Just how are these different?

Question

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists -good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes -bad

arrowhead, what the truth hurt? lmao

Answer 1

again proof is shown and again a damnocrat says reported. Face it the damnocrats like to play the blame game and when confronted with the truth they cut and run, cry, or report you. The real terrorist are the lying left.

Answer 2

1. Because there were no personal ties to Halliburton in the Clinton Administration, so it didn't appear to be favoritism (perception is reality).

2. Clinton didn't make up some lame reason to go into Serbia; Bush lied about WMD's to go into Iraq. Once we were there, that is when he said "Oops! My bad!". The 77 billion was it for Clinton; the 87 billion is just the beginning for Bush, and it's a war we will never win.

3. Clinton wasn't fighting against a people that already dispised the "Satan of the world" (the US). Clinton didn't choose to reconstruct their entire form of governing - Serbia used to be part of an elected government - Iraq never was. Serbia desired a change in leadership by an overwhelming majority; Iraq didn't. Serbia was a victim of ethnic cleansing, and their leader was killing off everyone of a race or type of religion; Sadam was only killing those that opposed him.

4. Again, it was about the ethnic cleansing thing that Clinton was fighting against. You are solely looking at "Christian" and "Muslim". He was putting his personal religion asside and defending the people that were being "ethnicly cleansed". Bush just wanted to take over Iraq and get the bad guy that daddy couldn't.

5. How is Bush bombing terrorist camps considered bad? Who said that? I don't recall anyone saying that at all. That is someone saying that to make an argument that Bush is "poor little mr. put upon. . ."

6. Clinton committed a felony. Yes - but so has Bush. For the same thing - lying. Bush lied to the american people, entering into a war that is killing our soldiers, and there is no end in sight. He got us into a war we are not going to win (Vietnam anyone?). He isn't going into Iraq with all that the US has - if he did, we wouldn't have spent 87 million, and we would be out of there. As for him in a jumpsuit. I think it was more of the other events of that day (like standing in front of the banner pronouncing a premature outcome?) that caught the eye of everyone. But the jumpsuit was a little much.

7. Economy on the upswing under Bush? Gas is at $3 per gallon, and he "found" $126 billion in the budget, which means that we aren't as in the hole as we thought. But he was the reason for the cost of the $126 billion. That's like me wanting to spend $20 out of the household budget, so I "find" $20 dollars that was earmarked to go to me for something else, and making it go to me for my "fun". There is no economic upswing - we are right in the middle of INFLATION. Under Clinton, no such thing happened. The "crash" wasn't as devistating as the inflation has been to this country.

8. At the time with Clinton, the US was working with Bin Laden in Pakestan. So why would he "capture" someone working with the government? And with WTC - maybe it was to be. But he - and others in the government - had some idea that something was going to happen. Granted, they didn't know what but they still knew. It was still the responsibility of the government to take precautions to help protect its citizens. Nothing was done, and all the warnings were ignored. THAT is criminal.

Finally: Clinton said Sadam had nukes, but he did not have enough proof to go into the country to do anything. Bush didn't have the evidence, either. But he had 9/11, and a bunch of angry US citizens. He used that for his own personal agenda. THAT is wrong.

Answer 3

Ditto w/ Matt Beezy & fuzzy cakes....plus Honestly, it's very plain to see with much proof under our noses. Firstly, Bush's family has had close ties with Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Two widely known terrorists. His family has financially supported these people in desecrating man kind for their own sick pleasure. Whether he inadvertedly knew it or not, he's still responsible. You don't just hand someone some money or some supplies without knowing what they'll do with it. Secondly, his father was very badly embarassed by Saddam back in the late 80's during his presidency when he was dealing with. It was a deal gone bad between the two families and when it reached the media's ears, they basically ruined his name. So it's easy to see that the "good" son had to avenge the name. Thirdly, he had another major plan going into office. It is widely known from Bush Sr. that the Bush family is against abortion at all costs. This can be proven by Geroge W.'s removal of democratic reps and replacements of republicans who give him their utmost obedience without a thought. He uses their obedience and offices to his benefit to try and turn over Roe vs. Wade (the Federal ct. hearing about abortion being legalized in the 70's). Ladies and gentleman. last but not least ... we have one more thing. He's power hungry. You can see it in the way he treats other world leaders. He's techinically just an ambassador ... and not a true "ruler" (which is what he wants to be). He treats other world leaders with no respect and insults their standings which is why no one wants to help the U.S. at this point. The things he has done with his office term and his power can be held akin to being a dictator. He has illegally desecrated American rights to listen to calls, e-mails, postings, etc., has had people act as an American Gestapo, and even gone to the extent of controlling the media in what they are allowed to broadcast. Is it just me, or does someone else see a problem with this?


Since ur such a bush-supporter why dont u go give up ur life overseas....young men and women die overseas while bush and cheney get rich off of makin us pay $3 somethin dollars for gas while they vacation every other day.

Answer 4

First of all, any conflicts under Bill Clinton were supported by facts and other nations (see NATO's involvement during Serbia). Bush just tells people " Saddam threatened to kill my father" and "I believe he has weapons of mass destruction. The rest of the world doesn't think so, but I will be willing to use over 2500 American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to prove it."
Clinton also oversaw the economic rebuilding of one of the worst economic recessions ever. I wonder who started that? That's right "Wonder Boy's" dad George H. W. Bush. By the way, while your comparing the two here's a couple:

Clinton-smoked pot in high school-bad
Bush-snorted cocaine and became an alcoholic in high school and college-good

Clinton-went to Canada and college to dodge the Vietnam War-bad
George Bush-"signed up" for fake National Guard tour and then forged documents to show that he actually went (see above statement to find out what he was really doing) to dodge draft-good

Clinton-created taxes to decrease the national debt (over 7 trillion in January of 1992, under 4 trillion in January of 2000)-bad
Bush-gave tax credits to wealthy families and businesses, while the middle class is funding the wars (by the way, the national debt is over 8 trillion now)-good

Answer 5

clinton was less sneaky about his politics. He mainly tried to cover up his "personal life" and tried to shjow why or how he got his conclustion. Bush has been proven to lie on the issues and does not want to show how he got there.
Not that either of them was the best presidant for that is a hard thing to be

Answer 6

AMEN, LAMONT!

¶Well it's just easier for the Liberals to blame someone else other than themselves. I've never met a 1 that admitted he was guilty at anything.

¶The #1 Reason Why It's Different: The Democrats all thought they had a chance in bed with Clinton and they know they don't with Bush! Well they were right, he did screw 'em pretty good.Ļ☼Ļ

Answer 7

I did not know that sarcasm was completely lost on liberals.
Clinton is not good, liberals just give him credit where none is due. Most of these comparisons are easily checked in Washington Post & NY Times, I guess everyone does not have time to read for themselves.
Thanks, I agree I do not see any differences other than the liberal slant.

Answer 8

It's over 200 billion on the war not 87. I doubt serbia was 77 billion - do you have a source

Clinton - bl** job
Bush - taking your liberties and your money while you sit by and take it

You need to stop listening to Bill O'Reilly and choose some independent sources.

Answer 9

The RNC sent me the same talking points memo. How do I get off their mailing list?

Answer 10

Next time you copy and paste, show the entire thing.

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia- good
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq- bad...

This was a war that the CEO of Halliburton/Vice President of USA pushed for us to enter. Slight difference.

Clintonspends 77 billion on war in Serbia- good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq- bad...

There was a sudden mass genocide in Serbia. Saddam had nu-oh, wait.

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia- good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq- bad...

Clinton asked for a regime change, Bush invaded the country, against international law

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists-
good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

Clinton saves people from a single mass genocide-good

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

Ok, who said that was bad (as long as you're talking about Afghanistan)?

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

Well, the Lewinski scandal shouldn't have put him through impeachment for him to lie in the first place. Adultery is not a crime
Also, Bush assured that all major fighting was done. It is now worse than when it started.

No mass graves found in Serbia- good...
No WMD found in Iraq- bad...

Mass graves were found in Serbia.
WMD were why we invaded Iraq. Now we can't find them. Hmmm...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton- good...
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...

Crash? Look at a stock ticker. I'll give you the fact that it was going down, but it's happened to every positive economic period. Remember after Reagan pulled us out of a gutter, then it started declining once he left? It's average. Also, this isn't an upswing. It's slowly rising, but it's not an upswing.

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...

Ok, we are almost positive that the white blob on the photograph was Bin Laden. Yeah, the WTCs and Pentagon were bad, and?

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

Again, Clinton didn't invade the country. If Bush had suggested he had weapons, then had proof, you'd have a lot more support for the Iraq war.

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq- good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq- bad...

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton- good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan- bad...

Who didn't agree with the Afghan war? Please raise my hand so that I may hit you.

Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad...

Ahh, it's so confusing!

Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax
burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day".

This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the
government. This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has been since 1991.

It's latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice anything special about those dates?

Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans
are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He
gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim. Another interesting fact:

Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men. Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame).

Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that
sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own. Kerry only paid 12% in taxes, & the average middle class working American pays approximately 28%.

You are wrong. Bush has tax shelters. He paid next nothing. Kerry paid off charities to bring down taxes, just like my family does.

THE DRAFT-- 69% of our active duty personnel & their families are supporting President Bush for re-election. Today, John Kerry started the fear campaign of the draft again. However, did it ever occur to anyone, that if Kerry gets elected with only a meager 24%, as being able to "trust" Kerry, as Commander & Chief of the United States, would most certainly insure a draft?

It's not just a rumor of draft. It's been floating in the toilet for some time now.

Copy- then paste in e-mail. Send to friends & family & PASS IT ON to help educate Americans before election day.

PASS IT ON, ONLY 17 DAYS UNTIL ELECTION DAY!