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
2006-08-28 11:56:23 · 18 answers · asked by W E J 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
the wicked evil liberal spin.
2006-08-28 11:58:52 · answer #1 · answered by shut up dummy 6 · 5⤊ 11⤋
Thumbs up to hardartsystems for his excellent answer. And - as usual- the facts don't match what you've said.
"Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad"
The 87 billion was for ONE supplemental spending bill. The total cost is now over $310 billion, not including interest on the debt we've created.
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize this was a cut-and-paste of someone elses opinion from here:http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6119
Anything original to add?
I can cut-and-paste too. Watch:
"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.
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.
2006-08-28 19:28:12 · answer #2 · answered by john_stolworthy 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Funny ..I just emailed you back and blasted you for never posting any facts.. OK
So here is the problem with this post.. once again you draw a black and white world.. first I am not sure who you have been talking too that says Bill is their leader. The economy of the 90's was certainly more thriving then that of today but I am not sure you can thank Bill for all of that.. as for these other points I agree with you .. wow did you here that ... I agree .. BUT.
Your assertion that Bill is some sort of liberal is wrong..
Bill was the head of the Conservative Democrats... he was never liberal and he loved to use our armed forces as he slit their throats financially.. much Like curious has done with the returning Vets from Iraq.
Bill Clinton is right up there with BUSH 1 and 2 for propelling our beloved homeland toward Global hell.. Free trade agreements, Waco, Ruby Ridge.. absolutely ..right up there with all the other bad deeds of that last 10 years... so while I will agree
Bill Clinton ...very Bad
George Bush... very Bad
I will hold out and see what we can come up with the next time around, if we even have elections.
2006-08-28 19:19:12 · answer #3 · answered by hardartsystems 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
The Republicans/conservatives that had a problem with Clinton's antics tried to find a way to stop them/get rid of him through the political system or find a way to fix the problems he caused.
The Democrats/liberals who had a problem with Bush, decided to reveert back to their old bag of tricks, and went for the Politics of Personal Destruction, Character Assasination, and Crucifixion in the Media.
2006-08-28 19:14:58 · answer #4 · answered by jmskinny 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Clinton acts-the "unbiased" news media put a positive spin on the acts.
Bush acts-the "unbiased" news media put a negative spin on the acts.
2006-08-28 19:18:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why do you live in the past?? We've got some serious issues that are happening today...right now...is dragging up yesterday's news about Bill Clinton really doing anything productive?? Our problems are TODAY and TOMORROW.....let's dedicate some gray matter to that.
2006-08-28 19:17:29 · answer #6 · answered by carpediem 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Well its very simple. Everything you heard about Clinton was in the newspapers and who the hell reads these days. You cant watch network news these days without hearing something about George Bush.
2006-08-28 19:00:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
How can you compare jackass Bush with cool Clinton, by the way your name should be Shir-***, you are a radical, you ask questions to which you already has your narrow answers why bother?
2006-08-28 19:16:03 · answer #8 · answered by class4 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
There is alot of negativity in many political scandals and stories.What we need to do is start voting for better politicians and we could really help our country.
2006-08-28 18:59:59 · answer #9 · answered by John G 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The difference was clinton was a liberal hell bent on destroying America. The liberals also think that is good too!
2006-08-28 19:09:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
All your "points" can be refuted and distinguished, but I'm sure you wouldn't read this, and/or you would deny the facts. That's the difference between moderates or liberals and dogmatic right wing radicals like you..
2006-08-28 19:05:28 · answer #11 · answered by ? 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋