At least Clinton knew his left from his right.

[VanWaGuy]

Neal, thanks for your last couple posts,

In particular, thanks for the explanation of the limits to politician arrest while doing their jobs. That would indeed have be necessary for them to be able to perform their jobs, and when considering when that was written, and the states had not been together too long, it makes all the more sense.

I'm for government that works, and works correctly. I like what Abraham Lincoln thought about how government should work (paraphrasing and condensing in good faith, I think): it needs to balance power within society, it needs to balance resources, it needs to preserve the rights of all the people, and it should work over the long term.

In the same way that the founding fathers worked out the structure of the government that balanced the power of the three branches -- the government itself along with all the people, must figure out how to administer things so as to balance the power of all the people, and to balance the use of resources, and to do all that while preserving the rights of all the people. All the while, it must fight the tendency to usurp power and money and bloat and corruption -- and all the people must pay their taxes, and vote, and otherwise partake in government, so that it all stays on balance.

That's all the government has to do.

Extremely well put. You and I might differ greatly on our views of "balance the use of resources", but great goals.

Also, your no self doubt point is very true and maybe the scariest thing about him.

I also agree that Bush is WAY too much in the pockets of big business. But by omission you seem to be saying that Clinton was not in anyone's pocket. Bush and Clinton used the presidency way too much for personal gains. Yes, Bush is in the pocket of big business, and Clinton was in the pocket of the Chinese and North Koreans. Selling Pardons, stays in the Lincoln bedroom, giving nuclear secrets to the Chinese and Nuclear materials to the North Koreans for huge campaign donations (and who knows what else) isn't exactly squeaky clean either.

For several elections now, I have been pretty disappointed in our political process, and wonder if we need to change things to do better.

I think that our process helps feed the confidence and ego's of some of these guys. Maybe having way more parties, and then the parties having to work together to accomplish change might shortcut some of the extremes of two parties as well as represent voters better.

We start out in primary elections, and maybe both parties have a large number of candidates, each with 10% of the people behind them. Soon though, we start narrowing it down, and the parties both start getting behind their guy, and the positions start getting more extreme and partisan. Finally, before the general election, there is this illusion that almost everyone from each party is solidly behind their guy, and then the winner feels that he has this huge mandate and often that goes to their head.

I think that this illusion of going from 10% support to "Wow, look, a majority voted for me" is dangerous and a contributor to the arrogance and power hungriness of who we get from either party.

If there were 5 parties for example, then the electoral college would not look so useless, and everyone might find a party that was a closer match to their views than just picking between one of the two champion political machines that have become so powerful that they forget to look at the voters they pretend to represent.

[mb2]

Very few dead Americans

please, bluefront, can you explain to me how the life of someone who happened to be born in america, is worth more than someone born in iraq, or anywhere else?

and the fact that you feel it is justified to invade a country, costing hundreds of thousands of lives (gasp, some of which are american), and spending trillions of $ (all of which are american, the 'war' isn't over yet), and, at least for the short to medium term (that is if the US doesn't pull out, which it seems increasingly likely they will do after the next election), destabling an entire reigon of the globe (oh yes, leading to more terrorist safe-havens).. BECAUSE HE WANTED TO GET RE-ELECTED. wow. you think thats ok? you think that is a good judgement?
if he is so much better than clinton, why couldn't he stay in office on merit? (not that anyone complained about the invasion of afghanistan).
people would surely be glad to have someone so much better.

..and you rant on about one guy who's death may (despite several investigations not finding it the case) be linked to the clinton administration.
this really highlights the comparison between the administrations/presidents if this is one of your main beefs with B.C.

Just where are you from anyway? Saying anything good at all about either clinton, proves to me you've never set foot in the USA......and don't have a clue about USA politics.

believe it or not, not all countries are as introspecive as the US.
clearly people atleast think other people like a clinton.. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,279014,00.html
do you not watch fox news enough?
and i'm sure almost everyone prefers Bill to Hillary.

[aristide1]

believe it or not, not all countries are as introspecive as the US.

And neither are all the people in the US.

I don't know if it's introspective thought. Some are just myopic, and some practice premeditated ignorance.

please, bluefront, can you explain to me how the life of someone who happened to be born in america, is worth more than someone born in iraq, or anywhere else?

Perhaps he has to think this way, otherwise he can't justify the amount of collateral damage among the 600,000+ dead Iranians [Iraqis]. Who knows what percentage were actually terrorists?

[Bluefront]

I guess we're talking about a different war here......what "600,000+ dead Iranians"? Perhaps the next war?

And of course I care about the lives of Americans. I'm proud of my country and quite willing to put it on display......unlike the originator of this thread. And I wish all terrorists dead, and innocents always get killed during wars.

[aristide1]

Patriotism is one thing, being a nationalist is another.

And you still didn't address the accuracy rate of the kills. Why is that?

Try a change of style, say something of substance, real substance.

No, the best you can address is Iranian vs, Iraqi. Something even Stevie Wonder would have spotted. Wow, from an argument point of view you scored big on that one.

[Plissken]

Very few dead Americans

please, bluefront, can you explain to me how the life of someone who happened to be born in america, is worth more than someone born in iraq, or anywhere else?

Americans are more valuable to Americans, just like Britons are more valuable to Britons. Your livelihood depends on it. Harsh but true.

[aristide1]

Very few dead Americans

please, bluefront, can you explain to me how the life of someone who happened to be born in america, is worth more than someone born in iraq, or anywhere else?

Americans are more valuable to Americans, just like Britons are more valuable to Britons. Your livelihood depends on it. Harsh but true.

You can lump the all the countries together like that, but how can you say that about the US, the champion of human rights?

Or even Christians for that matter.

[Beyonder]

Bush is not a good public speaker.

He is a bad orator, but he is a magnificent speaker. The speeches he's delivered have acutely driven American intentions and global economies well beyond the realms of rationality. Not since the likes of Regan has so much ridiculous bullshit been woven into a tapestry of inscrutable fact. He's set a precedent for blending emotion and unilateral action with true efficacy.

I think you're splitting hairs here with the definitions of "orator" and "speaker," (orator is the Latin word for speaker, they're widely considered to be synonyms, etc.) but I don't disagree with the general idea you're proposing.

[aristide1]

So many words, so little substance.

Running for office?

[Beyonder]

There is a mountain of evidence that points directly, plainly, clearly to a Vince Foster murder, rather than a Vince Foster suicide. To close your eyes to this evidence is to admit being a Clinton-democrat. After all, who stood to gain by Vince Foster's silence, by his death. Only one person I know of.....

I have to be frank and honest with you: bullshit. Multiple investigations (including one by Ken Starr) exonerated Clinton. Are you stating that Starr overlooked "mountains of evidence?"

It's completely absurd. If there were "mountains of evidence," that "pointed directly and plainly" that Clinton was involved in Foster's murder, the Republican-led Congress would have torn him to pieces. They spent almost $80M investigating Clinton and his administration, not to mention occupying weeks of time in the Congress and the Senate, and you think they would stupidly overlook murder?

[Beyonder]

Undermining the constitution:
Changing the balance of power:
Ignoring the rule of law:

Bush's stretching of the executive is pretty obvious. For starters, his usage of executive privilege is unprecedented; never in the history of the United States has the executive branch so blatantly (and repeatedly) denied information to other branches of the federal government.

I don't even need to mention some of the other liberties the Bush administration has taken as command-in-chief of the armed forces. The wiretapping, the military tribunals, the extraordinary rendition/torture, etc. All of these things are stuff that have to be justified from some constitutional perspective, and for a president to assert these powers (i.e. the power to establish military tribunals which circumvent known legal procedure, designate people as "Illegal enemy combatants"/"detainees", etc.) is also unprecedented.

Granted, we've never been involved in conflicts against decentralized nodes of terrorism, so some sort of change is expected, but the Bush Administration's unilateral approach is probably not ideal.

Starting a war of aggression based on lies

Well, what other kind of war is there? War of peace? War of Pacificism?

I think the point here is that the United States started a preemptive war. In other words, the Bush administration asserted that it would invade Iraq solely based on a perceived threat, rather than an open threat. The US was the instigator of war. That, in my opinion, is a "war of aggression."

Sorry, but Congress has the right to declare war, not the president. Because he did not have an end game strategy, and the war is not popular does not mean that the responsibility for this war is his alone. Yes, he pushed for it, but in the end, this is Congress's responsibility.

This is an oversimplification. There is substantial debate as to whether the executive or the legislative branch has the power to involve the US in hostilities. I'd read the wikipedia page on the War Powers Resolution. Simply put: the power to "declare war" (worth noting is that nowhere in the Constitution is this phrase even defined, so up for debate is what powers Congress was actually granted) or involve the US in hostilities isn't as obvious as you'd think.

One thing is clear: the president is commander in chief of the armed forces. Congress is granted the power to declare war. Nowhere in the Constitution are either of those clauses clearly defined, so there are obviously going to be implied powers that go with both. Reasonable people can and will debate what exactly those implied powers are, but nobody is going to be providing an answer in anything less than a supreme court ruling.

Holding people in secrecy without charging them. US citizens or prisoners of war? Prisoners of war do not need to be given the same rights as US citizens.

I think you're misunderstanding the debate here; the issue has never been whether or not they should be designated as citizens or POWs. The Bush Administration labeled them something entirely different (Illegal or unlawful enemy combatants, sometimes referred to as detainees). The purpose of this designation, of course, was to have people not labeled as POWs, or any other well-established designation, since this affords people certain rights under national and international law.

Does the President have the power to do this, when Congress "Authorized the Usage of Military Force? (in other words, when Congress didn't declare war)" When the US commits forces, and opposing forces are taken captive, who decides what to do with them? What their status is? Where is this spelled out in the Constitution?

[seemingly.random]

Anyway getting off of my rant about Bush, he is synonymous with "stupid" and so much so that everytime he does something stupid that is caught on camera it appear in the press - I find it rather amusing, but rather depressing that he is running the USA.

I see no evidence that he's actually running the USA. It seems like we've moved closer to the British system - queen and prime minister - he's more of the representative for pomp and circumstance. I don't know exactly who our pm is or if it's a group. I recently saw a rebroadcast of the minutes immediately following the 9/11 attacks - he just sat there vacantly blinking. It's been said that he's a riot at a bbq though. I still remember that day being genuinely frightened since I was living near a jet-engine plant and for hours there was no communication from our commander-in-chief.

I don't like attacking an individual like this though. Some people are presidential material and most aren't (which shouldn't be held against them). I'm just stunned/disappointed/embarrassed/bewildered (even after six years) that he was actually elected. The only presidential qualification (for some folks) I see is that he's a Republican. We got exactly what we (the majority of voters) asked for. The real question in my mind is how so many people could be hoodwinked. One of the frightening possibilities is that we are inexorably turning fundamentalist/intolerant - similar to many of the Islamic societies we publicly hold in disdain. Take note of the recent case of the SouthWest airlines employee that challenged a female passenger's attire.

[Bluefront]

The only good thing about this situation.....clinton was out of office on 9-11, and A Gore had been defeated. Consider what Gore would have done...." Let's see.....just how does the 9-11 incident relate to global warming, as I outline in my up-coming book?"

G Bush did not want another 9-11 disaster to happen to the USA.....no USA citizen did. His method to stop terrorism was/is different from my own method.....but at least he is making the effort, at great cost to his popularity. He was re-elected in 2004 in a land-slide, proving his method at least was popular with the American people at the start. Now that things are proving impossibly difficult, popular opinion has turned.

But what was his alternative.....do nothing except complain, like the Democrats? I have heard nothing from the clinton fan-boys about what Bush should have done to prevent 9-11 #2......nothing that had a remote chance of being successful.

[aristide1]

Got delusions?

[Beyonder]

The only good thing about this situation.....clinton was out of office on 9-11, and A Gore had been defeated. Consider what Gore would have done...." Let's see.....just how does the 9-11 incident relate to global warming, as I outline in my up-coming book?"

I think Gore would have invaded Afghanistan, just like Bush did. I doubt Gore would have attacked Iraq. In any event, all of this amounts to speculation.

He was re-elected in 2004 in a land-slide

The election of 2004 was not a landslide. The popular vote was close, as was the electoral vote.

But what was his alternative.....do nothing except complain, like the Democrats? I have heard nothing from the clinton fan-boys about what Bush should have done to prevent 9-11 #2......nothing that had a remote chance of being successful.

I've heard plenty. And it's ridiculous to make the claim that Democrat's just "complain." You're clearly misrepresenting their positions here.

[aristide1]

You're clearly misrepresenting their positions here.

It's like Linus in the Peanuts comic strip, he just has to cling to his security blanket.

[seemingly.random]

I don't get the value of personal attacks. It is a diversion from rational discussion (assuming this is the ultimate goal).

[VanWaGuy]

Beyonder,

Thanks for the well reasoned reply on the 11th.

Part of my big long rambling previous message (the part with 1 thing vs a long list) was just an illustration of what I thought that someone else was saying, only with the party lines reversed, so that they could see what I was saying about their point, I did not intend that to be an argument in and of itself. Many people only responded to that, but it was meant as an exaggeration.

In the rest of your message though, you did also address other points. I hope people know that you did it in a thought out and respectful way, and by doing that, I am much more likely to consider the reply, and maybe even change my own thinking.

[seemingly.random]

The emperor has no clothes...

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/2 ... -mandelas/

embarrassing, embarrassing, embarrassing

[NeilBlanchard]

Hello,

While I agree with at least part of what that site seems to be saying -- they are conflating "Mandelas" with the man himself. The worse hypocrisy is that the USA supported Saddam while he was killing his opponents.

[seemingly.random]

they are conflating "Mandelas" with the man himself.

I noticed this possibility after looking at it further. I posted this since it's yet another example of our apparently bumbling leader - speaking while searching a 200 word vocabulary for what might be a reasonable string of words. Maybe I've misjudged him - maybe he's a deep thinker after all. On the other hand if this was truly a reference to the need for a Mandela-like resistance in Iraq it would be hypocrisy (at least an inconsistency) since Mandela is an enemy of this administration.

This site does seem to pander to those who dislike this administration - unfortunately there's a lot of ammo. The clip of a commentary by Keith Obermann was very intense. There was also a clip about a CNN (Europe?) blooper in a breaking news bulletin that was on the screen for about 10 seconds - "Bush resigns". It made my heart go pitter patter until the reality of Darth coming officially to power quelled it.

Another non-political clip from The View a couple of days ago with the hosts in an argument about whether the earth is flat or round was hilarious (and sad). The subsequent damage control was really sad. One the viewer comments was amusing though - "well, maps are flat, right?!"

[peteamer]

speaking while searching a 200 word vocabulary for what might be a reasonable string of words.

I don't fully understand American politics and would like to know: Does convincing oneself that, his vocabulary is that large and that he can speak and think at the same time automatically make you a democrat?

[djkest]

wow, this conversation is getting stupid. (w/ the personal attacks)

Fact is, congress supported going into Iraq for many years, since 1997, even hillary clinton, john kerry, and many others. They only decided it was a bad idea after it wasn't a slam-dunk success. Would you rather have someone tell you to go in, see it's going wrong, and then change their mind? Or someone try to stick around and make the best of the situation.

It's true, the US did support Iraq in the early 80s because they were fighting against Iran whom we assumed was the bigger threat.

I dont' think Bush isn't quite as stupid as people lead you to believe, if you met him in person you'd probably get a different impression. Being president is in fact a very tough and stressful job no doubt. Also, it's one of those things where every single thing he does is recorded and sent around the world. I'll bet if someone made a you-tube video of various things I've said this year you could be lead to believe I'm retarded. (Maybe I am?)

I also heard a psychology professor talking about emotional intelligence, it's an idea that the longer you take to react to an emotional stimuli the more emotionally intelligent you are. Lets say your friend walks up to you and punches you. The "stupid" response would be an instant punch back. The calculated thinking followed by a response like "why did you do that?" would show more emotional intelligence. Bush does seem "slow" to some people because he thinks about questions before he answers. That doesn't make him dumb.

I used to be a Bush supporter but because of his reaction to some other issues in the last couple years I can't say I'm real thrilled with him.

Another thing I think is ironic is the Democrat party ran a "stop the war, we hate bush" campaign and ended up taking back congress almost in a landslide. They now have an 11% approval rating, compared to 29% for GWB.

Bottom line, I'm not a fan of I'd say 95% of politicians.

[fresh]

I've read all the posts and must say that there is a clear distinction between those that relly on COMMON SENSE supported by facts and by those that clearly show narrow-minded thinking supported by racism and xenophobia.

But I don't blame them. They've been f***ed by the media.

[andyb]

But I don't blame them. They've been f***ed by the media.

Well there's nothing quite like a TV Grade Video Camera shoved up your arse to give you a really bad day - but what do you actually mean.?

The media in the UK has become far more viral, manipulative and shyte in the UK over the years, and I understand that it has been like that in the US for a very long time already. However my only sources for this are the film "Farenheit 911", and "bowling for Columbine" - would you say that Michael Moore's descriptions are accurate.

Anyway back on subject, I think that most people here would agree that GWB has done far worse things as a President than Clinton. Whether anyone else in his position would have done better is still a matter of speculation, and debate is futile unless anyone has a time machine and can make a difference.

GWB is not a Genius - the evidence he has given to the world is proof that he is a complete and utter moron and may even be mentally handicapped. There is no evidence to suggest that he is just a poor public speaker, his speeches are quite good (mostly because someone who has a second functioning brain lobe writes them for him) because he is reading, and all his simple mind has to do is make his heart beat, breathe in and out, stay standing up and read the words out loud and in the right order. Unfortunatly his brain becomes overloaded when he has to add thinking to the list, such as when someone asks him a question, he has to pause for thought - if he doesnt his brain fails in one or more of its duties, the words come out in the wrong order, he uses the wrong words, he speaks gibberish, he repeats himself, he contradicts himself - sometimes more than one of those at a time.

He obviously doesnt run the country, but he has enough power that when he makes a bad desicion really bad things happen as the consiquence of his stupidity and his power. As his stupidity wont change, he needs to be relieved of his power, and should have been years ago, or ideally never been extended the offer to start with.

I hope for the sake of America and the middle east's general stability that the Next President has at least 85 IQ and really hates all of the things that Bush has done over the years and begins to reverse them. I also hope that those visible changes to American world policies have an impact on Terrorists, and at least some potential terrorists see that America is trying to make up for its evil and unlawful past under the leadership of a cretin, and take a more sensible path than murder, chaos and mayhem. Alas I doubt that will happen for a long time, as terrorists have a far longer memory and attention span than GWB, and the USA and the UK's actions in Iraq have already created consequences for years to come.

Maybe GWB should have taken a leaf out of Clinton's book and spent more time getting blown by his secretary than blowing up innocent people thousands of miles away for what can only be described as Terrorism whilst pretending to fight Terrorism.

I quote: "violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>"
http://m-w.com/dictionary/terror

The USA and UK governments invaded a country (Iraq) under the guise of helping its people and reducing Terrorism. However they have Bombed, Shot and murdered their way through the country bringing a change of regime with them that a fair portion of the people never wanted, and this has essentially caused a civil war and the loss of even more lives.

What have we achieved by this, the hatred of the US, the UK and other countries by the vocal population of many muslim countries, spurred a new generation of Terrorists with a new reason to hate said countries, killed tens of thousands of innocent people and destroyed the lives of millions. No weapons of mass destruction were found (except the ones that the US and the UK sold to Iraq in past decades, we kept the reciepts), an unidentified amount of Terrorists were killed or captured, and a countries leadership was replaced by a Government that seems to be have no effect of the serious problems within the country that our "invasion" has caused. How many years from the unlawful attack and invasion of Iraq will it take for Iraq to be as peaceful as it was under Saddams grip - I have no idea, Saddam was Sadistic arsehole, but I imagine that millions of Iraqis miss him right now.

The real dangers to world peace are Iran, North Korea and the USA, not necessarily in that order. Iran needs to stop being so insular, and going against the wishes of countries that have serious trust issues with them. N Korea I dont know much about, but probably have nuclear weapons right now and cant be trusted, and the USA fits the description of both Iran and N Korea - at least under Bush's regime it does, the one thing that America has over the other Axis or Evil countries is that its Chief warmonger can only be the Chief for 8 years.

I hope that you have enjoyed my rant and personal attacks on GWB and the US and the UK's policiy's and probable repercussions. And before anyone accuses me of sounding like a terrorist, or hating the USA and or its citizens - I am not/dont - I am merely voicing my opinions.


Andy

[fresh]

I meant that such threat as a random bomb now and then, which was ALWAYS present (how isn't bowling for Columbine anounced as a terrorism-Oh yea.... the muslims didn't do it), would never have turned into a global terrorism fear that caused people to bluntly jump into a war against countries that are incappable of defending themselfs, if the media wouldn't brainwash them with fear. If you watch world event reports at the end of the day, all you see is apocalypto at hand because of all the murder due to diffrences in beliefs, whereas in fact, the true apocalypto out there is the poverty and hunger that stroke africa and asia.

Lets be honest. Iraq wasn't invaded because it was believed to have weapons of mass destruction, but because it didn't have those. Opened door to bomb the peasants... Pakistanians are safe, since they got them before the war against terrorism started.

I remember back in the old days when the news were there to calm people. To tell the good stories in combination with bad and not to bomb people with fear about everything bad that happens in the world. But I guess, now that the world is being run by the money, shit will never cease to exist.

[nick705]

Bush does seem "slow" to some people because he thinks about questions before he answers. That doesn't make him dumb.

Well, actually he seems stupid to me because he thinks about questions for a long time and then comes out with a stupid answer.

I can quite believe he's nowhere near as dumb as he appears though - probably an act for the US public who don't seem to care much for overtly smart politicians. A bit like Reagan's "amiable old buffer" performance.

Bushisms are always a good laugh, though...

"The French don't have a word for entrepreneur." - G. W. Bush

[seemingly.random]

Curious about the path of genetics - daddy Bush was sharp as a tack (whether one agreed with his politics or not).

the US public who don't seem to care much for overtly smart politicians.

This pretty much sums it up - quite worrisome for me - what this says about us voters. Seems to be proof of the worn phrase - the dumbing down of US politics.

[seemingly.random]

I remember back in the old days when the news were there to calm people.

Unfortunately, calm doesn't sell newspapers or advertising time on TV. We now seem to desire train wrecks and the like - the more gruesome and sordid, the better.

[Kaleid]

Today, like yesterday the media helps selling wars. See the documentary "War made easy"...