|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 70 responses total. |
tsty
|
|
response 25 of 70:
| 
Nov 18 06:00 UTC 2003 |
re #14 .. GEEZE!!! janc, clinton haters were never *taht* rabid! wtf has
gotten into you? didn't get enough of a tax cut? no children tax rebate?
/
po
|
gull
|
|
response 26 of 70:
|
Nov 18 14:26 UTC 2003 |
It's easier to hate someone who's actually incompetent than it is to
hate someone whose personal life is a bit slimy.
|
twenex
|
|
response 27 of 70:
|
Nov 18 14:31 UTC 2003 |
This is very true.
|
bru
|
|
response 28 of 70:
|
Nov 18 14:36 UTC 2003 |
Problem is, bish is not (imnsho) incompetent. He just doesn't do wht you
want done. He does what I want done.
I never wanted any country to oppose the president when Clinton was president.
He was a slimey assed rapist as far as I was concerned, but he was the
president. AS leader of our country, he deserves better respect
|
twenex
|
|
response 29 of 70:
|
Nov 18 14:53 UTC 2003 |
Like the respect Clinton gave the (admittedly totally useless) John Major when
he visited the US, by watching the baseball instead of meeting the PM?
Since our position is that our way, rather than his way, of running the
country, is the right way to do it, we're right in saying he's incompetent
of running the country the way we want, which is the same as our saying he's
incompetent, period.
|
bru
|
|
response 30 of 70:
|
Nov 18 15:15 UTC 2003 |
I hadn't heard that. Anopther reason to believe Clinton was incompetent.
|
gull
|
|
response 31 of 70:
|
Nov 18 15:36 UTC 2003 |
Clinton was pretty well-liked overseas, though. I'm not saying that's
necessarily a good way to judge a President, but it was true. He was a
much better diplomat than Bush.
Partisan politics aside, what I see a lot in the Bush administration is
a lack of central leadership. Different parts of his administration
squabble like children and we end up with no coherent policy. Bush just
isn't strong enough to rein them in, most of the time.
I also fear that political calculation is starting to overcome good
judgement when it comes to Iraq. We really, really can't afford to
leave before the job is done, but it's starting to look like we're going
to pull out in time for good election year visuals of troops coming home
and leave Iraq to the terrorists.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 32 of 70:
|
Nov 18 19:28 UTC 2003 |
I judge Bush incompetent. He appears to think and speak only cliches,
seemingly provided for him. The result is no appearance of consideration
of the long term consequences of any of his declarations. He also lets his
neoconservative administration change previous policies, often in secret,
with damaging consequences. We see this in many arenas - energy,
environmental, military, economic, and others.
|
twenex
|
|
response 33 of 70:
|
Nov 18 20:32 UTC 2003 |
"Speak...cliches"? "Stumble over cliches", do you mean?
"The problem with our imports is that most of them come outside the country"
"These weapons have been deceiving us for decades" (on a British interview)
The problem with your President is that he's in office.
|
gull
|
|
response 34 of 70:
|
Nov 18 21:30 UTC 2003 |
You forgot my favorite:
"They want to run Social Security like it's some kind of federal program."
|
twenex
|
|
response 35 of 70:
|
Nov 18 21:45 UTC 2003 |
re: #34: Hehehehe. I really laughed at that one.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 36 of 70:
|
Nov 19 00:33 UTC 2003 |
I meant "speak only cliches". His grammatically and syntactically correct
statements are nevertheless still cliches: "Bring them on" (they did).
"We will prevail", etc.
|
sj2
|
|
response 37 of 70:
|
Nov 19 06:13 UTC 2003 |
I think the world mostly forgave Clinton for his sexual escapades.
Bush at his best seems clueless and at his worst an idiot. Bush really
makes you wonder who's running the show in the world's largest and
most powerful economy. Scares you too, coz US policy and actions
affect a large part of the world. And he's certainly turned the
sympathy US had of the world after 9/11 into hatred by botching the
whole Iraq thing.
|
bru
|
|
response 38 of 70:
|
Nov 19 14:08 UTC 2003 |
Well, I disagree. I think Bush is showing himself to be intelligent and
capable. He just doesn't do things the way you want them done.
Whatever sympathy he the U.S. had after 9/11 ... what sympathy? And what
would you suggest we do? The U.N. is showing itself more and more to be the
whore of the underpriveleged adn the shelter of the incompetent. If they
don't have enough sense to realize that terrorism is growing because they
aren't doing anything to stop it other than passing resolution after
resolution because they can't do anything else because their ranks are filled
with terrorists in the making.
|
gull
|
|
response 39 of 70:
|
Nov 19 15:06 UTC 2003 |
I don't know if Bush is unintelligent. I'm willing to allow that he
might be a fairly bright man. But, as he said himself during his
campaign, he's not much for studying policy or history. This willful
ignorance has caused a lot of problems. Remember when he accidentally
changed our Taiwan policy with a poor choice of words in a speech,
leaving the rest of his administration to backpedal furiously and try to
explain away his remarks? Remember when he declared we were on a
"crusade"? He just doesn't have any desire to understand the important
but subtle parts of his job.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 40 of 70:
|
Nov 19 15:55 UTC 2003 |
Not to forget his remarks about gays being "sinners" and how we should
not judge them blah blah blah.
|
twenex
|
|
response 41 of 70:
|
Nov 19 17:12 UTC 2003 |
I don't think theat the world necessarily forgave Clinton for being an
adulterer. I think it's more that the world recognizes that a man can be a
philanderer, but still be a good leader, whereas a man who chooses not to read
books about policy and history and then chooses to try and make both is,
well, if not stupid, then plainly ignorant.
The world did have a lot of sympathy for the Us after 9/11,. bruce. You don't
get Arafat giving blood for the unfortunate every day; nor is it an everyday
occurence for the Palace to summon a foreign country's Ambassador and play
their national anthem at the Changing of the Palace Guard. It took the Palace
a week to lower the Royal standard at Buckingham Palace to show respect for
Diana after she died, for Christ's sake, even though the public had been
demanding it for a week. I'd say the fact they changed the anthem
spontaneously and with no hint of a request from the US authorities shows
enormous sensititivy to America's sorrow. Most people in Britain today still
feel that way, even Bush has gone a long way to eroding that sympathy because
of his actions over Iraq, steel sanctions, the environment, etc. - though of
course there will always be that hardcore of Anti-Americans, just as there
will unforunately always be a hard core of anti-Semites.
|
sj2
|
|
response 42 of 70:
|
Nov 19 17:41 UTC 2003 |
Re #38, Umm ... I hate to start the debate all over again. But the so
called *coalition* has backtracked on the WMD issue. Going from WMDs to
programme for WMD development. Also, a clear lack of evidence linking
terrorism and Saddam Hussein. Now the US/British administration is
trumpeting the democracy item.
Both Bush and Blair publicly lied about the threats and now are hiding
behind their intelligence services by making the intelligence community
the scapegoat.
The UN definitely isn't a perfect organisation. However, the US isn't
helping the situation by undermining it. The US uses the UN when it
needs it and throws it in the dustbin when it doesn't. So much for
multi-laterism.
As for US's concern for terrorism, we have been facing terrorism for
almost two decades now. US support has only been on paper. Infact, the
US is now actively funding and arming the Pakistanis.
As for repressive dictators, the US doesn't have any trouble dealing
with dictators in Saudi, Oman, Pakistan, Egypt, UAE, Jordan?? While
these dictators violently suppress political opponents and violate
human rights they are friendly to the US. As against this, Saddam
Hussein didn't favour the US. Why these double-standards?? The US even
used its veto in the UN to block a resolution condemning Saddam's use
of chemical weapons to slaughter Kurds in the late 80s.
As for WMDs, it was interesting to hear an ex-chief of US armed forces
point out that the bulk of WMD threat comes from tonnes of unsecured
nuclear-grade uranium in Russia and former Soviet states. Many of these
states border Europe.
http://nuclearno.com/text.asp?4501
An estimated 20 tons of highly enriched uranium currently is stored at
such locations in about 40 countries, from Russia and other former
Soviet republics to Libya and the Congo Republic.
Don't you think this threat dwarfs any alleged WMD *development*
programme by Iraq? Iraq under Saddam Hussein was anyday more sane that
the Congo republic!! Don't you think so?
I am not putting up a theory here of why the US attacked Iraq. All I am
saying is do your fact-checking before you trust what your government
tells you. Maybe what the US does is demanded by realpolitik. And thats
perfectly understandable. But I wish they would atleast get off the
high moral ground.
|
flem
|
|
response 43 of 70:
|
Nov 19 18:11 UTC 2003 |
I've long since stopped caring whether or not Bush is incompetent or
not. It doesn't really matter to me whether he's just a puppet or an
active participant. Either way, the things that he and his
administration are doing to this country are very disagreeable to me.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 44 of 70:
|
Nov 19 18:17 UTC 2003 |
I think that what he is doing is made worse by the fact that he is
an incompetent puppet. Why that matters is because it suggests what
disagreeable things he will do in the future.
|
twenex
|
|
response 45 of 70:
|
Nov 19 18:43 UTC 2003 |
It's also possible grounds for impeachment on the grounds
the Constitutionm sets forth, rather than on the fact that
a couple Republicans don't like the fact that he's been
caught doing somethin g many politicians on both sides are
probably at anyway.
|
aruba
|
|
response 46 of 70:
|
Nov 19 19:52 UTC 2003 |
Re #42: Lots of interseting stuff in that post, sj2, thanks for entering
it. We Americans could use more exposue to how the world views us.
|
twenex
|
|
response 47 of 70:
|
Nov 19 22:21 UTC 2003 |
I agree that sj2 makes some good points
|
sj2
|
|
response 48 of 70:
|
Nov 20 06:21 UTC 2003 |
Hehe, well!! You can always count on me for bashing the US ;)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 49 of 70:
|
Nov 20 07:08 UTC 2003 |
I watched the Queen's and Bush's speeches on TV. The queen had several
paragraphs on each page she read: Bush had fractions of sentences
on each of his, so had many more pages. I guess that without a teleprompter
he could not read his text at arm's length. Does he not require glasses
at any distance?
|