Anti-Bush? Why not Anti Clinton?

[thegamerslink]

I find it very strange that so many foreign people, and so many people in our own country hold such hatred and anger at President Bush, but some how hold President Clinton in a position of respect or admiration.

Let us completely take off the table the fact of his defiling not only his position, but also the Oval Office by his sexual acts. And I'm not saying he's not allowed to be human, just shouldn't do it while talking business to other Senators sitting in the Oval Office in his official capacity as the President. There is a difference.


But then there are things that took place, foreign policy wise that no one ever talks about or even points out.

One of the biggest I think was Kosovo............which if your really think about it made a perfect opportunity for Russia and the current conflict in Georgia as well as the rising threat of the return of the cold war.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/clintons-kosovo-whopper/

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0101e.asp

I'm not proposing the President Bush is perfect. Nor am I proposing that he's an angel. However, I am proposing that there is a direct link, there is a trail to directly link President Clinton's actions and in-actions to several U.S. terrorist attacks including but not limited to the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center.

[alex27]

That is because of whats happening in our country. One of my friend told me that she have watched the documentary about 9/11 (forgot the title) and it will make you think that Bush is behind of what happened in 9/11.

[thegamerslink]

So your proposal is that it's because of the marketing that has been put behind it that has caused the animosity towards President Bush?

[m42]

Originally Posted by alex27

That is because of whats happening in our country. One of my friend told me that she have watched the documentary about 9/11 (forgot the title) and it will make you think that Bush is behind of what happened in 9/11.

WTF?

That "Bush is behind 9/11" bullsh!t is getting old. 9/11 was in the planning stages during the Clinton administration.

People attack you when you show weakness.

[thegamerslink]

It’s strange as well that Clinton complained to Wallace about the “neocons” attacking him when many of the same neocons in 1999 supported Clinton’s war on Yugoslavia. The war was never approved by the U.N. or the U.S. Congress, and in fact violated the War Powers Act. The main beneficiary of the intervention was a Muslim terrorist group, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), with links to bin Laden, who had declared war on America in 1996, bombed our embassies in Africa in 1998, and would later, of course, orchestrate 9/11.

From one of the articles I posted above. In actuality the support that Clinton gave during the Kosovo fiasco helped support 9/11. The massive foreign policy blunders of the Clinton Administration was the avenue to which the terrorist acts that took place in the U.S. through the mid 90's all the way up to 9/11 and is what made it possible. If President Bush had any error in it the one error would have been keeping Clinton's CIA Director George Tenet. But the responsibility has to stop at that point.

[Zap]

I can offer you this, Gamer.
The situation you describe is not unique.

I have had the opportunity to speak with many Russians about many things, including the cold war.
Some were brought up post-cold war and some were brought up during the cold war.
Gorbechev is seen very differently by the Russians than he is seen by many Westerners.
He is the architect of Glasnost and Perestroika (openness and reconstruction).
His policies helped bring a greater sense of peace to the world.
To us, he opened up Russia.
To many Russians I spoke with, he oversaw the fall of the Soviet Union and life was tougher for ordinary Russians for a while after. It still is tougher for many. He is not so popular with them.
There are even groups of people who wish for a return to communism the way it was in the old days.
I have seen the protesters in Red Square, carrying the old Soviet Flags and posters of Lenin, wanting to return to the old ways while kids zoom by on their skateboards with their iPods.

[Bob Barr]

I find it very strange that so many foreign people, and so many people in our own country hold such hatred and anger at President Bush, but some how hold President Clinton in a position of respect or admiration.

IMHO, that difference is, in large measure, based on how the two have been portrayed so differently in press and TV coverage.

To the media, since Clinton was "their guy", he could do no wrong. Since GWB isn't, he can do nothing right.

Had a Republican president allowed military equipment to be used at the Branch Davidian (David Koresh) compound in Texas, everyone in the country would have heard the words "Posse Commitatus" until they were sick of them.

Had a Republican president deported Elian Gonzalez to Cuba, they'd still be bemoaning the fate of the poor little freedom-fighter at the hands of the uncaring Republicans.

[ewomack]

Our polarized political environment inevitably leads to finger pointing. Something as horrible as 911 will lead to the current administration blaming the previous and the previous saying "we didn't do it." This whole issue is split amongst political lines and nothing else. The reasons behind 911 are far too complex to be reduced to something a single administration did at such and such a time. Most likely both the Clinton and Bush Administrations are equally at fault. In the end, regardless of what the Clinton Administration did or didn't do, or even what Bush I or Reagan did or didn't do, 911 happened on the current Administration's watch. That's pretty much indisputable. Other arguments that Clinton didn't act or Bush ignored the evidence in front of him or whatever all adds up to controversy. This leads, as always, to the usual futile circle that swirls around political issues in this country.

Anyway, not all of Europe was taken with Clinton, either. Sure he was more popular than Bush, but Bush has been more overt about American interests than Clinton was (though they both held similar views as to "American interests"). It's more in the way Bush says things than in what he's saying. That's the impression I get from people I know in Europe (those who don't like Bush, at least; not everyone hates him there, but he is very unpopular).

To answer your question better you should log into a political forum that includes lots of Europeans (and English threads). We do have some here, of course. You can simply ask them why they seem to hate Bush. You might get interesting answers.

[alex27]

Originally Posted by m42

WTF?

That "Bush is behind 9/11" bullsh!t is getting old. 9/11 was in the planning stages during the Clinton administration.

People attack you when you show weakness.

try to watch Fahrenheit 9/11 Directed by Michael Moore.

[Natural Elements]

I am European, French to be precise and I think President Bush did his best, at least he always tried to do something for his people and his country. Yes he is unpopular but you have to when tough decisions need to be made. As far as my ex President Chirac during his mandat, I was a shame to be French as Americans are our allies and we let them down.

All I have to say is that they are good men either in Republican or Democrate party. Forget the partisans war, I wish sincerely this country will not be devided like mine and unit their energies to serve America and the American people.

[backgammonnn123]

Both clinton and bush are puppets of the power structure. Ron paul is the only candidate that has a perfect record of saying what he believes in and not flip flopping. Check his voting record. Ron Paul is the only candidate that isnt supported by even one special interest dollar. The elite are brainwashing you guys to the democrate-republican so called choices when in fact it doesnt really matter which of the 2 parties gets elected because they both owe their election not to the people but the big special interest groups that back them monetarily.

Get ready for another 4 years of the same bs no matter who gets elected.

[John Scott]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21977173934414

Amen.

[homebizseo]

Clinton was a scum and folks loved him. Immoral and lying put him on a pedestal. I did not like anyone that ran when Bush ran. He did handled 9/11 proper and swift. All the anti-Americans were crying for retaliation when 9/11 occurred but seemed to have flip flopped and forgot the root of the problem since then.

Bush did flop on New Orleans also.

[adamk1]

It probably has something to do with intelligence, I mean nobody would argue that Bush has a little garden pea brain, Clinton is a very smart man despite all that happened with him, the country made some good progress over all the Clinton years.

I think Bush does get a bit to much bad press because of his intelligence people like him don't need to be incredibly intelligent they need to be good decision makers and good morals.

The last 12 months has really finished Bush off with the economy taking such a down turn and in addition to already bad feelings with the war.

[thegamerslink]

Originally Posted by backgammonnn123

Both clinton and bush are puppets of the power structure. Ron paul is the only candidate that has a perfect record of saying what he believes in and not flip flopping. Check his voting record. Ron Paul is the only candidate that isnt supported by even one special interest dollar. The elite are brainwashing you guys to the democrate-republican so called choices when in fact it doesnt really matter which of the 2 parties gets elected because they both owe their election not to the people but the big special interest groups that back them monetarily.

Get ready for another 4 years of the same bs no matter who gets elected.

Every President is going to make mistakes, even your illustrious Ron Paul given the chance would also make mistakes. President Bush has actually saved this country in more ways than one. When the congress was controlled by the Republicans my largest complaint was that they had left their philosophies and were spending way to much. Ear marks etc were way out of hand, and since the Dems have taken control our only saving grace, finally, has been President Bush sitting in the Oval Office Vetoing everything that came to him that was filled with outlandish ear marks, programs that were special interest etc. Economically we were in a mini recession in 2000, the tax rate reduction relieved that recession and at the same time made a record surplus in the budget. The continuation of the tax cuts, an increase in drill here, drill now, mixed with corporate exploration in other sources of energy and growth will continue a strong economy. By 2011 the troops will be coming out of Iraq completely, a large decrease will be happening up until that time, that is going to decrease the current expenditures along with the making our own oil available and alternate energy exploration.

The economy showed a 3.3% increase last quarter larger than expected. The housing market is starting to see growth in home purchases the dollar is strengthening. 20 or so years from now, just as with Reagan, Bush will be a President that people say did a good or even great job. Not a perfect job but a good job as no one does a perfect job.

I can't even begin to imagine the mess we would be in now had Gore or Kerry taken office.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by alex27

try to watch Fahrenheit 9/11 Directed by Michael Moore.

For anybody to take that propaganda seriously would indicate not only feeble intelligence but also a basic failure to do one's due diligence; a slight amount of which would bring one to the film's many lies.

[fastreplies]

Originally Posted by John Scott

For anybody to take that propaganda seriously would indicate not only feeble intelligence but also a basic failure to do one's due diligence; a slight amount of which would bring one to the film's many lies.

Propaganda?

7 minutes of documented evidence of incompetent president action, after he was told that America is under attack is not propaganda but measure of inadequacy of the man who has mental capacity of a monkey.

I am sure John you wouldn’t dream to ask busboy in $100.00 per plate restaurant to cook your diner and yet you elected Gas Station Attendant to be your President.

Can you tell me why?
What is so remarkable about Bush II that made you to choose man with lesser intelligence than Dan Quayle have, being your President?


fastreplies

[thegamerslink]

Substantiate your proof or don't talk.

[fastreplies]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

Substantiate your proof or don't talk.

You mean you want me to proof that Bush is an imbecile or incompetent.
How about if I proof he’s both?

http://www.youtube.com/v/wobKUZN7dDg&hl=en&fs=1

fastreplies

[thegamerslink]

So you assert that you and a couple other people know more about National Security and it's inner workings more than the Pentagon? You can't simply go by appearances, nor can you make accusations of this magnitude simply by going by what you think you see, not by knowing the facts behind what was actually going on.

Just as you accuse John for taking part in electing President Bush. How do you know who he voted for, how do you know that he voted at all? Just as how do you know that there weren't standing orders when he walked into the class room? How do you know what those orders were or were not? When would you call for the shooting down of civilian planes full of hundreds of innocent people? Shoot down a plane that you aren't completely sure is going to do something? In the absence of it having actually done the act, what type of response would the bleeding liberals have for such an action? There would never be any proof as to what the intentions of the planes were and if they were even part of the initial actions or not.

So you sit, in the after math, years after the aftermath at that and sit in a distant back seat without any facts other than what you think you see and make a decision based on matters that you have no real knowledge of?