The Bush Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
You got me on Nixon, but Clinton seriously? Clinton having an affair caused as much cynicism as everything Bush did?

Clinton had quite a few affairs and plenty of corruption in his administration.

And Norman, quit pretending that Bush isn't self-serving. He awarded no-bid contracts to Halliburton, which just so happens to be the company his VP worked for. And both Bushes own a stake in the main company that was contracted for weapons for the war. There has been just as much corruption and self-serving actions in the Bush administration as there was in Clinton's.
 
Clinton had quite a few affairs and plenty of corruption in his administration.

And Norman, quit pretending that Bush isn't self-serving. He awarded no-bid contracts to Halliburton, which just so happens to be the company his VP worked for. And both Bushes own a stake in the main company that was contracted for weapons for the war. There has been just as much corruption and self-serving actions in the Bush administration as there was in Clinton's.

Did I ever state that Bush was innocent? Of course not. But awarding no-bid contracts to one of the leading companies is incomparable, IMO, to the actions of Clinton. Now if I believed that benefiting these companies was a reason, at all, for Iraq or Afghanistan - it would be comparable - but I truly don't think that is at all the case.
 
Did I ever state that Bush was innocent? Of course not. But awarding no-bid contracts to one of the leading companies is incomparable, IMO, to the actions of Clinton. Now if I believed that benefiting these companies was a reason, at all, for Iraq or Afghanistan - it would be comparable - but I truly don't think that is at all the case.

Well guess what, most of the country thinks the war was a crock of crap in the first place. It's not a difficult leap in logic to assume that they aren't happy with the type of cronyism that went on in the government contracts.
 
Well guess what, most of the country thinks the war was a crock of crap in the first place. It's not a difficult leap in logic to assume that they aren't happy with the type of cronyism that went on in the government contracts.

Honestly, sir, in this regard I don't give a damn what the rest of the country thinks.

I am talking about which President's actions more offended me, not what the count thinks.
 
Honestly, sir, in this regard I don't give a damn what the rest of the country thinks.

I am talking about which President's actions more offended me, not what the count thinks.

Well this discussion began around the premise of the country's cynicism as a whole, so that is what I will continue referring to. Clinton and Bush were equally destructive in causing cynicism in America. Nixon was the worst we've had in 50 years, possibly ever. And I would say another thing that is fairly high up there is JFK's assassination. That caused a lot of cynicism too. My mom still thinks LBJ set the whole thing up.
 
Well this discussion began around the premise of the country's cynicism as a whole, so that is what I will continue referring to. Clinton and Bush were equally destructive in causing cynicism in America. Nixon was the worst we've had in 50 years, possibly ever. And I would say another thing that is fairly high up there is JFK's assassination. That caused a lot of cynicism too. My mom still thinks LBJ set the whole thing up.

I think Obama is very Reagan like in his ability to touch Americans which is why I preferred him to John McCain by the end of the campaign. I may disagree with Obama's policies, but I care more about the status of this country and this country NEEDS a leader like Obama.
 
I think Obama is very Reagan like in his ability to touch Americans which is why I preferred him to John McCain by the end of the campaign. I may disagree with Obama's policies, but I care more about the status of this country and this country NEEDS a leader like Obama.

I agree. For all the things that he does that are similar to "typical" politicians (the triangulating, the overspending on his Inauguration, etc.), he also has a very civil way of discussing things with people. Reagan had it in spades and so does Obama. I think it is a very unique quality and it is something our country should always strive to have in our President. Instead, we had two Presidents in a row that were ultra partisan ("vast right wing conspiracy" and "angry left" are quotes from Bubba and Dubya that come to mind). Obama is much like Reagan. A uniter rather than a divider. I love the fact that he and Reagan can/could listen to and politely engage in debate with their opponents rather than simply treating them like crap, which is how Clinton and Bush acted.
 
Did I ever state that Bush was innocent? Of course not. But awarding no-bid contracts to one of the leading companies is incomparable, IMO, to the actions of Clinton. Now if I believed that benefiting these companies was a reason, at all, for Iraq or Afghanistan - it would be comparable - but I truly don't think that is at all the case.

But Bush promised to restore honor to the White house, how did that work out?

At least Clinton was competent.
 
Which is why a part of me fears Obama. If Obama fails, I truly worry for the future of this country. A failure from Obama would make the people more cynical of the President than possibly ever in the history of this country.

I agree....but frankly...I blame congress far more.
 
The Major...

You act as if Clinton was winning teh war on terror, and yet gave a bunch of nothing as to what he was doing.

We were attacked by Muslims 3 times during Clintons presidency, and your support is "we arrested people". Arrested people for what? A crime? Terrorism is more than a crime, and you cant just arrest a few people and say youve won the war.

You say that Bush has done nothing...but since 911 (which yes...there were many signs...and yes..they could have done more to prevent it) how many terrorist attacks have happened? None. That is not a victory in itself, but how many have been attamepted??? 10? 100? We dont know...but we DO know that more have been attempted and we have stopped them all before they happened.

Because youre a democrat you have to support Clintons non-war on terror as having Bin ladin shaking in his sandals, and you cant give Bush an oounce of credit.
 
The Major...

You act as if Clinton was winning teh war on terror, and yet gave a bunch of nothing as to what he was doing.

We were attacked by Muslims 3 times during Clintons presidency, and your support is "we arrested people". Arrested people for what? A crime? Terrorism is more than a crime, and you cant just arrest a few people and say youve won the war.

You say that Bush has done nothing...but since 911 (which yes...there were many signs...and yes..they could have done more to prevent it) how many terrorist attacks have happened? None. That is not a victory in itself, but how many have been attamepted??? 10? 100? We dont know...but we DO know that more have been attempted and we have stopped them all before they happened.

Because youre a democrat you have to support Clintons non-war on terror as having Bin ladin shaking in his sandals, and you cant give Bush an oounce of credit.

It took 3000 people to die for Bush to wage a war on terror. The fact of the matter is we really don't know what Bush would have done if the terrorist attacks continued but with low casualty accounts. He may have ignored it same as Clinton did. But comparing the terrorist attacks during the 90's to 9/11 is apples and oranges. Any responsible President would have reacted to 9/11 by waging war on Afghanistan. And as I mentioned earlier, despite warnings from the Clinton administration about Bin Laden, all reports indicate Bush ignored the threat and decided instead to focus on Iraq until September 11th.
 
It took 3000 people to die for Bush to wage a war on terror. The fact of the matter is we really don't know what Bush would have done if the terrorist attacks continued but with low casualty accounts. He may have ignored it same as Clinton did. But comparing the terrorist attacks during the 90's to 9/11 is apples and oranges. Any responsible President would have reacted to 9/11 by waging war on Afghanistan. And as I mentioned earlier, despite warnings from the Clinton administration about Bin Laden, all reports indicate Bush ignored the threat and decided instead to focus on Iraq until September 11th.

It took 3000 people to die for America to wage a war on terror.

Bill Clinton did nothing after Yemen, after WTC '93, after the Embassy Bombings - and there was no American outcry. No public demand. Its hard to wage major military operations without public support.
 
It took 3000 people to die for America to wage a war on terror.

Bill Clinton did nothing after Yemen, after WTC '93, after the Embassy Bombings - and there was no American outcry. No public demand. Its hard to wage major military operations without public support.

Agreed. The whole country had a nonchalant attitude towards it. 9/11 woke us all the hell up.
 
It took 3000 people to die for America to wage a war on terror.

Bill Clinton did nothing after Yemen, after WTC '93, after the Embassy Bombings - and there was no American outcry. No public demand. Its hard to wage major military operations without public support.

Didn't he try to kill Osama with some missles?


:thing: :doom: :thing:
 
Even this is arguable.

Clinton was a Rhodes scholar and actually made his money, say what you will about Clinton, he wasn't stupid, Bush was.

Okay, for the sake of argument lets assume both Clinton and Bush were corrupt, a corrupt Clinton would appoint his friends to government position, but would put them in places where they would do no real harm, Bush appoints his incompetent friends to where they do the most harm, like the head of FEMA, there is the key difference.
 
Didn't he try to kill Osama with some missles?


:thing: :doom: :thing:

If someone tries to kill a swarm of locust with a b b gun and fails epically they don't deserve credit for taking action.

Clinton was a Rhodes scholar and actually made his money, say what you will about Clinton, he wasn't stupid, Bush was.

Okay, for the sake of argument lets assume both Clinton and Bush were corrupt, a corrupt Clinton would appoint his friends to government position, but would put them in places where they would do no real harm, Bush appoints his incompetent friends to where they do the most harm, like the head of FEMA, there is the key difference.

Bush is not a stupid man. Stupid men don't hold diplomas from Yale and Harvard.

Clinton sold pardons, sold nights in the Lincoln Bedroom for personal finances, the Clintons stole furniture from the White House, then there is Whitewater and Clinton's large history with women.
 
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95QC5OO0&show_article=1

WASHINGTON (AP) - In his final acts of clemency, President George W. Bush on Monday commuted the prison sentences of two former U.S. Border Patrol agents whose convictions for shooting a Mexican drug dealer ignited fierce debate about illegal immigration. Bush's decision to commute the sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who tried to cover up the shooting, was welcomed by both Republican and Democratic members of Congress. They had long argued that the agents were merely doing their jobs, defending the American border against criminals. They also maintained that the more than 10-year prison sentences the pair was given were too harsh.
Rancor over their convictions, sentencing and firings has simmered ever since the shooting occurred in 2005.
Ramos and Compean became a rallying point among conservatives and on talk shows where their supporters called them heroes. Nearly the entire bipartisan congressional delegation from Texas and other lawmakers from both sides of the political aisle pleaded with Bush to grant them clemency.
Bush didn't pardon the men for their crimes, but decided instead to commute their prison sentences because he believed they were excessive and that they had already suffered the loss of their jobs, freedom and reputations, a senior administration official said.
The action by the president, who believes the border agents received fair trials and that the verdicts were just, does not diminish the seriousness of their crimes, the official said.
Compean and Ramos, who have served about two years of their sentences, are expected to be released from prison within the next two months.
They were convicted of shooting admitted drug smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete Davila in the buttocks as he fled across the Rio Grande, away from an abandoned van load of marijuana. The border agents argued during their trials that they believed the smuggler was armed and that they shot him in self defense. The prosecutor in the case said there was no evidence linking the smuggler to the van of marijuana. The prosecutor also said the border agents didn't report the shooting and tampered with evidence by picking up several spent shell casings.
The agents were fired after their convictions on several charges, including assault with a dangerous weapon and with serious bodily injury, violation of civil rights and obstruction of justice. All their convictions, except obstruction of justice, were upheld on appeal.
With the new acts of clemency, Bush has granted a total of 189 pardons and 11 commutations.
That's fewer than half as many as Presidents Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan issued during their two-term tenures. Bush technically has until noon on Tuesday when President-elect Barack Obama is sworn into office to exercise his executive pardon authority, but presidential advisers said no more were forthcoming.
The president had made most of his pardon decisions on low-profile cases, but his batch in December created controversy.
Isaac Robert Toussie of Brooklyn, N.Y, convicted of making false statements to the Department of Housing and Urban Development and of mail fraud, was among 19 people Bush pardoned just before Christmas. But after learning in news reports that Toussie's father had donated tens of thousands of dollars to the Republican Party a few months ago, as well as other information, the president reversed his decision on Toussie's case.
The White House said the decision to revoke the pardon—a step unheard of in recent memory—was based on information about the extent and nature of Toussie's prior criminal offenses, and that neither the White House counsel's office nor the president had been aware of a political contribution by Toussie's father and wanted to avoid creating an appearance of impropriety.
In an earlier high-profile official act of forgiveness, Bush saved Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, from serving prison time in the case of the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. Libby was convicted of perjury and obstructing justice. Bush could still grant him a full pardon, although Libby has not applied for one.
Bush's batches of pardons, however, have never included any well-known convicts like junk bond dealer Michael Milken, who sought a pardon on securities fraud charges, or two politicians convicted of public corruption—former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., and four-term Democratic Louisiana Gov. Edwin W. Edwards—who wanted Bush to shorten their prison terms.
Clinton issued a total of 457 in eight years in office. Bush's father, George H. W. Bush, issued 77 in four years. Reagan issued 406 in eight years, and President Carter issued 563 in four years. Since World War II, the largest number of pardons and commutations—2,031—came from President Truman, who served 82 days short of eight years.

Good job, Bush, for going out on a good move. :up:
 
It's about time. I've been following them for years.
 
So? The Cold War was not a war seeking the defeat of the Soviet Union, it was a war of containment.

But what is the point of the "war on terror"? It's not like any of the other wars involving words has worked. Poverty still exists, as does cancer, and the flow of drugs into the US is steady.
 
Clinton was a Rhodes scholar and actually made his money, say what you will about Clinton, he wasn't stupid, Bush was.

Bush wasn't that much of a competent President, but I highly doubt that he's an idiot that so many people portray him to be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,273
Messages
22,078,333
Members
45,878
Latest member
Remembrance1988
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"