What best describes Bill Clinton

What best describes your perception of Clinton

  • Brilliant, a great leader, a bit of a scoundrel

    Votes: 21 67.7%
  • Brilliant, a lying sneak

    Votes: 3 9.7%
  • A pompous sneak who faked and cheated his way though the system

    Votes: 7 22.6%
  • An inconsequential pawn for the real power

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Was likely involved in the murder of Vince Foster

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    31
  • Poll closed .
  • #1
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176

Main Question or Discussion Point

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

Answers and Replies

  • #2
I would like to see him run for mayor of NY :approve:
 
  • #3
How about: "Very smooth, otherwise typical politician"?
 
  • #4
member 5645
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.
 
  • #5
kat
26
0
lucky. :wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #6
russ_watters
Mentor
19,710
6,050
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?
 
  • #7
467
1
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.
 
  • #8
467
1
I dunno, Russ. I never considered Dan Quayle particularly smooth. (Nor Bush Sr., for that matter).
 
  • #9
137
0
I miss Clinton. Damnit, I miss everything about the 90s! :(
 
  • #10
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
phatmonky said:
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.
 
  • #11
BoulderHead
I miss all that Clinton g..., err, bashing.
 
  • #12
Gza
437
0
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. :wink:
 
  • #13
467
1
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.
 
  • #14
343
0
JohnDubYa said:
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?
 
  • #15
467
1
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.
 
  • #16
Gza
437
0
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.
 
  • #17
member 5645
Gza said:
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
6.jpg



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?
 
  • #18
343
0
phatmonky said:
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 arguement if it did not completely avoid the entire point under discussion, and instead present a completely irrelevant statement about nothing.
 
  • #19
member 5645
edited for my knobbery
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
17
phatmonky said:
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.
 
  • #21
343
0
phatmonky said:
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.
phatmonky said:
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?
 
  • #22
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 :eek:
 
  • #23
member 5645
Gokul43201 said:
clearly, before the war, Bush was suggesting that it will be quick.
Why do you people keep doing this?? Post a link!
 
  • #24
343
0
phatmonky said:
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 :eek:
Accepted. It could happen to any of us.
 
  • #25
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
17
phatmonky said:
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.
 

Related Threads on What best describes Bill Clinton

  • Last Post
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
9K
Replies
30
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Top