Bush is bad but Clinton is worse so it's all OK - How does that pass for reasoning ?

Question

A lot of answers about Bush seem to be

"Well Clinton did/said or didn't do/say "

How is that

A ) and answer to any question about Bush

B ) Any sort of justification for praise or scorn concerning Bush's actions or lack thereof

---------

Either the issue is important and therefore needs either an opinion on the issue offered or

It is all about measureing in degree's of bad and evil - To me that is not an acceptable answer - Only a diversion from the question or issue raised about a sitting President

--------

Hey I am getting hit with a stick here

Shut up if it was Clinton it would have been a Buick hitting you right now

How is that reasoning ?

Answer 1

The point is that there will not be a direct answer - the Dems and Reps are both sides of the same coin - notice the Nat'l debt keeps going up, the civic rights keep being eroded, the border is still unsecured, the NAFTA superhighway just got declared in Canada to match Mexico's so Oklahoma's is due in about 18 months.
Bush (41) declared the New World Order and in order to divert your attention, the inbreds in Washington, D.C. have to keep doing the stupid stuff they do.
Controversy Creates Cash for the politicos, but not for the average Joe or Janeika...

Answer 2

fairly much each and every undesirable factor to the Bush Clinton era fell on George trees watch. So that's Clinton by potential of default. Clinton is elitist yet is plenty and away a miles better president than George Bush will ever be. Now invoice Clinton's spouse i've got faith might make a terrible president after Bush. Vote Ron Paul 2008

Answer 3

My opinion is that same side wants to pass the buck of responsibility (Bush) and--all the while--crucify Clinton as being the "worst" candidate America has ever had. (Seeing how "awful" a job that Bill did as President.)

While on the other hand, Clinton has to be placed on a pedestal and Bush has to be nailed to the wall.

Either way, we're dealing with a bunch of idiots who think that both the Bushes and the Clintons are some kind of 'god'.

Answer 4

Both are AIPAC darlings so indeed what difference is there. Granted,she doesn't have Bush's flinty-eyed look,so very "classic western" but then he doesn't find it necessary to act ridiculously coy and over-mannered,like a mom character in a made-for-tv movie. She's so well-scripted she's going to have to start doing deliberate token bloopers just to seem real. Meanwhile our flinty-eyed Commander in Chief doesn't seem to be prepping up for a bittersweet ride off into the political sunset; on the contrary,he keeps mounting new initiatives so fast you'd think he was a newbie prez out to wow us with the way he's hit the ground running. Is this man planning on leaving office,or is he planning on staging a martial law-required "national emergency" in Jan. 2009? As for Mrs. Clinton we can only hope she keeps taking her charisma meds. After all,AIPAC is spending a lot on her and I suppose they do have a right to get something back in return.

Answer 5

steelmillcowboy –

When Clinton left office, he passed on the Bush an America that was admired and respected around the world – more so than at any time since immediately after WWII. In 7 years, Bush has made America more hated, distrusted, and failure-prone than it has ever been in its history. It’s an easy call.

Answer 6

Bill Clinton did not invade Iraq based on nonsensical lies. George Bush did. Enough said.

Answer 7

You know what it's pretty weird but I find myself doing the same thing. The reason is because the dialectics used and the general nature of the two party system forces us to think this way.

Once people get past the fact that there is no real two party system we may be able to get past this thinking.

Answer 8

the respect given for Clinton follies into Somalia, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia..that went unchecked..beyond debate..and is confused as being validated because Americans don't question the sitting President's use of the military..unless they are a Republican..when LBJ was in Viet Nam..was nothing compared to when Nixon inherited LBJ's war

on to the Iraqi conflict dissent from PC armed
potty-mouthed children who manifest their hate and disappointment over Gore's defeat in 2000..by submitting trash talk and unsourced gibberish about the integrity of the President.. serves to denigrate the entire group as a whole.

it will ride along with them..just as it did John Kerry and Jane Fonda..Liberalism has written itself off as ever being viable again..and just a form of mental derangement

Answer 9

You're talking about conservatives who Hannitize every one of Bush's failures - where does reason come into play?

Hannitize (v) – to distract from a relevant discussion of actual Republican corruption by making false, inaccurate, or simply irrelevant comparisons to something Bill Clinton may or may have not done.

Answer 10

It's so childish, it's unbelieveable that grown adult people and the media perpetuate this. It reminds me of being a child after being chastised by mom and saying well, what about my sister she did such and such.

I think the GOP has arrested development.