This blog excerpt is courtesy of George. From his blog--->
"I'm confused. I can't understand it. Maybe you can.
I'm trying to get all this political stuff straightened out in my head.
Lemme see; have I got this straight?
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...
2007-08-15 12:45:11 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
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...
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...
Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad...
Ahh, it's so confusing!"
ran out of room and the top, some one sent me this thought it was pretty cool. I'm not sure of the origin but it seems right to me.
2007-08-15 12:46:38 · update #1
once again most people ignored the facts and then resorted to petty name calling.
The Clinton era wasn't at peace, and the reason why we aren't is because they blew their chance at Bin Ladin, in case you forgot.
I usually double check these things because I like to be accurate, so if a few facts are off sorry, and the fact that most aren't just shows the hypocrisy.
I knew liberals wouldn't listen of course anytime something is against what they believe those peole are facists.
2007-08-16 03:51:51 · update #2
Niiiiiiiice. I like it. Shows what a double standard there is among our liberal friends.
2007-08-15 13:49:22 · answer #1 · answered by Sam G 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
As somebody else reported, you have an extremely simplistic and unrealistic way of finding at issues. Clinton became an extremely reasonable, left leaning centrist democrat. on an analogous time as Obama is a some distance left Marxist democrat. Did you forget approximately Somalia, Serbia, constrained engagements with Iraq, the 1st commerce center bombings, the united statesCole.... and you call that peace? And do you incredibly think of the president has that lots administration over the monetary equipment and what legislations they're provided with? heavily....
2016-11-12 10:44:42 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Let's examine some of this shall we
Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...
When you start with a lie this big almost at the top - you know the rest is going to be good.
Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - this statement alond demonstrates the contempt the author has for his readers. Casting all muslims as terrorists and (by inference) thier christian enemies as good demonstrates a willingness to twist facts to suit a pre-determined hatred.
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad - please tell me who has been opposed to attacking terrorist camps?
Clinton commits felonies while in office - good - you mean Clinton ACQUITTED of felonies while in office despite a partisan Republican congress - you guys really hate that part don't you
Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad
No - longest economic expansion in history of country under Clinton - all without borrowing a cent from our children - good
Keynsian growth factors denied (despite blindingly obvious evidence) in order to attribute mediochre growth to irresponsible tax cuts while running record deficits - bad
Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good
Do you think that constantly repeating this lie makes it true?
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...- are you arguing this was good?????
Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good... (except he didn't)
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...(and lies about Uranium from Niger to "prove" it)
The main difference is that Clinton managed to isolate and control Saddam - snuff out the weapons programmes and prevent the disaster that Bush ran Gung Ho into at the first opportunity.
Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Since when does killing a dictator and instead leaving a chaotic civil war constitute successful regime change?
Milosevic Dead - but undergoing a fair trial when he died
Saddam Dead - after a kangaroo court trial and before a lot of other issues could be investigated.
Are you really this desperate to make your woeful point?
If you want to be taken seriously starting off with slightly fewer obvious falsehoods would be a start.
To claim to be confused by your own lies is just staggering.
2007-08-15 13:22:25 · answer #3 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
A nice try; but fewer and fewer people, including Republicans, would take such comparisions seriously.
At least two inaccurate statements:
Nato bombing in Serbia was $4 billion; approximate cost for Iraq (to date) $452.4 billion, and climbing at $300 million/day.
It was Clinton, in 1998, who sent cruise missles into Al-Queda Afganistan training camps.
2007-08-15 13:26:45 · answer #4 · answered by Just an American 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Your list is factually inaccurate for one thing, and to try and compare Bush to Clinton would be like trying to compare an egg salad sandwich to a side of beef. One is scrambling to save his presidency, the others legacy, while tainted, is going down in history as respected and will be a benchmark in the future of getting things done FOR THE PEOPLE.
Peace
Jim
.
2007-08-15 13:01:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
They are both bad, period. Get that through your head.
They are both practitioners of neoliberalism.
The New World Order is based upon governance by the best to avoid the voices of the minimal. Isn't this the attitude that underlies the structure and institutions that manipulate global organizations? Assimilation requires conformity and compliance, for the vision is more important than its components. The power to apply the course for success means that the individual is an interference. The social good is equated with with the scale of harmony in the conformity, as diversity acts as a mirror for the new found conformity.
Neoliberalism defines liberty as the ability and the demand that we buy and sell anything and everything, often, and at any time.
Those who want to break from neoliberalism's dictatorship of free market capital circulation are not the criminals. They are the freedom fighters. And, far from committing the ultimate crime of rejecting consumerism, these freedom fighters are the best hope in saving a planet ravaged by neoliberalism's arrogance, avarice and greed. We, the people, are the freedom fighters.
2007-08-15 12:48:55 · answer #6 · answered by somber 3 · 2⤊ 6⤋
wheres the part where clinton balanced the budget... then Bush balanced the bidget... oh wait Bush didn't do that..
How about where they both started wars in foreign countries... Wait clinton didn't do that.
Or when clinton and Bush both passed bills that took away rights american citizens had enjoyed for over 200 years.. Dang it clinton didn't do that either..
You're wrong. see that was simple.
2007-08-15 12:57:45 · answer #7 · answered by Chuckles 4 · 6⤊ 4⤋
Ask Juanita Brodderick.
2007-08-15 12:51:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
None. And Hillary Clinton ran the White House when Bill was in office. Did you really think Bill had that much sense? Remember, Hillary was Republican first, she turned Democrat to get her husband elected that she could run the country. Makes sense to me. Now we need to make sure she doesn't get another term; she already served two terms behind the curtain, Bill got bored doing nothing, and had an affair. Makes more sense to us all.
2007-08-15 12:50:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 6⤋
bush did things because he thought it was for the good of the people and the country
clinton did everything to get his name in the paper and a globel peace prize
2007-08-15 14:17:56 · answer #10 · answered by Adam of the wired 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋