Gwb

<p>I think Clinton was a very good president. If he would have intervened in Rwanda, he would have been great. But Im subjective beceause Ive talked to him on two occasions. Just because he got some head while president doesnt make him a bad president.</p>

<p>Clinton was a scumbag. Bush and Clinton are about on the same level. The only good thing Clinton did was deregulate the media a tad bit.</p>

<p>well i think we can all agree that he is the most notoriously inarticulate president we've ever had. or as far as i believe so...</p>

<p>Just because he was a scumbag doesnt mean he wasnt a good president.</p>

<p>He wasn't. 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and increasing taxes are the two reasons I hate his presidency. Oh, add Waco to the list. The fact that he was a perjurer is really an afterthought.</p>

<p>hmm...the weapons ban is rather confusing but i could care less. yea, i know 2nd amendment, but i just dont care...and the taxes was a good thing. look at that surplus from 1998-2000!</p>

<p>Second Amendment is irrevelant. If there was no second amendment, regulating or restricting firearms would still be immoral.</p>

<p>I am not familiar about the deficit/surplus matter. Could you link me to a site with numbers?</p>

<p><a href="http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>It gives the figures for the 1999 and 2000 surplus.</p>

<p>I have two words for George Walker Bush: YOU'RE FIRED.</p>

<p>I also have three words for the Yale Adcoms and the Harvard MBA adcoms and every professor that taught Bush at HBS: YOU'RE ALSO FIRED.</p>

<p>How could you go to Harvard Business School and have such a poor national budget? I'm starting to question the validity of Harvard MBAs. Even any dumb nut knows that if one spends more than one makes, one will be in debt, and therefore one will be in deep ****. Seriously Clinton doesn't have an MBA....he turned out two years of surpluses.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Bush and Clinton are about on the same level.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The thing that makes Clinton better than Bush is that Clinton actually had to EARN his admission to Georgetown, Oxford and Yale Law School (which seems to be a foreign concept to Bush). He EARNED every cent he owns.</p>

<p>Yeah, and just to show how generous he was, Clinton even shared some of his scent with Monica.</p>

<p>Actually when Bush applied to Yale his dad was just in the House and had just badly lost an election to Senate I believe...So really he didn't have the greatest hooks.</p>

<p>Well the fact is TheKramer Bush HAD hooks. Clinton didn't have ANY hooks.</p>

<p>Except for the small fact that he was ridiculously wealthy..that's generally a "hook."</p>

<p>No my dear its called 'finding excuses'.</p>

<p>
[quote]
How could you go to Harvard Business School and have such a poor national budget?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's funny.</p>

<p>I agree.</p>

<p>Are any of you surprised that its almost 5 years after 9/11 and we haven't had another terrorist attack on the United States?? Honestly on 9/11 I expected to face a rash of terrorist attacks after that day and years to come. We haven't seen anything close to a major terrorist attack on US Soil.</p>

<p>To put the Iraq War in a different view point (my mom told me this)</p>

<p>Perhaps Iraq is just another front for the War on Terrorism. The terrorists harbored in Afganistan and other Islamic countries and developed camps to train terrorists. By invading Iraq you are putting the terrorists on the defensive and instead of spending energy on planning attacks in the United States, the terrorists are focused on saving their own lives.</p>

<p>Just a different viewpoint I guess.</p>

<p>I'm not a fan of GWB, though he's done some alright things. I think the war on Iraq is entirely pointless, that his spending on the war could have gone to better places (Hurricane/Tsunami victims, more funds to the national education system, etc.), and that his policies on moral issues are a bit ridiculous. He's even moving for drilling for oil in Alaska, something that I just can't stand. I like the new aquatic reservation though :D</p>

<p>aznsnake0307</p>

<p>your mom sems like a smart lady</p>

<p>There's this book I read called "Losing Bin Laden." It's pretty interesting and basically explains the last 20 years of terrorism. Then it makes you realize how failures of Clinton actually helped cause the huge problem that we have today. You'd think he would have went after terrorists sooner (and REALLY go after terrorists, not just bomb aspirin-making factories, like he did) given all the attacks on American interests. There's a story that goes as follows...</p>

<p>So Clinton is out one day taking a break golfing (and yes, other presidents do take days "off", not just gwb OMG!!!!). The CIA ends up getting a visual of Bin Laden in Afghanistan. They have snipers set to fire with their scopes right on Bin Laden's head. But, they don't want to fire until they get word from Clinton, because this was before sepetember 11th happened. So a top CIA official calls Clinton's top aid who is with him golfing. He tells Clinton that there's a serious phone call he needs to take. Clinton says "when I'm done golfing" and just refuses to take this phone call. A few hours later it was too late.</p>

<p>ridiculous? I agree...</p>

<p>If I met GWB I would say to him</p>

<p>Overall, I do not like what you have done to my country. </p>

<p>I am willing to forgive you for invading Iraq if you really did have faulty intelligence that you assumed was accurate, although it was still very stupid of you to not have an exit strategy (but no one else considered it either so w/e we have a country of idiots if GWB is one).
I am willing to forgive you for the budget deficit, as you came into office right as a recession was starting and it is absurd to expect you to continue Clinton's surplus in the wake of a recession (nor should it be done if it could obviously, as that would damage the economy in the long term). I do, however, think your tax breaks on the rich and your general tax rebates were a bone-headed way of extending said deficit.<br>
I am willing to forgive you for your handling of Katrina, as too many things went disasterously wrong that week to point the blame on any one person. I do not personally believe that you discriminated against black or poor people intentionally.
I am willing to forgive you for crimes of war, both proven and alleged, in Gitmo and Iraq, as you obviously did not have anything to do with them and I consider it unfair of the media to associate you with them. One of your few attributes I still admire is your determination to bring democracy to the world, and it is a shame that these crimes detracted from that effort.
I am willing to forgive you for trying to drill Alaska (and indeed applaud you for it), as it simply has to be done. However, I do wish that you would focus more efforts on making America less dependent on fossil fuel in general and foreign oil in particular. It is your duty to help break up America's doomed love affair with petrol, even if it comes at the expense of your cozy relationship with oil executives back in Texas.</p>

<p>However</p>

<p>I am NOT willing to forgive you for the way that you have changed America in the wake of terrorism. You took a monumental event in September 11th and instead of trying to quell America's exaggerated fear of terrorism and global uncertainty in general while quietly dealing with terrorism, you exaggerated that fear still further with your words, actions and policies. You have caused a general wave of anxiety in America where there does NOT NEED TO BE ONE.
I live in London, and less than a year after the July 7th suicide bombings London and England have returned entirely to their normal way of life. Politicians do not create a 'colour coded terrorist warning system (that never goes below high alert)', constantly remind citizens of 'evildoers' that want to kill them and kindly hand out advice like 'buy gas masks' to the general public. Instead, they have just shut up and dealt with the terrorist threat effectively without unnecessarily informing citizens of every detail.
George W Bush has intentionally mongered fear to the nation where none needs to be stirred. How many terrorist attacks have been foiled since 9/11 by civil vigileance? None! Yet how much more stress has the American public had to deal with by GW's constant ominous reminders? Its absurd. I won't go so far to say that George Bush is as bad as Osama Bin Laden, but it is undeniable that he poses a terrorist threat (albeit a more subtle one) to the American populus.
And the reason he tries to create fear where none needs to be created? His own ulterior motives. Never was this more clearly seen than in the build up to the Iraqi invasion, where terrorism links were the straw that broke common sense's back into invading Iraq. But apart from this obvious example, he has used fear to galvanise America against the terrorists and into support for him in almost every cause he fought for (until, of course, the public had enough and his approval ratings slipped to 18% or whatever). </p>

<p>There are, of course, many other things that I dislike about GW (gay marriage, foreign policy in general, his hypocritical christianity, his secrecy etc.) but the above is my major beef.</p>