That one-term dimwit couldn't fix a leaky rowboat, and after all these years of acting like someone on the high road, he attacks the one president who is as religious as he acted? Doesn't anyone ever notice how democratic presidents make a mess of everything while in office and then leave it to the republicans who follow to clean up the mess? Apparently Carter doesn't much care about being a decent person anymore, now he's merely towing the party line and has become JAFL.
Just Another Flaming Liberal!

I recently caught an anti-Bush sticker on a stranger's bumper that stated, No One Died When Clinton Lied. Everyone who knows anything about the 90's knows this is HORSECRAP! If Clinton had been doing his job and sending our military (or at least our intelligence services) after Osama in 1997-98-99 when he was only a minor threat, 9-11 probably would never have happened. But instead the lascivious clown was spending all his time getting it on with the infamous intern, then alternately denying and defending his despicable actions. Clinton's sexual shenanigans, combined with his dishonesty, in the end, cost the lives of over 3,000 innocent people. And Carter just called George W. the worst president in history?!?!? I have lost nearly all respect for that one-term fool! Maybe being a Democrat he can't help it, but if he weren't they should revoke his Nobel Prize! >:( Needless to say, I've lost almost all respect for him.

Don't forget what I've posted here before you even THINK of voting for Hilary!

Your Pal,
Doc
8)

As a Reaganite, I have to shake my head and say "wow, just wow", and mourn the demise of my once-proud party.  As a SubGenius, however, I appreciate the art of the rant, and I've gotta give the guy a golf clap for a spectacular rant.  Spectacularly misdirected, but spectacular, nonetheless, and worthy of applause.

Seriously, you're stumbling in the right direction, but you're missing the mark.  So here's the rant you should have written:

"((Carter)) attacks the one president who is as religious as he acted?"

No, Carter was religious.  Bush isn't.  It was just a scam to get the fundies' votes.  The Elephant party is the Fundie party now, because that scam worked better than trying to keep us wacky Reagan and Goldwater freaks in line.  We're ungovernable.  The Fundies will vote for whoever pays better lip service to fundamentalism.  Carter didn't pay lip service to the fundies, Bush did, hence, people getting it backwards.

"((Clinton caused 9/11))"

No, the funny part is that Carter did.

"(( *crickets chirping in silence* ))"

You also forgot that Clinton was ready to bomb Pyongyang, and Carter's meddling in Clinton's negotiations led directly to the materials that went into Kim Jong-Il's bomb.

"And Carter just called George W. the worst president in history?!?!?"

Well, it takes one to know one.  It took Bush six years to beat Carter's record.  Jimmy's just jealous.

"Maybe being a Democrat he can't help it, but if he weren't they should revoke his Nobel Prize!"

And that's where I really have to call foul. 

The Nobel Peace prize goes to folks like noted terrorist Yasser Arafat (1994), for advocating genocide his 1972 Munich Olympics massacre to the day he died.  To President Kim Dae Jung of South Korea (2000), for the (Carter-aided!  Oh, the bitter irony!) deal that gave nukes to Kim-Jong-be-Illin'.  UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan (2001), for the oil-for-food scandal, and a few years after Carter, for ElBaradei's IAEA (2005) for swallowing Iran's lies about its enrichment programme.  (And unlike the IBD editorials, ACW is about as apolitical as it gets.  You'll learn more about NucEng than you'll ever imagined possible!)

Add to that lovely record Carter's consistent tendency to fall for the lies from every leftist dictator from Leonid "Nope, we're not gonna invade Afghanistan, honest, just trust me" Brezhnev to his stalwart support of the neo-Stalinist regime of Venezuela's Chavez, you're so far off that it hurts:  Carter's Prize shouldn't be revoked.  The 2002 Nobel Peace Prize is the only thing that Carter truly deserves.  My apologies to the winners of the Prize who actually helped make the world a better place, and may the radioactive fallout lay lightly on those who have to put up with Carter's legacy.

Bush may be the worst President in US history... but I appreciate Carter's jealous fit last week.  It's humbling to remember the Carter years and to ponder just how much worse Bush had to be to take first place.

the right is so pissed at carter because they know for a fact he spoke the truth no one else in the washington establishment has the balls to say out loud. bush II is clearly the worst president we've ever had. he may in fact do what incompetents from hoover to LBJ to, yes, carter himself, weren't capable of doing -- actually ruin the american system of government. i've never seen this country more poorly managed, and that's by an order of magnitude. bush's flagrant inability to run his ranch in crawford, let alone the country, is demonstrated with every slurry, inarticulate syllable that slithers out of his mouth. he's plainly stupid, corrupt, craven, immoral, ideologically zealous, partisan, stubborn, closed-minded, simpering, and he appears to have suffered brain damage from a life of alcohol and substance abuse. it's the easiest way to explain his speech impediment.

the only thing carter did wrong was equivocate afterward. after the administration called him out (laughably, by calling him "irrelevant"! um, carter got the peace prize. what'd you get, bush? too bad they don't give out prizes for getting lots of america's finest along with tens of thousands of innocent women and children slaughtered...), he'd have hit it out of the park if he'd stuck to his guns and said, yes, i said what i meant and i meant what i said. bush is dangerous to america, because he's completely unable to fulfill his job responsibilities for a vast variety of reasons.

i mean, come on. anyone who thinks bush is anything but a disaster is smoking something. anyone who doesn't believe america deserves better has insufficient love for our country. i really believe that. if you think bush is doing a good job, you must hate america. how else to explain that you would wish such ill-favor on us?

and i'm holding back! you don't wanna know what i REALLY think.

the right is so pissed at carter because they know for a fact he spoke the truth no one else in the washington establishment has the balls to say out loud. bush II is clearly the worst president we've ever had. he may in fact do what incompetents from hoover to LBJ to, yes, carter himself, weren't capable of doing -- actually ruin the american system of government. i've never seen this country more poorly managed, and that's by an order of magnitude. bush's flagrant inability to run his ranch in crawford, let alone the country, is demonstrated with every slurry, inarticulate syllable that slithers out of his mouth. he's plainly stupid, corrupt, craven, immoral, ideologically zealous, partisan, stubborn, closed-minded, simpering, and he appears to have suffered brain damage from a life of alcohol and substance abuse. it's the easiest way to explain his speech impediment.

the only thing carter did wrong was equivocate afterward. after the administration called him out (laughably, by calling him "irrelevant"! um, carter got the peace prize. what'd you get, bush? too bad they don't give out prizes for getting lots of america's finest along with tens of thousands of innocent women and children slaughtered...), he'd have hit it out of the park if he'd stuck to his guns and said, yes, i said what i meant and i meant what i said. bush is dangerous to america, because he's completely unable to fulfill his job responsibilities for a vast variety of reasons.

i mean, come on. anyone who thinks bush is anything but a disaster is smoking something. anyone who doesn't believe america deserves better has insufficient love for our country. i really believe that. if you think bush is doing a good job, you must hate america. how else to explain that you would wish such ill-favor on us?


The only thing I can say is. . .bravo on the last statement- - -as an Independent who tends to have qualms with both parties (One because they outright don't respect the constitution, and the other because they pretend to do so and do nothing to back it up) . . .I can look at each one on a fact by fact basis without having their 'party' over my head, and I'm scared more than ever because so many countries hate us now. . .I mean. . .really hate us. . .we are in such a pile of garbage with the world it's not funny, and sadly a large number of people in USA are so wrapped up in their own lives that it doesn't matter to them that the rest of the world hates us.  It's so. . .frustrating. . .when not that long ago, I never heard stories of the other countries being so hateful towards us. . . and when I'd go to international message boards, prior to our fallout with the world, I never before dealt with resentment towards me because I'm from the United States. . .which I  have to call it (A lot of people forget that 'America' isn't just the United States, but Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina etc. . . )

I think Carter' comments woulda carried more weight if they had come out of President Clinton's mouth.

I mean, Clinton actually accomplished some things during his two terms in office, including signing the NAFTA treaty, no ask-no tell, welfare reform, and presided over a great economic cycle.

All Carter did was plunge the country into a do-nothing malaise and get himself voted out.

In the end I defend Carter's right to make his statements.  But they must be tempered with the knowledge that while he was likely not the WORST American president, he was one of them.  Methinks he doth protesteth too much.  ::)

kinda takes one to know one, yeah? ;D

You gotta admit, that homerun he hit in 1993 World Series was huge, even though he wasn't exactly playing for peanuts.

The son he wish he had

http://www.espressoroastblog.com/bush_clinton.jpg

The only thing I can say is. . .bravo on the last statement- - -as an Independent who tends to have qualms with both parties (One because they outright don't respect the constitution, and the other because they pretend to do so and do nothing to back it up) . . .I can look at each one on a fact by fact basis without having their 'party' over my head, and I'm scared more than ever because so many countries hate us now. . .I mean. . .really hate us. . .we are in such a pile of garbage with the world it's not funny, and sadly a large number of people in USA are so wrapped up in their own lives that it doesn't matter to them that the rest of the world hates us.   It's so. . .frustrating. . .when not that long ago, I never heard stories of the other countries being so hateful towards us. . . and when I'd go to international message boards, prior to our fallout with the world, I never before dealt with resentment towards me because I'm from the United States. . .which I  have to call it (A lot of people forget that 'America' isn't just the United States, but Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina etc. . . )



I know what you mean.  I used to go into Scotland chatrooms and hang out.  Most of the time nobody cared that I was a yank/from this side of the pond, but as things went on I started to take a few hits and one in particular I remember as being brutal and vicious.  Luckily, there was someone in the room willing to defend a "damsel in distress" (there was no convincing this clown that just because I was from the US, I didn't necessarily agree with my government's decisions/actions).  My experiences were more positive than negative, but I will never forget the verbal assault that guy launched at me.

That one-term dimwit couldn't fix a leaky rowboat, and after all these years of acting like someone on the high road, he attacks the one president who is as religious as he acted? Doesn't anyone ever notice how democratic presidents make a mess of everything while in office and then leave it to the republicans who follow to clean up the mess? Apparently Carter doesn't much care about being a decent person anymore, now he's merely towing the party line and has become JAFL.
Just Another Flaming Liberal!

I recently caught an anti-Bush sticker on a stranger's bumper that stated, No One Died When Clinton Lied. Everyone who knows anything about the 90's knows this is HORSECRAP! If Clinton had been doing his job and sending our military (or at least our intelligence services) after Osama in 1997-98-99 when he was only a minor threat, 9-11 probably would never have happened. But instead the lascivious clown was spending all his time getting it on with the infamous intern, then alternately denying and defending his despicable actions. Clinton's sexual shenanigans, combined with his dishonesty, in the end, cost the lives of over 3,000 innocent people. And Carter just called George W. the worst president in history?!?!? I have lost nearly all respect for that one-term fool! Maybe being a Democrat he can't help it, but if he weren't they should revoke his Nobel Prize! >:( Needless to say, I've lost almost all respect for him.

Don't forget what I've posted here before you even THINK of voting for Hilary!

Your Pal,
Doc
8)




I just want to make sure I'm clear on one point.  Are you saying that no Democrat has ever had to fix the mess left by a Republican president (or that Republican presidents have never made messes left to others to clean up)?

Also, I don't think his comments should negate the positive things he has done (i.e., his contributions to Habitat for Humanity and the good work they do).

I just want to make sure I'm clear on one point.  Are you saying that no Democrat has ever had to fix the mess left by a Republican president (or that Republican presidents have never made messes left to others to clean up)?

Also, I don't think his comments should negate the positive things he has done (i.e., his contributions to Habitat for Humanity and the good work they do).

Well Queen, if you look at just the last 50 years(G/T), every republican who followed a democrat into the White House has had to fix major problems left behind by their predecessor. Here are the examples:

1 - Truman, one the biggest idiots ever elected, first failed to stand by his policies and let the Communists take over China, then sent us into Korea unprepared for combat, and when General MacArthur handed him a brilliant plan to liberate both nations, Truman basically told him, "That's a f---'in great idea! You're fired, @$$----." (sorry, but that's the way he talked.), so he let the war drag on in stalemate for two more bloody years until Eisenhower took office and not six months later managed to get a treaty ratified(Of course, the death of Stalin didn't hurt the process), and finally brought our boys home.

2 - Johnson, though he may have inherited the problem from Kennedy, simply would not listen to the people when they wanted the war in Vietnam to end, even when victory seemed just about impossible. And we have to toss in the fact that the war basically reinstated slavery with the draft(Think about it). Sad that it took Nixon almost his whole first term to end the most useless conflict in American history. BTW, I don't deny that Nixon left a mess with Watergate when he left office, but it was his republican successor Ford that put things back together.

3 - Carter, though made a good peacemaker, seemed to know nothing about running a government domestically. Nothing he did gave us any relief from rising gas prices or crippling inflation. There was no need for us to boycott the 1980 Olympics after he was dumb enough to take Brezhnev's word that the Soviets wouldn't invade Afghanistan, and by the time he managed to get our hostaes out of Iran, it was too late. He'd already been chased out of office by Reagan, who certainly know how to get things done, especially when it came to facing off with the Russians, and shrinking the size of the federal government(which substantially brought down our taxes)!

4 - Clinton, where do I begin? Besides what I wrote above where Clinton should have kept his eyes on foreign affairs and not every female behind that passed through the oval office, he set a new low for immoral behavior for a sitting Chief Executive, which seemed to give the media carte-blanche to glorify that kind of conduct with shows that completely revolved around sex, corruption, and outright amoral lifestyles(and that's not meant just one way). By the end of his presidency, some of us were just about embarrassed to be Americans, and we were a essentially a laughing stock on the world stage. But, though his irresponsibility brought about 9-11, it was Bush's global response and domestic assurances that answered the question TIME magazine posed in the 2000 election: Who Will Make Us Proud Again?

BTW Foo, just what does Kim-Il Jong's having the bomb have to do with Osama Bin Laden ordering the hijacking of planes to be flown into WTC and the Pentagon? There's nothing to suggest Carter's screw-up having anything to do with Clinton's screw-arounds. Therefore, Clinton is at fault for letting 9-11 happen, not Carter, but he and Gore are at fault for what could become a second, and more dangerous Cold War.

And JFTR, I never said anything negative about Habitat For Humanity, Living Faith, or his peace talks in the Mid-East. Those are the only reasons I have not lost ALL respect for Carter.

Your Pal,
Doc
8)

Doc, do you know anything about Carter?  Have you read any of his books?  Apparently not.  May I remind you that during the Clinton Administration both the House and the Senate were pretty much in Republican control.  In order for "Clinton to do his job" he would have had to have had permission from both Democrats and Republicans . . . so I don't buy that statement.  As for Clinton's sexual shenanigans, big deal.  Newt Gingrich was having "illicit sex" during that same time period.  Oh and Carter was probably just calling it as he sees it.  Have you seen Bushes approval ratings?  Probably not, it sounds to me like you're one of those "NARROW MINDED REPUBLICANS".  Coincidentally, I think we need more people like Carter.

One more thing Doc.  Do you really think Carter gives a crap what you think?  He's not running for political office anymore.

Well Queen, if you look at just the last 50 years(G/T), every republican who followed a democrat into the White House has had to fix major problems left behind by their predecessor. Here are the examples:

1 - Truman, one the biggest idiots ever elected, first failed to stand by his policies and let the Communists take over China, then sent us into Korea unprepared for combat, and when General MacArthur handed him a brilliant plan to liberate both nations, Truman basically told him, "That's a f---'in great idea! You're fired, @$$----." (sorry, but that's the way he talked.), so he let the war drag on in stalemate for two more bloody years until Eisenhower took office and not six months later managed to get a treaty ratified(Of course, the death of Stalin didn't hurt the process), and finally brought our boys home.

2 - Johnson, though he may have inherited the problem from Kennedy, simply would not listen to the people when they wanted the war in Vietnam to end, even when victory seemed just about impossible. And we have to toss in the fact that the war basically reinstated slavery with the draft(Think about it). Sad that it took Nixon almost his whole first term to end the most useless conflict in American history. BTW, I don't deny that Nixon left a mess with Watergate when he left office, but it was his republican successor Ford that put things back together.

3 - Carter, though made a good peacemaker, seemed to know nothing about running a government domestically. Nothing he did gave us any relief from rising gas prices or crippling inflation. There was no need for us to boycott the 1980 Olympics after he was dumb enough to take Brezhnev's word that the Soviets wouldn't invade Afghanistan, and by the time he managed to get our hostaes out of Iran, it was too late. He'd already been chased out of office by Reagan, who certainly know how to get things done, especially when it came to facing off with the Russians, and shrinking the size of the federal government(which substantially brought down our taxes)!

4 - Clinton, where do I begin? Besides what I wrote above where Clinton should have kept his eyes on foreign affairs and not every female behind that passed through the oval office, he set a new low for immoral behavior for a sitting Chief Executive, which seemed to give the media carte-blanche to glorify that kind of conduct with shows that completely revolved around sex, corruption, and outright amoral lifestyles(and that's not meant just one way). By the end of his presidency, some of us were just about embarrassed to be Americans, and we were a essentially a laughing stock on the world stage. But, though his irresponsibility brought about 9-11, it was Bush's global response and domestic assurances that answered the question TIME magazine posed in the 2000 election: Who Will Make Us Proud Again?

BTW Foo, just what does Kim-Il Jong's having the bomb have to do with Osama Bin Laden ordering the hijacking of planes to be flown into WTC and the Pentagon? There's nothing to suggest Carter's screw-up having anything to do with Clinton's screw-arounds. Therefore, Clinton is at fault for letting 9-11 happen, not Carter, but he and Gore are at fault for what could become a second, and more dangerous Cold War.

And JFTR, I never said anything negative about Habitat For Humanity, Living Faith, or his peace talks in the Mid-East. Those are the only reasons I have not lost ALL respect for Carter.

Your Pal,
Doc
8)





Thanks for your time, Doc.  And I don't entirely disagree.  I'm just looking for balance.  I'm sure that even you can think of examples where Democrats have had to come into office facing a huge mess of one kind or another left by Republicans, can't you?  It is also true of state politics, going back many terms.  I would rather see how the current person is going to fix or at least ease the current mess rather than wasting time playing the blame game, which is going to accomplish nothing because blaming the previous admin or the one before that isn't going to change anything.  For instance, things weren't perfect under Gov. Blanchard, but they weren't trash, either.  Then Engler was appointed and things kind of started a downhill slide (not that he wasn't left a mess, but so was Blanchard).  The slide built up speed under Engler and Granholm was left to try to put the state back together.  She isn't going to be successful (at least it doesn't look that way right now), but she (like all the others) must work with what they have.  It's a vicious cycle that anyone going into a position of power like that has to expect (at least if they have been paying attention).  But, like I said, what is the newly elected person doing to make things better, not worse.  I think the idea is to leave things better than you found them, not make them worse for the next person.  It would be easier if there was a common goal that everyone in the admin worked toward and were able to put aside their individual "needs".  However, until we can get rid of SIGs/lobbyists that are lining the pockets of all politicians, I don't see that happening.  But that is a whole other debate.

Thanks for your time, Doc.  And I don't entirely disagree.  I'm just looking for balance.what is the newly elected person doing to make things better, not worse.  I think the idea is to leave things better than you found them, not make them worse for the next person.  It would be easier if there was a common goal that everyone in the admin worked toward and were able to put aside their individual "needs".

Thank you, Queen. On those last two points we agree. And I would have to say, though no democrat will ever admit it, the country IS better off than it was when Clinton left office. Two outlaw regimes that threatened the U.S. have been toppled, the economy is on the rise once again(despite gas prices) we are working towards a more enviro-friendly society, and Americans are a happier people by and large.

As far as I can see, with the WMD proven to be disassembled, the Ba'ath party replaced by free elections, and Saddam dead, we have accomplished our mission in Iraq! The only problem remaining is handing over responsibility to the Iraqis and coming home.

I'm truly sorry we had to have a crisis like 9-11 to bring about bipartisan unity, perhaps we could find something better to create it again. But I doubt that it'll happen before the next election. BTW, If you feel you must vote Democrat, I respect that. I just beseech you not to vote to elect another Clinton, EVER!

Your Pal,
Doc
8)

P.S.: Check this site out to see why you only hear negative stories from the media. I think you'll at least get a laugh!
www.jibjab.com/view/130841

Thank you, Queen. On those last two points we agree. And I would have to say, though no democrat will ever admit it, the country IS better off than it was when Clinton left office. Two outlaw regimes that threatened the U.S. have been toppled, the economy is on the rise once again(despite gas prices) we are working towards a more enviro-friendly society, and Americans are a happier people by and large.

As far as I can see, with the WMD proven to be disassembled, the Ba'ath party replaced by free elections, and Saddam dead, we have accomplished our mission in Iraq! The only problem remaining is handing over responsibility to the Iraqis and coming home.

I'm truly sorry we had to have a crisis like 9-11 to bring about bipartisan unity, perhaps we could find something better to create it again. But I doubt that it'll happen before the next election. BTW, If you feel you must vote Democrat, I respect that. I just beseech you not to vote to elect another Clinton, EVER!

Your Pal,
Doc
8)

P.S.: Check this site out to see why you only hear negative stories from the media. I think you'll at least get a laugh!
www.jibjab.com/view/130841





Doc,

I wholeheartedly disagree with you that the country is better off now than it was during Clinton's admin and it is good to remember that Bush wasn't technically elected (see other threads for more eloquent posts than what I can do), but I respect your right to express your opinion.

BTW, while I can't view it now without incurring my brother's wrath (again & I'm tired of it), I'm sure the jibjab you have made available is hilarious.  I have enjoyed every one they have put out and I look forward to viewing that one when I get home.

~ Amy  (statsqueen was a name someone gave me when I did the stats for her doctorate dissertation, I use it purely tongue-in-cheek)

Carter has every right to say what he thinks about the Bush Administration-just like everyone else in the country. It is called the First Amendment.




Cat

In Carter's defense may I add one thing?  S.A.L.T.2.  Yes, Ford and company got it going.  Carter continued it and signed it.  Senate never ratified it.  If you know anything about the S.A.L.T.s you know why I mentioned it!!!!

Just to lower the level of discourse for a moment here -

Carter is a prick. He was one of the worst Presidents ever, at a time when the country needed a strong leader, they had Carter, possibly the weakest politician this side of Hilary Clinton. That being said -

A) He has every right to say whatever he wants.
B) I'd take him over Cowboy George.

I mean, Clinton actually accomplished some things during his two terms in office, including signing the NAFTA treaty, no ask-no tell, welfare reform




These are the two biggest reasons I voted independent in '96.

It is folly to sign "free trade" (aka "screw the working classes") legislation and then "end welfare as we know it."  I would like to see an end to the welfare state because we have a blue collar economy and a living wage.  That legislation did not end any poverty whatsoever.  It did prove the right-wing was wrong that private charity could step in and do the same job.  These old rich politicians lolling about in their country clubs boasted about how much they'd redued the welfare rolls.  Scant information as to what became of these former recipients.  I do know the homeless shelters, food pantries, and soup kitchen around here became overwhelmed as soon as these Dickensian "limits" went into effect.  There has been no let up since.

In the old days we used to have newspapers.  I mean, we still have them, but people used to actually read them. Major newspapers had labor sections the way the have business sections.  Now that's gone.  The workers in American have no voice in the major media.  All you get is rich people dishing.

Thank you, Queen. On those last two points we agree. And I would have to say, though no democrat will ever admit it, the country IS better off than it was when Clinton left office. Two outlaw regimes that threatened the U.S. have been toppled, the economy is on the rise once again(despite gas prices) we are working towards a more enviro-friendly society, and Americans are a happier people by and large.

As far as I can see, with the WMD proven to be disassembled, the Ba'ath party replaced by free elections, and Saddam dead, we have accomplished our mission in Iraq! The only problem remaining is handing over responsibility to the Iraqis and coming home.

I'm truly sorry we had to have a crisis like 9-11 to bring about bipartisan unity, perhaps we could find something better to create it again. But I doubt that it'll happen before the next election. BTW, If you feel you must vote Democrat, I respect that. I just beseech you not to vote to elect another Clinton, EVER!

Your Pal,
Doc
8)

P.S.: Check this site out to see why you only hear negative stories from the media. I think you'll at least get a laugh!
www.jibjab.com/view/130841


Weapons of Destruction have been proven to be disassembled?  It was proven that there weren't any WMDs, even bushie admitted to that.  So Sadaam is dead, big deal, for the people who live there the place has gone from a horror to absolute hell. The only problem is handing Iraq over to the Iraqis and coming home!  Tell that to the republicans who let it be known in no uncertain terms that they would not give the dems the votes needed to override the presidential veto that would have done just that.  Bipartisan unity....what?... where...This must be the most divisive congress since secession.

4 - Clinton, where do I begin? Besides what I wrote above where Clinton should have kept his eyes on foreign affairs and not every female behind that passed through the oval office, he set a new low for immoral behavior for a sitting Chief Executive,

8)


No.... You really must read up on the Presidents, most have some pretty hairy things that outdo Clinton.  This is not a job filled with choir boys.  You can start with the first, Washingtons purported son, West Ford, by a slave(not proven, but given serious consideration), and Jeffersons "affair"(right he was in his 30's and she was 15 and a slave, today we call it rape), accepted by just about everyone but the Monticello Foundation(descendants of Jefferson and his wife, who just happened to be Sallys half sister) are good places to start.

we are working towards a more enviro-friendly society.
I haven't got time to address all the hogwash in that post, but just a few words on the environmental issue....
We have a President who will not even admit to the reality of man-made global warming. Bush cynically made compliance with environmental regulations "voluntary."  He wanted polluters to be able to pollute as freely as they wanted.  Bush also staffed administrative positions for environmental concerns with foes of environmental regulations.  Gale Norton was his first Secretary of Interior.  She was a member of the anti-environmental protection/pro-private development of public lands group the "Wise Use Movement."  Nortan was also a lobbyist for an anti-environmental law firm.   Dirk Kempthorne, Norton's successor, is cut of the same cloth. The former governor of Idaho, he als subscribes to the "Wise Use" philosophy: strip mine the joint, and let God sort it out.  Linda Fisher, Deputy Secretary of the EPA, was a lobbyist for Monsanto. EPA secretary Stephen Johnson changed agency policy to make it OK to test pesticideson humans.  Nice huh?
Whatever gains we are making environmentally, you can be sure it is despite, not because of, the Bush Administration.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2006/01/18/national/w144850S66.DTL
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6189892


As far as I can see, with the WMD proven to be disassembled, the Ba'ath party replaced by free elections, and Saddam dead, we have accomplished our mission in Iraq! The only problem remaining is handing over responsibility to the Iraqis and coming home.
That "election" was an election in an occupied country administered by an imperial force.  The Iraqis certainly didn't get to vote on whether or not they wanted the U.S. forces to keep occupying their country.  If they were "free and fair" elections, U.S. forces wouldn't be struggling to keep a lid on a civil war.  The U.S. wedged their Shiite puppet government into power, and we'll have to stay there to guard it for 100 years!
::)

I'm truly sorry we had to have a crisis like 9-11 to bring about bipartisan unity, perhaps we could find something better to create it again. But I doubt that it'll happen before the next election. BTW, If you feel you must vote Democrat, I respect that. I just beseech you not to vote to elect another Clinton

Fascist fear-mongering and bipartisan unity are not the same thing.

President Clinton did not cause 9/11 to happen.  Its a typical right wing attack to blame the problems happening in this nation in the past. 

9/11 happened on Bushes watch, so I would call it Bushes fault as well.  Were our Air Defenses up during the attacks.  What was Bush doing when we got attacked?  Pretending to be a great guy and reading a book to students.  Wasn't that book upside down when he first started reading it to the class, or was this a different time than the morning of 9/11.  So, this supposed great President is a moron.  Thats exactly what we need for a leader.  OH wait, he has God's will so that automatically makes him 100% better than Clinton and the rest of the Presidents. 

President Bush had 2 years to boost our defenses.  He didn't do that, he was golfing for most of his time in the beginning of his Presidency.  If Clinton had caused so many problems in his Presidency, why was Bush golfing when he should have been concentrating on fixing the nation?  9/11 happened (under very sketcy circumstances) and the whole country is in turmoil, rage, sadness.  Bush and his administration declare a "War on Terror," instead of a war on Al Qaida and the Taliban.  America attacks Afghanistan and are doing quite well, then out of nowhere troops are pulled and soldiers have to go back to Iraq.  We execute a strategy that was drafted even before President Clinton was in office.  This strategy was America in the post Cold War era, which stated that we needed to have a strong military presence in the Middle East, if im not mistaken.  This strategy was incorporated by a group that included Mr. Donald Rumsfield, and he presented Clinton a need to take out Iraq.  Tell me why, if we are fighting a war on fundamentalist muslims, that we have a strong ambition to have to take out Iraq too.  I dont think Clinton put Saddam into power.  9/11 was going to come eventually.  The path that led to this attack started when we decided to meddle in Middle Eastern affairs and support Isreal.  Im not saying that we shouldn't support Isreal, im just saying that that is a big motivation for someone to want to attack us.

Always have to place blame on something else when the truth is right in front of your eyes.  Bush didn't have to clean up anything from the Clinton years.  In fact, if anything, we are in worse shape now than we were then.  We were divided when Clinton was in the White House?  No, I think we are more divided now.  All we have now are Bush loyal supporters, religious right wing zealots, and a bunch of democrats who are so affraid to be called coward that they wont go through with anything at all.  Even Carter had to back down.  Bullcrap.  Its about time that someone starts standing up to this administration and moron of a President. 

And can you give any logical reason why the U.S. being in Iraq is similar to World War II?  I get really tired of hearing this.  The United States was attacked by a military from a country that wanted to expand their empire.  Europe was taken over by an insane fascist.  We won that war from beating the enemy into surrender.  I know by the end of the war we had 450,000 Marines alone.  So, im pretty sure there were soldiers in Germany and Japan to help secure and rebuild those nations.  Bush isn't stupid?  Well, I think that expecting 180,000 troops to secure and rebuild a nation is rather far fetched.  Things are not going well in Iraq and that isn't Clinton's fault.  That is putting it lightly also.  We took out a so called regime because he was such a threat to America and directly involved with 9/11.  Sorry, but he was the stability the region needed.  He rules by fear.  WoW, kind of sounds like this chickenhawk administration.  They will follow us.  Terrorism.  Terror alerts.  Vote Republican cause we are the only ones that can fight against fundamentalist muslims. 

So, I guess if thats what you call doing a great job, then our country is in a world of dog doodoo. 

     

President Bush had 2 years to boost our defenses.  He didn't do that, he was golfing for most of his time in the beginning of his Presidency.  If Clinton had caused so many problems in his Presidency, why was Bush golfing when he should have been concentrating on fixing the nation? 

So, I guess if thats what you call doing a great job, then our country is in a world of dog doodoo.   

       



Karma +1