Why can't Bush's deeds stand or fall on their own merit or lack thereof?
I was never a fan of Clinton's moral failings, and said so. He was bashed a lot, and not just by Newt.
Let Bush stand and take it. Why isn't he saying "Bring it on"?
2007-03-26 12:10:26 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Simply because they have nothing to answer with, no facts, no evidence... nothing, zilch, nada... zero! So, in typical Dubya fashion, they try to divert attention to something (or someone) else... someone who is not the President now, and has not been for a little over 6 years! They're just upset and envious that it was Monica on her knees and not them... they're totally spent over the fact that it was a woman and not a man... I guess that's why they're all fans of that foul-mouth transvestite, Ann Coulter! At least Slick Willy was STRAIGHT!
AND for those of you still harping on misinformation and lies, try to see these clips in their entirety so that you'll know WHO really let Bin Ladin escape, who gave weapons and arms to Hussein and who ignored the warnings for 9/11 WHICH HAPPENED 8 MONTHS INTO DUBYA'S TERM IN OFFICE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPyQ4Ae6Ei0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqKZlH88qz8&mode=related&search=
And PLEASE tell us where these comments can be proven as lies!
Between Ronnie Reagan, Bush Sr., Bushit (Jr) there are 18 years to Clinton's 8... and the Repukes did nothing but arm Hussein and Bin Ladin... ha... but, it's Slick Willy's fault alone? Watch the video clips and tell us, OK?
EDITED: RedStapler, your question on Clinton's supposed "firing of 93 AGs" has been answered to the point of boredom and nausea; see my reply here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As.J_eH0s3cRCOU_E5NWq6Lty6IX?qid=20070326080551AAhWMSx&show=7#profile-info-d1f3b3bef7c838800627f853474c32e9aa
I hope that satisfied you if you haven't already read my reply, and bear in mind that even Republicans are also interested in knowing the answer... why are the White House staffers now electing to plead the 5th (Amendment) if they have nothing to hide, why won't they answer under oath if they have nothing to hide... Clinton and others have answered under Oath... why are Dubya and his staffers now acting as though they are above the Laws of the Land and the Constitution...? Are they above the law and the Constitution? WHAT are they hiding?
2007-03-26 12:18:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
My heavens, I by no skill have been flashed, yet I did by risk flash some persons as quickly as. i grew to become into in the medical institution it sluggish back and desperate to take a stoll to the merchandising section. nicely, I wasn't thinking approximately what i grew to become into wearing and, enable's purely say that those medical institution robes do not pass away lots to the mind's eye on the backside. The nurse got here up from in the back of me and placed a blanket over my shoulders . . . i grew to become into thinking why it grew to become right into a sprint drafty back there!
2016-11-23 17:46:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
For the record, President Bush has been standing and taking it. Clinton was the last democratic President and for that reason alone there will be comparisons made. Having said that, he was also a lousy President and his wife is preparing to run for the Presidency again. We have every right to go after him. Had the man not had the morals of a goat, he would have been completely forgettable!
2007-03-26 12:20:31 · answer #3 · answered by rosi l 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋
The Republican party today does not accept responsibility for their actions.When Limbaugh ,Hannity and others started blaming Clinton for everything the rest of the republican party followed.It so sad that they won't admit to any of their endless scandals.They just blame Clinton or as Tony Snow claimed they have hazy memories.
2007-03-26 12:20:31 · answer #4 · answered by Sid 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
One big difference between Bush and Clinton is that Bush is willing to admit when he's been wrong. That was far and few for Clinton. But specifically to your question, I believe that most of the times that Clinton's record is brought up is to point out the hypocracy of the basher, not to deny what was lacking in Bush.
2007-03-26 12:16:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
One simple word:
Sheeple.
And not necessarily Christians either; just anyone stupid enough to think that Clinton's whoring around (which was bad enough) was worse than Bush's "war OF terror", as Borat put it, which is more accurate than "on terror". I have no beef with our troops because they're just trying to fight the terrorists and have little say in how it's done.
2007-03-26 12:43:20 · answer #6 · answered by D.L. Miller 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
When I use clinton as an example it's to show 15 year old liberals that the stuff bush is doing is not unprecedented. Past presidents have done way worse and the media barely even mentioned it when they were democrats.
2007-03-26 12:15:54 · answer #7 · answered by archangel72901 4 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Because they are repeating what they are programmed to say by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. They are not allowed to think on their own!
2007-03-26 12:17:01 · answer #8 · answered by Tom B 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
As with all the repuglican party they are stuck in the past and since they cannot defend the most criminal and corrupt president they go to what they know and bash Clinton. Because Rush told them too.
2007-03-26 12:14:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
Because the actions are hypocritical.
Why is it OK for Clinton to fire 93 Attorneys, but Bush fires 8, and it is wrong?
I'm mean there is no balance, only hatred and blame.
2007-03-26 12:15:43 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 4⤊ 5⤋