Clinton and Bush (Dum Bass Alert!)

Times Union ^ | June 28, 2003 | Anonymous (you'll see why)

[fightinJAG]

Clinton and Bush

First published: Saturday, June 28, 2003

Comparisons between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush persist. I don't ever recall the specter of the last president looming so large over the incumbent as Clinton looms over Bush.

The nation must be close to evenly divided over which one has been the better president. If you are going to argue their merits as leaders, you have to exclude their personal shortcomings. George W. had a drinking problem and now his opponents are accusing him of being a liar. Bill Clinton's appetite was not for alcohol but he lied and he may have ruined his reputation with the shortcomings in his character.

One reason we keep drawing comparisons is their age. They are both 56. The other reason we're having a hard time forgetting Bill Clinton is that there's no outstanding Democrat forcing him out of the limelight. All good Democrats are waiting for a candidate to emerge about whom they can become enthusiastic. They don't see one yet.

For the first time, President Bush is beginning to look vulnerable. His approval ratings are still high but his critics are louder. It seems likely those ratings will slip if the economy doesn't improve dramatically and if efforts to achieve peace in Iraq don't progress as quickly and favorably as the war did.

Bill Clinton is easier to be enthusiastic about and easier to detest than George W. Bush. Or so it seems to me, anyway. George W. has a simple likability about him. He doesn't seem like a Phi Beta Kappa but neither do we. Clinton is bright but confusingly complex.

Democrats are accusing the President of lying to us about the reasons for the war in Iraq, about a connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden, about ``leaving no child behind'' and about who will benefit from tax cuts.

The President's justification for going to war with Iraq was always the threat Saddam Hussein posed to the United States with his weapons of mass destruction. There's been so much talk about those weapons that newspapers are even referring to them as ``WMD.'' I'm not an apologist for the President but his critics see evil that I don't see. I believe he honestly thought Saddam had nuclear or biological weapons that were a threat to us. I believe he believes the tax cuts will help everyone, I believe he believes his plan for schools will help every child. The fact that he may be wrong about all these things doesn't make him a bad person.

Maybe we ask too much of politicians. We expect them to be nice, intelligent, honest and of good moral character. That's a lot to ask. We don't demand that of any of our other heroes or public figures. When we look for a doctor, we don't check into his preferences in matters of religion, sex, exercise or food. All we ask is that he be a good doctor. If a politician is experienced in government and expert at leading us, maybe we shouldn't expect him to be of sterling character, too.

Maybe we could agree that Bush and Clinton are both OK -- but different.

[weegee]

If you are going to argue their merits as leaders, you have to exclude their personal shortcomings. George W. had a drinking problem and now his opponents are accusing him of being a liar. Bill Clinton's appetite was not for alcohol but he lied and he may have ruined his reputation with the shortcomings in his character.

I wonder if the author is still beating his wife.

Bubba is a sex addict, a serial rapist, and a sexual predator. He used cocaine by the admission of his own brother, Roger. He lied under oath, he lied convincingly(>) on camera wagging his finger at America. He is a manipulator who exhibits phoney emotion ("I feel your pain" and crying on cue, witness the Ron Brown funeral blooper).

Bubba brought character into the discussion when he said that his would be the most ethical administration.

[weegee]

We know what President Bush and President Clinton did in airplanes:

BUSH

SINKY

Which activity takes more brains?

[weegee]

In 1993, the WTC was bombed by terrorists. 8 years later in 2001, the WTC was bombed again (by planes used as an explosive device).

We know how each president responded to these attacks.

[weegee]

Bill Clinton's appetite was not for alcohol

He sure looks bombed on something in this photo. The herpes on his lip indicates some other problems as well.

[Vaduz]

They look like they just backed into the tow in the rear and the guy on the right looks like he he backed into somthing he didn't want to back into.

[muggs]

bump

[timestax]

ping

[cardinal4]

Maybe we could agree that Bush and Clinton are both OK -- but different.

Gag, barf, choke,(sound of me keeling over.......)

[cardinal4]

So what did Clinton *DO* in his 8 long years in office?!

Lied, cheated, groped, raped, covered-up, commited treason, put condoms on the Xmas tree, slandered Billy Dale, Got a 200 dollar haircut on the ramp at LAX while countless flights diverted and delayed countless others, testified before a grand jury, an intern, was impeached, signed Kyoto, signed ICC........oh he did a lot. Its just that most of it was criminal.

[kevkrom]

So what did Clinton *DO* in his 8 long years in office?!

Not "what", but rather "whom". And the answer is: anyone he could find (whether they be willing or no).

[timestax]

p i n g

[McGavin999]

The difference in character between Clinton and Bush is blinding! First of all, you'd have to be both a moron, and have a memory of 22 seconds not to know that the entire world believed Saddam had WMDs for years. Saddam told us himself that he did. Why do you think he went out and bought all those chemical suits for his military? Because they're fun to wear in the desert?

The democrats climbed all over Bush for not figuring out that the terrorists might hit us, and now they are condemning him because he DID figure out that Saddam might hit us. Maybe we shouldn't have. Maybe we should have allowed the terrorists to get those weapons and take out LA (just think, no more Hollywood weirdos) or New York City. Maybe that would make the dems happy.

It seems that the only thing that will make them happy is if our economy is in the dumps, our military is defeated, and there's a major terrorist strike somewhere in the US. That's really rather pathetic isn't it?

[fightinJAG]

Well said.