So in retrospect, what do you think best describes him?
I would like to see him run for mayor of NY
How about: "Very smooth, otherwise typical politician"?
Hate his politics (except maybe 10%), think he was a pussy 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.
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:
Isn't that redundant?
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.
I dunno, Russ. I never considered Dan Quayle particularly smooth. (Nor Bush Sr., for that matter).
I miss Clinton. Damnit, I miss everything about the 90s! :(
I completely agree. Like him or hate him, his skills in diplomacy are recognized world wide.
I miss all that Clinton g..., err, bashing.
Thank god we have an honest leader in GW.
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.
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?
Wasn't George W. the one warning us that the war could take a long time, maybe even years?
I don't recall him ever saying this in such a fashion. Besides, some Iraqis have.
Who says we can't?
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.
were you by chance, hiding under a rock last year?
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.)
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.
Were you by chance just posing another statement without backing?
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.
"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?
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.
You own statement refutes your claim.
This would be a wonderful arguement if it did not completely avoid the entire point under discussion, and instead present a completely irrelevant statement about nothing.
edited for my knobbery
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.
Separate names with a comma.