It’s no news to anyone that I dislike President Bush, I can’t think of one person I know outside of the United States who holds the man in anything else other than complete contempt. He has smashed fragile relations with foreign countries and trampled on the goodwill of Americas allies to such an extent that the level of anti-American sentiment in the world is surely at a record high.
While I know that president Clinton wasn’t as popular domestically as he was on the global stage, I am astounded that he was laughably impeached for getting a blowjob then lying about it. Yes he was wrong to lie, but I’m left wondering where the hell Ken Star is now?
President Bush has lied about things that have cost more than a dry cleaning bill that’s for sure. His ‘quick’ war in Iraq has turned into a disaster with no end in sight. It’s costing the American people one hundred and seventy seven million dollars each and every single day, not to mention the lives of more than 2200 American servicemen and women and who knows how many innocent Iraqi people.
He’s lied about other things too, not least the fact that he knew the catastrophe that hurricane Katrina would bring upon the Golf Coast. But it seems that for some reason while he may blow at his job, it’s fine just as long as he doesn’t actually get a blowjob.
If Clinton’s lie was such a huge deal then I don’t understand why Bush’s isn’t also viewed in the same way, if not worse? It seems to me that sucking while working in the Oval Office isn’t restricted just to Ms Lewisnsky, though this time around it’s the American people being taken to the dry cleaners and not some cheap old dress.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 5, 2006 at 10:26 am
I’ll take a sex scandal any day over a war.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 5, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Monica’s book was good. I always wondered if she got the dress back. Simon I am suprised you are not talking about Tom Delay….I saw a pic of him high-fiving his staff yesterday.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 5, 2006 at 2:14 pm
i’m not defending anybody, but i’ll say that now we’re paying for the clinton administration’s mistakes (i.e. osama and rwanda).
Wrote the following comment on Apr 5, 2006 at 6:44 pm
You’re now paying for Clinton’s mistakes? Oh yeah, sure you are ;-)
Of course when Clinton wins the election democrates will blame Bush in the same way I suppose. It was always the other guys fault.
One thing I am confused about though Edith, is how Clinton was responsible for Osama? The United States financed, trained and supplied arms to Osama when Al-Qaeda was the Mujahedeen? The Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, that was before Clinton was in the White House wasn’t it. (I’m a little rusty on my years.) If so, then wouldn’t you be more correct in blaming the ‘Ronny Ray Gun’ administration?
The war in Iraq is now called the ‘front line’ in the war on terror. But that’s a huge twist of irony when one considers the fact that Al-Qaeda was strongly opposed to the secular regime of Saddam Hussein. In fact before the United States and the allies deployed in the Gulf to liberate Kuwait Osama bin Laden offered use of his fighters’ services to the Saudi throne to do the job that the allies ended up half doing. Bin Laden was angry that ‘infidel’ forces were waging war on what he thought was Islamic sacred territory, he saw this as an act of treachery by the Saudi throne.
So next time you hear President talk about fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq consider the irony of how they came to be there, and so strong, in the first place.Like I say, a blow job seems small potatoes when you compare it to the current unholy mess that Bush has gotten us ALL into.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 5, 2006 at 6:47 pm
I always feel bad for Monica Lewinsky. She’s never going to be known for anything other than being the intern who blew Bill. That’s gotta be a tough break when you think about it.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 5, 2006 at 10:54 am
It’s so ridiculous that it would be funny only if it weren’t costing so many lives. I remember seeing the outrage aimed at Clinton on the news. How there can be no outrage now is beyond me.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 5, 2006 at 8:02 pm
The book really makes you sympathize for her. I kinda think she loved him and he just took her up on the oppty. Maybe he has big feet? and she just couldnt help herself lol! He was very good in reducing our deficit and the history class I took last year hailed him as one of our best presidents…he was very good w/ foreign policy also. He is obviously sexually deprived and when he was behaiving he ate…alot…maybe he is being faithful now and puts the Mc Donalds bag on Hilary’s head….you know the “M” makes her look like she is smiling :)
Wrote the following comment on Apr 5, 2006 at 12:04 pm
I honestly cannot wrap my brain around the fact that people voted for him and now defend his actions…it completely and utterly boggles my mind. The last election was actually the first I had voted in, and blindly hoped he would be voted out…so naive.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 6, 2006 at 4:05 am
I am always amazed at how well thought of Bill Clinton is. As fas as I know, Simon, he is well thought of here at home as well. Of course not by absolutely all. Especially by the “if it ain’t Republican it ain’t right” crowd. They’ll despise him simply because he is a democrat. George Bush can’t even speak properly let alone stand by promises he’s made. However, Bill Clinton did quite a bit to sell out the US. His actions in Kosovo, the Rwanda debacle, Somalia, etc. Alot of innocent people died at the hands of the US in Kosovo but there was no mention of that in the press here domestically and a great many innocent people were allowed to be slaughtered because of the US turning a blind eye to some real injustice in Rwanda. While that kind of inaction is not unique to the Clinton administration it is certainly reflective of the way the 2 parties operate once in office.
Let’s keep Clinton in perspective. Let’s try not to get too excited about the guy because he got away with some extra-marital oval office nookie. In my estimation he is no better than George Bush Jr.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 6, 2006 at 7:54 am
I’d say he was better, but that’s just my personal opinion, and lets be fair, what the heck does it matter now. The problem the world has at the moment is that we’ve got the boy Bush fumbling his way as POTUS.
My point is that while Clinton was hauled over the coals for getting a blowjob and lying about it, NOTHING is done to the man who lied time and again about things that have cost America (and the world) way WAY more than a dry cleaning bill.
Americans are now despised in much of the world, maybe not on an individual level, but on a population and political level for sure. But I can’t sit comfortable either. Thanks to his support for Bush our own Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has also ensured that Britains have lost vast amounts of the liberties we once enjoyed and we too are hated almost as much as Americans.
The world turned it’s back on Rwanda back in 1994. That was a terrible crime and shouldn’t be leveled purely at the United States. It angers me greatly when I hear anyone justify the war in Iraq as anything other than the United States and Great Britain looking after their foreign oil interests. The bullshit excuses of “liberating the people of Iraq” or “Uncovering weapons of mass destruction” or “Liberating the people of Iraq” or “defending human rights in Iraq”and now “Fighting the war on terror” are all lies. Anyone who peddles at that crap to me must justify why it is we haven’t stepped in and done something to depose Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe for example.
And here’s another question for you. Since Bush declared his doomed and foolish “war on terror” (rebranded after calling it The War Against Terror had an unfortunate acronym for Bush) do you think there is less terror in the world? How is it that America can find such vast sums of money to fight a “war against terror” in the oil rich middle east, but if couldnt find the same money to fight a wiser war on poverty?
Wrote the following comment on Apr 6, 2006 at 12:12 pm
I think you’ve missed my point. In your hatred for Bush you gloss over the blood on Clinton’s hands. I don’t care what the rest of the world did in regards to Rwanda. We could have done something. We could and should have done quite alot in that situation, but because we would gain nothing for ourselves (that is not just the case with the US, but the Western world as a whole) in helping those people escape the slaughter, we, as well as the UN, sat on our hands and let the blood flow. There is a never ending list of such instances in administrations spanning the decades, both Republican and Democrat.
Don’t refer to Clinton as some great example. Obviously your free to do so if you wish but I just don’t see how you can have a double standard here. If he were presently in office I imagine he would have found some reason to get into Iraq as well. Politicians are all the same. In it for themselves and their own personal agendas, oft times at the expense of the nation they supposedly serve.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 6, 2006 at 2:02 pm
I’ve heard of one Republican on the electoral college who’s said something to the effect of “I don’t know how we’re gonna overcome the fallout of this administration.” I guess even the Republicans are scared!
Wrote the following comment on Apr 6, 2006 at 2:03 pm
I have to agree with most of what SpiritusNaturae is saying. There are several things to comment on here from my point of view. I will only touch the Clinton era by mentioning that the US under his command did NOTHING to attempt to bring Al Queda to justice after the first Trade Center attempt and the USS Cole attack in the 90s.
Politicians are politicians… period. Some more respectable than others, but at the end of the day, they’re politicians.
Anyway, back to what I really wanted to comment on… your repeated assertions of what the US invasion of Iraq has done to tarnish its’ standing in the world. I’m not sure where the concept of a “quick” war in Iraq is coming from. The War on Terror has been put forth from the very beginning as a long term commitment. It seems like you’re trying to take both sides of the fence when you say that and follow it up by talking about how Bush I didn’t finish the job.
The actual “war” we went into Iraq to accomplish was relatively quick. We (the US, UK, and many other countries together) took out Hussein within a matter of months. I recall the cheering by the locals when the statues of a mass murderer was pulled down. In the months that followed, we have continued to “occupy” the area as a security force. Admittedly, I would say there are definitely oil and big companies profiting from our presence there. On the other hand, if we had not stayed there after taking out Sadam, we would have, once again, not finished the job. The only aggressive action that the allies have taken (since the infamous declaration on the battleship that the war was over) has been in response to terrorist activity. And, that does seem to fall under the whole “War on Terror” umbrella. Al Queda has taken it to Iraq to become their staging ground. The constant murdering and explosions and terrorist activity happening there is mostly taking place due to and by foreign members of Al Queda who have entered Iraq to wage this war.
When not getting blown to bits, you have the Allied military training the Iraqi police force and military, serving side by side. Why do you think it’s the police recruiting offices that keep getting bombed? Their success proves the invasion of Iraq a success. We have experienced the free election of a democratic government… which is an overwhelming victory in a muslim country. We have contractors rebuilding the infrastructure of the nation, at our expense. I could go on, but I’m taking up too much of your space. :-)
Finally, this constant assertion that Bush has lied about an endless number of things. I know the WMD thing is constantly brought up by the Bush bashers, but what are other specific examples where it has been proven to be a lie? For example, less than 5% of 1000s of pages of documents recovered have been analyzed. Of what has been analyzed, there is increasing evidence that WMDs were indeed present, and that he relocated them to Syria ahead of the attacks.
In those examples, do you think that he has intentionally lied or spoken on misinformation? It’s one thing to think he’s an awful president, or that he’s ignorant, or anything else… but I find it very difficult to assign motive or intention in actions.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 6, 2006 at 5:03 pm
First off I will say that I agree, all politicians serve questionable agendas. But I am not at all interested in who is a better President because right now we’re all stuck with Bush who I will point out I do not believe I have ever stated that I hate. I think ‘hate’ is a strong word, and I don’t hate the man.Topher, to explain. Bush invaded iraq in what he claimed would be a relatively quick operation. First off it was to find those weapons of mass destruction, but when they didn’t turn up the war (oops sorry, the operation) was re-branded as the ‘Liberation of Iraq.’ You’ll recall how Bush stood on a boat out there three years ago and claimed Victory in Iraq. All this though was NOT, most certainly NOT, anything to do with the war against terror, and Bush said that himself.
That statue being pulled down was uncovered globally as a show for the media. I’m staggered you even mention it? I’m scared if American news didn’t cover how all that was revealed to have been a sham.
After a while though it became politically prudent to re-brand the Iraq operation once more and this time bring it into the wider (and unwinnable) war on terror. It is now known as the ‘frontline in the war on terror’ which while sounding nice and catchy, is bafflingly ironic given the history on bin-Laden and Iraq.
Topher wrote The only aggressive action that the allies have taken (since the infamous declaration on the battleship that the war was over) has been in response to terrorist activity.I have to disagree with you there, but it matters little. The people killed in Faluja won’t have been bothered whether the chemical weapons were being dropped to kill Saddams remaining army, or “turrrists.”
Don’t bother asking the U.S. Army who they were dropping the chemical weapons on though, they denied they ever dropped the chemical weapons until Italian TV aired a tape that showed them doing just that, then wouldn’t you know it, it turns out that the army discovered a simple ol’ clerical error that showed they had indeed used chemical weapons. Those pesky clerical errors, for a moment there it almost looked like they had lied.I’m glad though that you [America] has “contractors rebuilding the infrastructure of the nation, at our expense.” Thank goodness the Iraqi people have you looking out for them.
Maybe Clinton would have made an equally bad job of it, but honestly do we really want to discuss that? What would it matter, the fact is that Bush is at the wheel of the wagon right now, and so the buck stops with him, period.
Now, the (unwinnable) war on terror is a lovely idea, noble and admirable too. It’s a war I think America and the world have been fighting for many years, but name it and claim it works in this case and that’s fine with me. It was put forward as a long term thing, and it will last forever, just as the war on drugs will do. Any war on greed or hatred has to be undertaken as a long term (see forever) thing.
Now, what other lies has Bush said, well the Katrina levies is one that comes to mind quickly. The Guantanamo bay detainees all being terrorist or soldiers out to kill is another (you have to have proof Mr Bush). Then of course there is the domestic spying thing. He said in his 2004 campaign, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. – ooops.
The list isn’t endless, I never claimed it was.I did however ask one simple little question. If Clinton was impeached for lying about the blowjob thing, then why is Bush not up for impeachment on anyone of the lies he has been caught on?
Wrote the following comment on Apr 7, 2006 at 2:40 am
I agree. Maybe the answer is simple…..
Bush is a Republican. Clinton is a Democrat. Those two words seem to sometimes blanket the truth with sweet lies that people believe because they blindly support their party.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 7, 2006 at 4:07 am
Simon, the answer to your question is obvious. The current administration is chock full of Republican party members. The House and The Senate runneth over with Republicans and political ‘yes men’ from both sides of the political spectrum. There won’t be any impeachment or censure or trial. That’s just the way it is. These folks, Dems and Repubs, are far too invested in the entire situation. I’m still reading up on it but yesterday news broke that The Pres and Cheney were actually the ones “behind” the Valerie Plume leak to the media. I doubt anything substantial will come of this either.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 7, 2006 at 5:09 am
I read about that too. It makes you mad doesn’t it. We elect these rich bastards under the impression that we have some kind of say over stuff, but in reality we have bugger all say in anything.
In the UK the situation has turned very bad since Blair too has been bringing in new law after new law seriously restricting our freedoms and the such. And now (now that it’s too late) people are begining to get annoyed at everything having something to do with terrorism.I’m off to live in the Faroe Islands I think!