clinton's war (in kosovo) was somehow just or necessary, and that U.S. troops were sent in for a good reason.. in many ways that war was actually facilitated by the clinton administration.

I see what you are saying, but this was not one of the "scandals" being referred to or that was investigated. The U.S. has intervened in conflict many times during many administrations, and Kosovo was not a poorly executed quagmire that people regret.

There was no revolution, or civil war, or conflict (such as invasion of a neighbor) going on in Iraq at the time of the invasion. This is the difference, and an important factor.

 

[russ_watters]

I continue to be bewildered that people can't see the HUGE differences.

I completely agree.

 

[Smurf]

Did clinton actually do anything other that get a blowjob by a pretty girl?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I still remember watching the news one night when an anchor talked about the movie "Wag the Dog" then suddenly switched to talking about Kosovo occurring in the wake of the sex scandal. I laughed my ass off.

 

[russ_watters]

Did clinton actually do anything other that get a blowjob by a pretty girl?

Yes. Click the link I posted.

But more to the point, if you want to be focusing on just what Clinton himself did, then you also need to drop the Rove/Libby thing because Bush himself had nothing to do with it. So be consistent: either compare individual to individual or administration to administration. Either way, Bush is way, way behind.

 

[Burnsys]

Yes. Click the link I posted.
But more to the point, if you want to be focusing on just what Clinton himself did, then you also need to drop the Rove/Libby thing because Bush himself had nothing to do with it. So be consistent: either compare individual to individual or administration to administration. Either way, Bush is way, way behind.

I am tired of the "lesser of two evils" theory..
I hate them both!

 

[russ_watters]

I can accept that - the trouble is, for Americans the choices were limited. Since you couln't vote for either, even if you wanted to, no such conflict exists.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I am tired of the "lesser of two evils" theory.

Me too! I'm changing my voting strategy this time around.

 

[edward]

Jeez, do you guys just not remember Clinton's scandal-of-the-week Presidency? Google "Clinton scandal" and see what you get.
Bush has a lot of work to do if he wants to catch up with Clinton's record-setting administration.
http://prorev.com/legacy.htm

In all fairness we must then google "Bush scandal" although not scientific the term yeilds 13,100,000 Hits. "Clinton scandal" yields 4,529,000 hits.

And most importantly: "No one died when Clinton lied."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/011905D.shtml

Then of course when we add a few other words to the "Bush scandal" search we get into the heart of the situation.

http://www.thenation.com/directory/bush_administration_enron_connections

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/

I will leave it here because I could go on all day posting links to incidents involving Bush and the Bush administration. And be able to do this despite the fact that the Bush administration has been the most secretive in the history of the USA.

 

[Tarheel]

Bush has a lot of work to do if he wants to catch up with Clinton's record-setting administration.
http://prorev.com/legacy.htm

Except 2,000 US Soldiers DIDNT DIE when Clinton let a chubby intern play with his weiner.

 

[russ_watters]

In all fairness we must then google "Bush scandal" although not scientific the term yeilds 13,100,000 Hits. "Clinton scandal" yields 4,529,000 hits.

That method is flawed due to the fact that as time goes by, hits for a particular subject will decrease. But if you have a list of indictments, resignations, etc., similar to what I posted for Clinton, for Bush's term, I'd be glad to read it.

And most importantly: "No one died when Clinton lied."

Sure, but plenty died due to his incompetence and failure to act.

 

[pattylou]

Are you... suggesting that the deaths in Iraq are... Clinton's fault?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

And be able to do this despite the fact that the Bush administration has been the most secretive in the history of the USA.

The Most Secretive? Really?
Due to the age we live in it is incredibly difficult for anyone as high profile as Bush and his associates to keep anything a secret.
Also you might want to consider the Cold War era for a bit. If any era in American history held the most secrecy within the US administration by a significant degree I'm almost positive that would be it.

 

[edward]

That method is flawed due to the fact that as time goes by, hits for a particular subject will decrease. But if you have a list of indictments, resignations, etc. for Bush's term, I'd be glad to read it.

It is not indictments against the Bush administration that is scarry, it is the lack off indictments becuase of the cabal like secrecy surrounding everything that the this administration has done.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/011905D.shtml
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,192920,00.html
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=21
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/8/10/93657.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/13/AR2005101301955_pf.html
http://www.hcdems.com/misc/bush_scandals.html

Sure, but plenty died due to his incompetence and failure to act.

I am not going to go there. How long do you conservatives think that you can keep distracting, from the current situation by bringing up Clinton??

 

[BobG]

"No one died when Clinton lied."

Wow, that would almost make a good campaign slogan - it even rhymes.

The worst thing is that I found myself agreeing with Burnsys - that's kind of sad since Burnsys hates just about anything American. There is a difference, though. Clinton was an embarrassment to America while Bush is a danger to America.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Wow, that would almost make a good campaign slogan - it even rhymes.
The worst thing is that I found myself agreeing with Burnsys - that's kind of sad since Burnsys hates just about anything American. There is a difference, though. Clinton was an embarrassment to America while Bush is a danger to America.

Correction ... a danger AND an embarrassment.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Correction ... a danger AND an embarrassment.

Lol... I think I'd have a hard time thinking of any current politician I wouldn't use both of those adjectives to describe.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Lol... I think I'd have a hard time thinking of any current politician I wouldn't use both of those adjectives to describe.

Wow ... You're right ... Kim Jong Il ... It works! (Few have access to nukes... hence the danger bit)

 

[SOS2008]

Lol... I think I'd have a hard time thinking of any current politician I wouldn't use both of those adjectives to describe.

Maybe it was my youth and naiveté, but even if people didn't care for Reagan's policies, I felt he represented our country well. The same goes for all the presidents between then and now, including Bush Sr.

Clinton was always a womanizer, but the rest of the world does not share our puritan roots--in fact some may even admire him for this. I would have preferred he used more discretion, but he is an intelligent, good speaker and politician, so he never embarrassed me.

Bush is bad at his job as well as his presentation--all around embarrassing. More importantly, his rise to presidency was done in the dirtiest way known in modern politics, which has never let up.

 

[russ_watters]

Wow, that would almost make a good campaign slogan - it even rhymes.

You haven't seen the bumper sticker?

 

[russ_watters]

Are you... suggesting that the deaths in Iraq are... Clinton's fault?

No. He has the blood of many, many more than that on his hands.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Maybe it was my youth and naiveté, but even if people didn't care for Reagan's policies, I felt he represented our country well. The same goes for all the presidents between then and now, including Bush Sr.
Clinton was always a womanizer, but the rest of the world does not share our puritan roots--in fact some may even admire him for this. I would have preferred he used more discretion, but he is an intelligent, good speaker and politician, so he never embarrassed me.
Bush is bad at his job as well as his presentation--all around embarrassing. More importantly, his rise to presidency was done in the dirtiest way known in modern politics, which has never let up.

Hey ... as far as womanizers, America's 'golden boy' is JFK.

Clinton did a chubbette ... JFK did Marylin.

 

[pattylou]

No. He has the blood of many, many more than that on his hands.

So the deaths in Iraq are not Clinton's fault. That's good.

What deaths *are* his fault, and how do those deaths differ from the deaths in Iraq?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Wow ... You're right ... Kim Jong Il ... It works! (Few have access to nukes... hence the danger bit)

I don't restrict my definition of dangerous to those who have access to direct means of physical destruction. Simply passing certain legislation or promoting certain individuals to positions of power can easily be dangerous acts.

Clinton was always a womanizer, but the rest of the world does not share our puritan roots--in fact some may even admire him for this. I would have preferred he used more discretion, but he is an intelligent, good speaker and politician, so he never embarrassed me.

I'm embarassed to say but I never paid that much attention to him while he was in office. Since he has been out of office though I have heard some suprisingly idiotic things come out of his mouth so I have to say I'm not so sure he's all that bright so much as slick and charming.

 

[Lisa!]

A too long thread only for a mistake I edit it for you in this way:

Calling Bush's administration "remarkably clean," he added: "The amazing thing is that they went almost five years with having any kind of scandle."

Edit: They're clean in compare with what they're going to be in the future!

The worst thing is that I found myself agreeing with Burnsys - that's kind of sad since Burnsys hates just about anything American. There is a difference, though. Clinton was an embarrassment to America while Bush is a danger to America.

Yep, I guess he's as funny as Danger's posts. You know Bush and his supporters always make me laugh.

 

[russ_watters]

So the deaths in Iraq are not Clinton's fault. That's good.

What deaths *are* his fault, and how do those deaths differ from the deaths in Iraq?

I'm disappointed in you, pattylou. Liberals are supposed to be the compassionate ones, and you can't think of any? Heck, one such failure resulted in the resignation of a major cabinet member.

If you want full treatment of why that bumper sticker is just mindless, meaningless rhetoric, start a new thread about it - there is just too much there, on multiple levels, to do it here without hijacking the thread.

 

[russ_watters]

Since he [Clinton] has been out of office though I have heard some suprisingly idiotic things come out of his mouth so I have to say I'm not so sure he's all that bright so much as slick and charming.

Well, there is a reason they called him "Slick Willie" long before he was President. People generally cite his Rhodes scholarship as proof of intelligence, but intelligence alone does not guarantee competency.

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/011905D.shtml

For fun, I looked at that link. It lists 34 scandals of the Bush Presidency. Could you do me a favor and and count how many of them actually involve anyone from his administration? For example, what does a possible bribery of one Senator by another (#17) have to do with Bush?

 

[SOS2008]

I'm embarassed to say but I never paid that much attention to him while he was in office. Since he has been out of office though I have heard some suprisingly idiotic things come out of his mouth so I have to say I'm not so sure he's all that bright so much as slick and charming.

Are there websites, books, etc. devoted to the things Clinton says the way there are for Bushisms? Come on, you know Bush is the most embarrassing—don’t make me spend time documenting this.

 

[MaxS]

This is rather typical.. the entire conservative administration has set itself up for a major downfall, and the hardcore nutters are trying to blame it all on clinton

 

[pattylou]

I'm disappointed in you, pattylou. Liberals are supposed to be the compassionate ones, and you can't think of any? Heck, one such failure resulted in the resignation of a major cabinet member.
If you want full treatment of why that bumper sticker is just mindless, meaningless rhetoric, start a new thread about it - there is just too much there, on multiple levels, to do it here without hijacking the thread.

No, I just have no idea what you're on about.

Can you answer the question? So far you've evaded it.

What deaths were clintons fault, and how do these deaths differ from the deaths in iraq?

Thanks Russ, I'll be looking forward to your answer.

-Patty

p.s. I've made no comments about the bumper sticker, don't know why you thought I had.

 

[russ_watters]

p.s. I've made no comments about the bumper sticker, don't know why you thought I had.

Um...because that's what this entire line of discussion is about.

 

[pattylou]

So, can you answer my question?

What deaths were clintons fault, and how do these deaths differ from the deaths in iraq?

Thanks in advance, Russ.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Are there websites, books, etc. devoted to the things Clinton says the way there are for Bushisms? Come on, you know Bush is the most embarrassing—don’t make me spend time documenting this.

I'm not defending Bush in any way. Just saying that Clinton isn't exactly clean of embarassment. Reagan wasn't either really, nor is Bush Sr.

"Read My Lips!"

Again, not defending anyone really I just don't think very highly of most politicians. As with most leaders I can think of very few that were truly great and deserving of reverence.
It seems like the really great persons are all from quite some time ago. Like some sort of "age of greatness" has passed and we're living in a world of mediocrity. Maybe it's just that the bad things about these people have mostly fallen from memory and we only want to remember the good things about them and even exagerate those things.

 

[SOS2008]

I'm not defending Bush in any way. Just saying that Clinton isn't exactly clean of embarassment. Reagan wasn't either really, nor is Bush Sr.

"Read My Lips!"

Again, not defending anyone really I just don't think very highly of most politicians. As with most leaders I can think of very few that were truly great and deserving of reverence.

It seems like the really great persons are all from quite some time ago. Like some sort of "age of greatness" has passed and we're living in a world of mediocrity. Maybe it's just that the bad things about these people have mostly fallen from memory and we only want to remember the good things about them and even exagerate those things.

I guess it is a spectrum, perhaps from mediocre to really bad. Some things have deteriorated over the generations, but mostly it is the increase of media coverage. Political leaders are only humans like everyone else.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I guess it is a spectrum, perhaps from mediocre to really bad. Some things have deteriorated over the generations, but mostly it is the increase of media coverage. Political leaders are only humans like everyone else.

Nobody can argue the perfection of any politician. We're all 'picking the lesser of any number of evils'. Bush is just particularly evil.

 

[pattylou]

So, can you answer my question?
What deaths were clintons fault, and how do these deaths differ from the deaths in iraq?
Thanks in advance, Russ.

Just so the question doesn't get lost.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Just so the question doesn't get lost.

Don't you get it?

It's only 'liberals' that need proof.

Russ just goes off and hooks into things like the GDP from 1944 to 1988 like he did on the other thread and thinks that is good enough.

We're required to take it on faith.

Surely you remember all those deaths ... er? ... or was it THOSE deaths ... I can't be sure.

 

[pattylou]

To be honest I'm less interested in the actual deaths, and more interested in whether Russ recognizes the importance of providing references when you make a claim.

As a super mentor, he should.

Russ?