George W. Bush's Resume

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-07-24 07:52pm

I like the Yugoslavia war-- a war with no UN mandate, no actual US interest, the Europeans were willing to sit and watch ("they were a bunch of Bosnians, they deserved it"?) and the troops were deployed with faulty intelligence ("Hundreds of skillions of people killed in mass ethnic cleansing!").... the troops are still there with no exit strategy to this day.

WooHoo!

Unelected officials (Clinton's wife) being put in charge of a major US internal policy agenda with no support from the people (health care system)....

There are others. And... goodness me! It has nothing to do with his 'dalliances'!

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-24 07:59pm

and the troops were deployed with faulty intelligence ("Hundreds of skillions of people killed in mass ethnic cleansing!").... the troops are still there with no exit strategy to this day.

I should add that we have yet to find those mass graves which we were assured were in Kosovo before we went to war there. Not surprisingly, there was no international backlash against Clinton for that particular blunder.

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2003-07-24 11:35pm

MKSheppard wrote:Want me to pull out Clinton's resume? You know, the one that has
all the dead people who died in mysterious ways, including Ron Brown?

What does Clinton have to do with this? What does Clinton have to do with ANY of this?

Newsflash: Clinton has been out of office for more than two years now. He is not, nor will ever be, President again. Nor will he ever hold a public office again. He's dead, gone, he never existed. It's getting tiring to hear people whine about "Clinton did this" and "Clinton did that" over and over again, like his character faults and those of his administration somehow excuse the faults (or lack of them) of the current administration. Half the time I see the name Clinton bandied about I see a bunch of ad hominem attacks that have little or no relevence to the argument.

Or lack of an argument, in this case. I say if you have a specific complaint against the President, bring the, up individually, rather than an across-the board spreadfire.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-07-24 11:38pm

Bob McDob wrote: What does Clinton have to do with this? What does Clinton have to do with ANY of this?

OK, I said this to a homeless guy on the street today:

FUCK OFF

The way most liberals go around whinging about how GWB took
Clinton's economy, prestige, etc etc and threw it into the trash is
if nothing else, fucking annoying. W may be no saint, but he's
never knowingly sold American military technology to Communists
for campaign contributions.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-07-25 12:10am

Technically, he's right Shep.

Klinton was a fucktard and a slick son of a bitch who kept slipping away for messed up shit.

But this has nothing to do with the fact that Bush is an idiot and hasn't helped this country much since he took office.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-07-25 12:14am

Thing is, people jump all over Bush's shit for doing things that Clinton did-- and when Bill did it he was a fucking hero that walked on water. When BUsh does somethng similar he's a "Nazi".

So in other words, it is the pointing out of hypocrisy that is the intent whenever Clinton comes up. Plus, as Shep pointed out, the left loves to point and screech about Bush "trashing the Clinton economy" but forget that the "Clinton Economy" was beginning to swirl around the bowl well before the election, when McCain was still a contender. That was why Al Gore did not use the economy as an election platform. If it continued to go bad, he'd be blamed!

Hello! McFly! It's not about "dimpled chads" anymore!

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2003-07-25 12:40am

Coyote wrote:Thing is, people jump all over Bush's shit for doing things that Clinton did-- and when Bill did it he was a fucking hero that walked on water. When BUsh does somethng similar he's a "Nazi".

So in other words, it is the pointing out of hypocrisy that is the intent whenever Clinton comes up. Plus, as Shep pointed out, the left loves to point and screech about Bush "trashing the Clinton economy" but forget that the "Clinton Economy" was beginning to swirl around the bowl well before the election, when McCain was still a contender. That was why Al Gore did not use the economy as an election platform. If it continued to go bad, he'd be blamed!

Hello! McFly! It's not about "dimpled chads" anymore!

I really don't see what the opinion of "left-wing commie-hugging tree-hippies" has to do with anything, though. Like I said, when Clinton comes up, it's usually to dodge whatever issue is at hand by pointing fingers.

Example: basis for the Iraq War

ADude: Bush launched the invasion of Iraq and disrupted innocent Iraqi lives on faulty and incomplete evidence!
BDude: Oh, yeah? Well, Clinton bombed pharmaceutical makers and killed civillians because he thought they were terrorists!

To the layperson (i.e., me), this looks suspiciously like a game of "Well, CLINTON did it ... so why can't BUSH?" It's a way of trivializing issues by turning them into a partisan grudge match, instead of actually examining the evidence. It also makes you look stupid and petty.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-07-25 01:10am

It is pointing out the hypocrisy:

"we went to war on dishonest pretense, Bush is an evil Nazi"

But forget that Clinton did the same thing in Yugoslavia. But these people never raised a finger of protest then, in fact, they defended the descision.

So in other words, it is not honesty, integrity, and good government they care about-- it is purely partisan, to "get" Pres. Bush. They are basing their accusations not on sound and consistent policy, but on raw hatred of one man.

I hated Cinton but I try to make sure my criticisms of him are based on reasons that I think are valid-- Bush critics tend not to do that so much, they just post pictures of him looking like a monkey and say "see, proof that Bush SuXX0rZ"... so is that a valid critique?

Jeez, I don't even like Bush but I end up defending him just because the tar-and-feather brigade is so manic.

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2003-07-25 01:30am

True enough - but just because hypocrites and stupid people hate Bush doesn't necessarily make what he does RIGHT. Put more simply, it's almost stooping to their level - and I hate to use this phrase, because it makes me seem like I'm lecturing here - but name-calling doesn't solve anything.

Damn, I feel like I'm on such a high horse right now ...

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-07-25 07:26am

Stormbringer wrote:
Dahak wrote:I didn't mention 9-1.
It was you who suddenly brought up that topic.
No, you brought up the war on terror and started bringing on the bullshit about the terrorism being done for a reason. I happen to take deep offense at your veiled suggestion that we deserved it. It's reprehensible.

Terrorism *is* done for a reason. Terrorists are not doing things like that just for the fun of it.

And in no way did I say that the USA deserved it. Only that the war on terrorism is as such a ineffectual in fighting terrorism.

And don't call it 9-11. Reducing the death of three thousand people to a mere acronym, soundbyte is callous.

How do you want to call it? "The Death of Three Thousand People without a Reason that happened to happen on the 11th of September"?

You"re overdoing that reverence thing a bit too much...

Dahak wrote:I don't excuse it. It happened. It was sad. It was evil.

But the fact remains that it was done for a reason, albeit one born from an obscure world view, and to acchieve something. That we don't understand that "logic", and it is morally totally detestable, isn't changing it.
I might have believed you if you hadn't followed it up with the same sort of "you asked for it" excuse that provoked this in the first place.

I didn't say "you asked for it". That is all in your mind. But if you want to believe that, I can't help it.

Wedge · Post by **Wedge** » 2003-07-25 01:04pm

Stormbringer wrote:You are pathetic. Clearly you think that slaughtering three thousand innocent people out of sheer malice is right if you're mad at their government. How barbaric of you. Clearly you're no better than those scum. Too bad we can't put a bullet in your head just like those vermin.

Let me explain you something. First of all try not to think with your ASS.
Second, Stravo said that he smelled a "You asked for it" argument, and you directly assumed he was right and proceed to atack Dahak.
He never said that the terrorist atacks were "good/right/not-evil/".

I might have believed you if you hadn't followed it up with the same sort of "you asked for it" excuse that provoked this in the first place.

Since he never said that and you pulled it out of your ass, it's your fault you provoked it all with your false understanding (or lack thereof).

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-25 01:21pm

Stormbringer wrote:No, you brought up the war on terror and started bringing on the bullshit about the terrorism being done for a reason. I happen to take deep offense at your veiled suggestion that we deserved it. It's reprehensible.

Saying that terrorism happens for a reason and saying that the target deserved it are two ENTIRELY different quantities.

And don't call it 9-11. Reducing the death of three thousand people to a mere acronym, soundbyte is callous.

Bush has used "September 11" in the same way that the government a century ago used "Remember the Maine." Historical perspective tends to reduce terrible tragedies to footnotes.

I might have believed you if you hadn't followed it up with the same sort of "you asked for it" excuse that provoked this in the first place.

SAYING THAT SOMETHING HAPPENED FOR A REASON IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING THAT THE TARGET DESERVED IT!!!

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-07-25 03:18pm

Now come on, much as I despise Bush, he isn't responsible for all of the things on that list. Though the war on terror has harmed the US economy, it was hardly out of choice, in his place I would have carried out a much greater and swifter retaliation.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-25 03:37pm

Durran Korr wrote:
I should add that we have yet to find those mass graves which we were assured were in Kosovo before we went to war there. Not surprisingly, there was no international backlash against Clinton for that particular blunder.

No no, we found them years ago. Of course the bodies where buried in neat rows with individual markers and numbered in the low hundreds but lets not hold that against Clinton.