NationStates Jolt Archive

If Bill Clinton was now president, but did everything George W. Bush has done (invaded Iraq, pushed through Patriot Act, etc.) how many of you staunch defenders of George W. Bush's policies would be here posting vigorous defenses of those same policies if implemented by Bill Clinton? Would you liberals defend a Clinton war in Iraq?

Similarly, if George W. Bush had been president in the 1990s and did everything the same as Clinton, including sending troops to Bosnia, bombing Sudan, and lying about an affair with an intern, how many of you who defended the Big Dog by saying his affair was his private business and the invasion of Bosnia ended ethnic cleansing would be coming to the aid of a George W. Bush? Would you conservatives be more willing to forgive a lying, cheating (but born again) Dubya?

IIRC, Clinton claimed that Sudan had WMD, and showed photos of a pharmaceutical plant to prove it.

He ordered a cruise missile attack on it, and it turned out not to be a WMD plant, but only a pharmaceutical plant.

The media and the Democrats gave him a free pass, as did all of Europe (not one protest was filed, not even at the UN).

Sudan protested, but the whole thing was swept under the rug.

The Republicans floated the idea that Clinton did it to distract from the Monica (please not in my mouth) Lewinski scandal. That lasted about 15 seconds on the news.

Well, since I personally like Clinton, I'd be defending him.

And you cannot really make such hypothetical situations, unless the situation occurs as such, one can never know what one would do. There's just too many problems with this hypothetical situation thing.

Well, since I personally like Clinton, I'd be defending him.

And you cannot really make such hypothetical situations, unless the situation occurs as such, one can never know what one would do. There's just too many problems with this hypothetical situation thing.

Sudan wasn't hypothetical. You probably didn't recognize or acknowledge the news story because you like Clinton.

Civilians were killed there by cruise missiles launched by an American President claiming WMD and without asking UN permission.

Going to defend him now?

I sure would not be defending him, even though I am a "liberal". Of course, the Dems don't really count as liberals, so I feel very little connection with them. And I liked Clinton, but upon recentlly hearing some of HIS foreign policy stuff, I might be changing my mind...

Sudan wasn't hypothetical. You probably didn't recognize or acknowledge the news story because you like Clinton.

Civilians were killed there by cruise missiles launched by an American President claiming WMD and without asking UN permission.

Going to defend him now?
I probably didn't recognize the situation because when it happened when I was in middle school.

IIRC, Clinton claimed that Sudan had WMD, and showed photos of a pharmaceutical plant to prove it.

He ordered a cruise missile attack on it, and it turned out not to be a WMD plant, but only a pharmaceutical plant.

The media and the Democrats gave him a free pass, as did all of Europe (not one protest was filed, not even at the UN).

Sudan protested, but the whole thing was swept under the rug.

The Republicans floated the idea that Clinton did it to distract from the Monica (please not in my mouth) Lewinski scandal. That lasted about 15 seconds on the news.

I didn't read your response. Would you defend or condemn the same policies no matter whether carried out by Dubya or the Big Dog?

I didn't read your response. Would you defend or condemn the same policies no matter whether carried out by Dubya or the Big Dog?
Once again, hypothetical situations are not viable when trying to determine stuff. People think about the answers they're going to give, and these don't work.

Considering that party affiliation means absolutely nothing to me, I would condemn Bush's policies if Mother Theresa were suggesting them. They are simply bad policies.

Likewise, those things which I supported about Clinton (the fact that whether or not he had an affair has nothing whatsoever to do with his ability to perform his duties) and those which I did not support (DOMA, Don't Ask/Don't Tell, etc.) wouldn't change if it were Adolph Hitler in office.

Bad policies and good policies are the same no matter who introduces them.

If Bill Clinton was now president, but did everything George W. Bush has done (invaded Iraq, pushed through Patriot Act, etc.) how many of you staunch defenders of George W. Bush's policies would be here posting vigorous defenses of those same policies if implemented by Bill Clinton? Would you liberals defend a Clinton war in Iraq?

No, because its not about the policies, it's about which team to root for.


Similarly, if George W. Bush had been president in the 1990s and did everything the same as Clinton, including sending troops to Bosnia, bombing Sudan, and lying about an affair with an intern, how many of you who defended the Big Dog by saying his affair was his private business and the invasion of Bosnia ended ethnic cleansing would be coming to the aid of a George W. Bush? Would you conservatives be more willing to forgive a lying, cheating (but born again) Dubya?

No, because it's not about the policies, it's about which team to root for.

Democracy is popularity contests and clique forming.

If Bill Clinton was now president, but did everything George W. Bush has done (invaded Iraq, pushed through Patriot Act, etc.) how many of you staunch defenders of George W. Bush's policies would be here posting vigorous defenses of those same policies if implemented by Bill Clinton? Would you liberals defend a Clinton war in Iraq?

Similarly, if George W. Bush had been president in the 1990s and did everything the same as Clinton, including sending troops to Bosnia, bombing Sudan, and lying about an affair with an intern, how many of you who defended the Big Dog by saying his affair was his private business and the invasion of Bosnia ended ethnic cleansing would be coming to the aid of a George W. Bush? Would you conservatives be more willing to forgive a lying, cheating (but born again) Dubya?
Would Clinton still do the same economic policies like health care, be a good diplomat, not fight unilateral (or appear Diplomatic like Clinton did), and more

Would Bush continue his tax cuts, war during tax cuts to raise national debt to high levels, giving away Social Security surplus, and more?

If Clinton did not the things I said: no, I would not like him because he would be exactly what I don't like about Bush.

If Bush did the things I stated than no I wouldn't like him.

I would not defend a Clinton war in Iraq if it was not more diplomatic (appearing to want allies not the Unilateral attitude of Bush. His attitude said with us or against us).
If he looked more diplomatic, he was more convincing (as Clinton can be), allowed inspectors to search after we got vote to attack (Saddam opened doorsa that moment), but Clinton after a month more of search found something resembling it. Than maybe I'd like it till it got proven that there was none in Iraq.

Bush's character, attitude, policies ,diplomacy, and more are why i don't like his wars and things. Clinton had a difference approach to dilpomacy, policies, attitude, andmore so that changes every vairable.

IIRC, Clinton claimed that Sudan had WMD, and showed photos of a pharmaceutical plant to prove it.

He ordered a cruise missile attack on it, and it turned out not to be a WMD plant, but only a pharmaceutical plant.

The media and the Democrats gave him a free pass, as did all of Europe (not one protest was filed, not even at the UN).

Sudan protested, but the whole thing was swept under the rug.

The Republicans floated the idea that Clinton did it to distract from the Monica (please not in my mouth) Lewinski scandal. That lasted about 15 seconds on the news.

Did we cause war and waste American troops? No, very few died in Sudan from America. There is a difference.

Republicans decided to attack character not policy. Once they mentioned Monica, they lost their goal.

I have noticed that many of the same critics of Clinton's sex life, drug use, "draft dodging," and lying are the first to defend Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's "rowdy" indiscretions; willingly accept Bush's "Clinton-like" parsing of the English language to avoid saying whether or not he used cocaine; are quite satisfied not knowing anything else about Bush's missing National Guard months; and are very understanding and forgiving of George Dubya's fabrications about Iraq.

No, because its not about the policies, it's about which team to root for.

No, because it's not about the policies, it's about which team to root for.

And here you demonstrate exactly what is wrong with American politics and why George Washington warned against political parties.

What would have happened if Roosevelt was Hitler and Hitler Stalin and Stalin Roosevelt or is this too complicated?

I didn't read your response. Would you defend or condemn the same policies no matter whether carried out by Dubya or the Big Dog?

I can't defend either of them. I would have invaded Afghanistan if I were President. Not Iraq.

In light of the world's inability to accept pre-emptive invasion as a counter to anything, no matter how problematic, then I would propose a new policy.

If the United States is attacked by a foreign power, or a terrorist organization, the United States will, at its own discretion and in its own defense after the fact (a condition that should make everyone happy), and only after being attacked, will respond with the immediate use of thermonuclear weapons on the parties its deems to have committed, planned, or supported the act. The other nations in the world will be given 72 hours to hand over anyone involved in, or supporting such acts. Any location deemed to be in non-compliance with these demands will be destroyed by thermonuclear weapons.

So, we won't be invading anyone anymore. That should make people happy. And I won't be intervening anywhere. That should make people happy.
And I won't be attacking anyone until we're attacked. That should make people happy.

That means, of course, that if someday someone does get WMD and bring it, millions of Americans may die first. Before we do something.

But the response will be far out of proportion to anything that the US experiences. I would expect and demand that if the European Union is not willing to accept pre-emptive action, then they accept our right to retaliate as we see fit after a disastrous attack.

So, hypothetically, if there were another 9-11, I would probably destroy a major Islamic holy site, as well as a major Islamic population center at random. I would probably select upwards of 100 million as a total casualty count until I stopped the retaliation.

Quite frankly they're both power hungry politicians. Both men had some good policies and many bad ones. I'm an issue based voter and Bush sides on more of the issues I believe in, the war in Iraq not being one of them, than Clinton. If Bush committed a gross breach of professional ethics by abusing his power to influence an employee into having an adulterous relationship with him, I'd want him fired too. Quite frankly, I don't really want either of them for President, but I don't have any other reasonable choice, so I like most voters, vote for what we perceive as the lesser of two evils...

Short answer: No - it isn't the man, it's the policies. If Bush woke up one morning with his IQ doubled, and adopted a set of more socialist and less bellicose policies, and implemented them, I would stop mourning the fact that he was re-elected.

I can't defend either of them. I would have invaded Afghanistan if I were President. Not Iraq.

That is what makes you a better President hypothetically than Bush.


In light of the world's inability to accept pre-emptive invasion as a counter to anything, no matter how problematic, then I would propose a new policy.

If the United States is attacked by a foreign power, or a terrorist organization, the United States will, at its own discretion and in its own defense after the fact (a condition that should make everyone happy), and only after being attacked, will respond with the immediate use of thermonuclear weapons on the parties its deems to have committed, planned, or supported the act. The other nations in the world will be given 72 hours to hand over anyone involved in, or supporting such acts. Any location deemed to be in non-compliance with these demands will be destroyed by thermonuclear weapons.

How about invading... you don't have to nuke them... maybe a couple missiles than send in some soldiers... Afganistan was a good idea... No one hada problem with it.

So, we won't be invading anyone anymore. That should make people happy. And I won't be intervening anywhere. That should make people happy.
And I won't be attacking anyone until we're attacked. That should make people happy.

That means, of course, that if someday someone does get WMD and bring it, millions of Americans may die first. Before we do something.

However, you would have at least half the world on your side when yu strike back. Having backup is nice.

But the response will be far out of proportion to anything that the US experiences. I would expect and demand that if the European Union is not willing to accept pre-emptive action, then they accept our right to retaliate as we see fit after a disastrous attack.

So, hypothetically, if there were another 9-11, I would probably destroy a major Islamic holy site, as well as a major Islamic population center at random. I would probably select upwards of 100 million as a total casualty count until I stopped the retaliation.
Okay, now you are going from sensible, possibly elected President to insane, madman aka North Korea's leader.
Destroying stuff at random is wrong.

Ah, so a higher IQ is the solution to problems.

I guess you bought into the premise of the book, The Bell Curve, then.

Tell me how that works then. Most people who agree with the idea that higher IQ is a good thing (or that IQ matters) are Republicans. And you don't seem to be a Republican. Or are you?

Common sense, dumbass. Clinton would never do what Bush did. If he went into Iraq unprepared, for oil, for his father's pride, etc. he would be getting just as much criticism. The difference is, Clinton's father didn't fail to topple Saddam, he doesn't own an oil company, and he isn't stupid. You can't just make up idiotic situations when their actions are based on their personalities. If Clinton did what Bush did, and in the same manner, chances are he would be just like Bush and most people wouldn't like him.

Ah, so a higher IQ is the solution to problems.

I guess you bought into the premise of the book, The Bell Curve, then.

Tell me how that works then. Most people who agree with the idea that higher IQ is a good thing (or that IQ matters) are Republicans. And you don't seem to be a Republican. Or are you?
Then why is the more educated you are lead to being a Democrat?
After all most republicans say most Colleges are Liberal.

Thus the more IQ the farther you can go in College. Thus the more democratic.

Ah, so a higher IQ is the solution to problems.

I guess you bought into the premise of the book, The Bell Curve, then.

Tell me how that works then. Most people who agree with the idea that higher IQ is a good thing (or that IQ matters) are Republicans. And you don't seem to be a Republican. Or are you?No, thankfully I'm not republican. I can't quite agree with the republican attitude "I've got mine, up yours".

Pardon my vehemence. That l'il shrub was just sworn in again as President - one of the saddest things to happen to the United States Government in my 53 year memory.

The IQ comment - forget that part if you like. In my humble opinion, Bush is an idiot (moron? which is lower?) and would HAVE to have a massive increase in IQ/brain-power/what-ever-you-want-to-call-it to realize his policies are not just wrong, they're taking us pell-mell in the wrong direction.

No, thankfully I'm not republican. I can't quite agree with the republican attitude "I've got mine, up yours".

Pardon my vehemence. That l'il shrub was just sworn in again as President - one of the saddest things to happen to the United States Government in my 53 year memory.

The IQ comment - forget that part if you like. In my humble opinion, Bush is an idiot (moron? which is lower?) and would HAVE to have a massive increase in IQ/brain-power/what-ever-you-want-to-call-it to realize his policies are not just wrong, they're taking us pell-mell in the wrong direction.
To be fair Bush's stats are Str 13 Dex 15 (he is a a squirmer to get out of things) Con 14 Int 8 Wis 8 Cha 14

He is only bad at diplomacy due to his low Wisdom and Int.
Cocaine causes you to permanetly lose 1d4+1 Intelligence and Wisdom per year of use.

Well, if we believe all those Vietnam War movies, did Kerry use drugs?

To be fair Bush's stats are Str 13 Dex 15 (he is a a squirmer to get out of things) Con 14 Int 8 Wis 8 Cha 14

He is only bad at diplomacy due to his low Wisdom and Int.
Cocaine causes you to permanetly lose 1d4+1 Intelligence and Wisdom per year of use.
Damn, must've been pretty lucky on those d4 rolls.

Well, if we believe all those Vietnam War movies, did Kerry use drugs?

Probably, but to me it makes no difference. Almost every politician has used drugs, whether officially state sanctioned and approved drugs such as alcohol, caffeine, or tobacco, or drugs that do not carry the government's seal of approval.

Sudan wasn't hypothetical. You probably didn't recognize or acknowledge the news story because you like Clinton.

Civilians were killed there by cruise missiles launched by an American President claiming WMD and without asking UN permission.

Going to defend him now?


Thats true however, ummmmmmm it was not a long drawn out war where many many many more non combatants have been killed.

Clinton also did great things in the balkans, IMO he saved a huge war from starting outside of serbia and the former yugoslavia...

Then why is the more educated you are lead to being a Democrat?
After all most republicans say most Colleges are Liberal.

Thus the more IQ the farther you can go in College. Thus the more democratic.


Not true the majority of kids nowadays in collage are republicans whereas the collages are still liberal...

Thats true however, ummmmmmm it was not a long drawn out war where many many many more non combatants have been killed.

Clinton also did great things in the balkans, IMO he saved a huge war from starting outside of serbia and the former yugoslavia...

IMHO, Serbia was a European problem. It merely pointed out that the EU would be politically incapable of solving a major internal conflict on its own continent without the military strength of the United States.

They don't have a credible military force, nor do they have the political will to fight a war - even on their own soil - even if it threatens to spill over into the rest of Europe.

Clinton also hobbled the military by micromanaging their actions - a management method that led to disaster in Somalia. We lost more aircraft over Serbia than over Iraq because of this micromanagement. The Serbian forces by and large escaped destruction and completed more massacres because Clinton micromanaged the situation.

A good technical description of the absolute mismanagement of the Serbian campaign can be seen in the book, The Transformation of American Air Power.

Not a political examination - purely technical and purely military.

Not true the majority of kids nowadays in collage are republicans whereas the collages are still liberal...Where did you get that "information"? It's not true. There has been a shift from left to right in the general attitude of collegians since the 60s - there kind of had to be, we were pretty well over to the left then. But it hasn't "crossed over" to the "dark side" yet. They students are still more liberal than conservative - just not nearly as liberal as years ago.

To be fair Bush's stats are Str 13 Dex 15 (he is a a squirmer to get out of things) Con 14 Int 8 Wis 8 Cha 14

He is only bad at diplomacy due to his low Wisdom and Int.
Cocaine causes you to permanetly lose 1d4+1 Intelligence and Wisdom per year of use.

Int 8? That would be average! I would place him at least as low as a 6.

If Clinton was Bush and Bush was Clinton...

Hillary would still then be making a mess of things & Bill would still be having Women Trouble!

Bush Well thats a Joke! Think how you would react if one morning some idots killed 3000 to 4000 in a matter of hours? He did far to little & too slowly for me!

Lord VTG

If Clinton was Bush and Bush was Clinton...

Hillary would still then be making a mess of things...

Just what has she messed up so badly? Even Republican Senators give her high marks for being a hard working, committed junior Senator who has been willing to pay her dues without grandstanding.

Considering that I became a Republican midway into Bush's first term (he convinced me), I'd say that I'd love it. I'll probably bounce back to the Democrats at some point, as I will support whichever party is closer to my ideaology.

If Bill Clinton was now president, but did everything George W. Bush has done (invaded Iraq, pushed through Patriot Act, etc.) how many of you staunch defenders of George W. Bush's policies would be here posting vigorous defenses of those same policies if implemented by Bill Clinton? Would you liberals defend a Clinton war in Iraq?

Similarly, if George W. Bush had been president in the 1990s and did everything the same as Clinton, including sending troops to Bosnia, bombing Sudan, and lying about an affair with an intern, how many of you who defended the Big Dog by saying his affair was his private business and the invasion of Bosnia ended ethnic cleansing would be coming to the aid of a George W. Bush? Would you conservatives be more willing to forgive a lying, cheating (but born again) Dubya?Even for a hypothetical idea, this is horseshit, becuase Clinton wouldn't ever do those things, ever. Not even hypotheticaly.

Sudan protested, but the whole thing was swept under the rug.

That was one errant missile strike. He didn't invade the country!

Even for a hypothetical idea, this is horseshit, becuase Clinton wouldn't ever do those things, ever. Not even hypotheticaly.
Yeah, if Clinton did all those things, he wouldn't be in the Democratic Party.

Considering that I became a Republican midway into Bush's first term (he convinced me), I'd say that I'd love it. I'll probably bounce back to the Democrats at some point, as I will support whichever party is closer to my ideaology.Let me get this straight. At some point during the first presidential term of George W. Bush something or things he did or said convinced you to switch from being a Democrat to being a Republican?

Would you like to buy this bridge I have for sale?

Even for a hypothetical idea, this is horseshit, becuase Clinton wouldn't ever do those things, ever. Not even hypotheticaly.
Yeah, if Clinton did all those things, he wouldn't be in the Democratic Party.

No, of course not!

Perish the thought!!

Bill Clinton would never back a conservative agenda!!!

He would never do anything like, say, pushing through the pro-big business, anti-environmental, anti-labor NAFTA legislation, or the atrocious Telecommunications Bill (resulting in the growing trend toward media monopoly), or the anti-poor Welfare Reform Act, or sign the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, or implement the prejudicial "Don't Ask, Don’t Tell" military policy, which has resulted in more gay people being expelled from the military than under the previous policy.

The truth is Clinton did almost nothing for labor or the poor (it took him seven years as president before he even visited an Indian Reservation), sold out Haiti, turned Africa policy over to a Bush appointee, put Middle East policy in the hands of Israel's lobbyists, appointed Republican William Coen as Secretary of Defense, had Republican Dick Morris as his chief political strategist and advisor (now one of FOX News' favorite talking heads), maintained full funding for the DEA, sold out grazing and mineral rights on public land, pushed through many of the changes in national security that later became part of the more comprehensive Patriot Act, continued to fund the military at Cold War levels, and...well, the list goes on for this supposed "liberal" president.

I cast my first presidential vote 25 years ago and have been a liberal Democrat the entire time. Bill Clinton was many things as president. He was brilliant, he was charismatic, and he could piss off the right. But, one thing he wasn't was a liberal.

To imagine he couldn't implement many of the same policies as George W. Bush (keep in mind he endorsed Bush's invasion of Iraq) demonstrates a very superficial understanding of modern American politics (and Bill Clinton).

The only thing I agree with Michael Moore on is that Clinton was the best Republican President since Ronald Reagan. As a Republican, I was pleasantly surprised by Clinton's agenda and effectiveness, and the massive screwjob that he laid on his Democratic constituency.

If Bush had "ended welfare as we know it," I know half of you would be in the streets protesting the vile, evil actions of the President. But when Clinton did it, there wasn't a peep out of anyone.

Clinton was a Stealth Republican. So is Hillary, if you haven't noticed. Apparently, she has ideas to improve the Patriot Act that make John Ashcroft look like an anarchist.

Even for a hypothetical idea, this is horseshit, becuase Clinton wouldn't ever do those things, ever. Not even hypotheticaly.
Yeah, if Clinton did all those things, he wouldn't be in the Democratic Party.

No, of course not!

Perish the thought!!

Bill Clinton would never back a conservative agenda!!!

He would never do anything like, say, pushing through the pro-big business, anti-environmental, anti-labor NAFTA legislation, or the atrocious Telecommunications Bill (resulting in the growing trend toward media monopoly), or the anti-poor Welfare Reform Act, or sign the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, or implement the prejudicial "Don't Ask, Don’t Tell" military policy, which has resulted in more gay people being expelled from the military than under the previous policy.

The truth is Clinton did almost nothing for labor or the poor (it took him seven years as president before he even visited an Indian Reservation), sold out Haiti, turned Africa policy over to a Bush appointee, put Middle East policy in the hands of Israel's lobbyists, appointed Republican William Coen as Secretary of Defense, had Republican Dick Morris as his chief political strategist and advisor (now one of FOX News' favorite talking heads), maintained full funding for the DEA, sold out grazing and mineral rights on public land, pushed through many of the changes in national security that later became part of the more comprehensive Patriot Act, continued to fund the military at Cold War levels, and...well, the list goes on for this supposed "liberal" president.

I cast my first presidential vote 25 years ago and have been a liberal Democrat the entire time. Bill Clinton was many things as president. He was brilliant, he was charismatic, and he could piss off the right. But, one thing he wasn't was a liberal.

To imagine he couldn't implement many of the same policies as George W. Bush (keep in mind he endorsed Bush's invasion of Iraq) demonstrates a very superficial understanding of modern American politics (and Bill Clinton).

As further evidence that Bill Clinton actually represented the right wing of the Democratic Party I should add:

- Destructive logging in old-growth forests--suspended during Bush Sr.’s term--was resumed due to a loophole in an industry-environmentalist agreement supported by Clinton.

- Clinton also signed a law eliminating the Delaney Clause, which prohibited the use of any cancer-causing agents that accumulate in processed foods.

- There were at least 3 million more people uninsured in the U.S by the time the “Big Dog” left office, due to his failure to pass Health Care Reform.

- The U.S. military and economic war on Iraq, which caused more than 1 million Iraqi deaths, never let up under his reign. In fact, during his eight years in office, Clinton sent U.S. forces into combat situations nearly twice as many times as the four preceding presidents combined had over 17 years.

Quite a "liberal" record.

If Bush had "ended welfare as we know it," I know half of you would be in the streets protesting the vile, evil actions of the President. But when Clinton did it, there wasn't a peep out of anyone.

I don't know about the entire policy change, but I know that one of the changes was to stop paying extra for children had while on welfare. In other words, they were trying to discourage women from having children while unable to even take care of themselves. Personally, I would agree with this.

However, your assertion that there wasn't a peep out of anyone is silly. I remember reading quite a bit, especially from groups like Planned Parenthood, about those who were absolutely outraged by the policy.

If Bill Clinton was now president, but did everything George W. Bush has done (invaded Iraq, pushed through Patriot Act, etc.) how many of you staunch defenders of George W. Bush's policies would be here posting vigorous defenses of those same policies if implemented by Bill Clinton? Would you liberals defend a Clinton war in Iraq?

Similarly, if George W. Bush had been president in the 1990s and did everything the same as Clinton, including sending troops to Bosnia, bombing Sudan, and lying about an affair with an intern, how many of you who defended the Big Dog by saying his affair was his private business and the invasion of Bosnia ended ethnic cleansing would be coming to the aid of a George W. Bush? Would you conservatives be more willing to forgive a lying, cheating (but born again) Dubya?

Had it been the other way around: It is a well proven fact that republicans and the women they have affairs with are far less likely to go public as they have self respect, a life (not really if they're having an affair with Bush..but well he hs his own plane! YUCK). I think people would be very anti Clinton. I certainly would, but he would have been able to keep up the European alliances, and not made such a cock up(no pun intended!) But then again Clinton in 1999 had the chance to take out some leaders in Al Quida(excuse lack of spelling) I think Bush would have killed em! That said, Bush would have fecked up majorly Condalezza wouldn't have been made sec of state and we wouldn't have the sheer comedy of Bush quotes, Clinton would probably be known as the greatest American presiden??? Purely because he is a better statesman and can convince ppl to do things Bush clearly can't!

Yes, that international foreign affairs expert, Clinton, and his super expert, Madeline Albright.

Let me see. During the Somalia mission, which was authorized by the UN (we can give them 5 points for that), we had the Pakistanis and the Malaysians there (well, according to people who criticize Bush, nations that aren't European don't count as legitimate major coalition partners, so minus 1 point for each one), but we did get the Italians to be there (although I have to give zero points, since Italy has always been involved in Somalia and Ethiopia, or did anyone forget WW II?).

So, in a show of how well the Italians went along with the UN mission, and what they thought of the US being involved in the mission, every time the US went out on a raid (which the Italians were always advised of in writing), the Italians would send someone out to their military motor park and flash the headlights on their vehicles. This allowed the Habr Gidr militia plenty of time to spread the word and get fighters mobilized and barricades burning by the time the Americans arrived.

Arrived. To do an authorized UN mission. Which the Italians were supposedly a part of.

Documented extensively in the non-fiction, documentary book Blackhawk Down by a reporter.

So I would give -20 points for Madeline's savvy handling of such a willing coalition partner like Italy in Somalia.

Damn, must've been pretty lucky on those d4 rolls.


To be fair Bush's stats are Str 13 Dex 15 (he is a a squirmer to get out of things) Con 14 Int 8 Wis 8 Cha 14

He is only bad at diplomacy due to his low Wisdom and Int.
Cocaine causes you to permanetly lose 1d4+1 Intelligence and Wisdom per year of use.


Actually 8 is below average, 10 is average. Granted there are more less smart below 10 so now 8 is condidred average, but really 10 is average.

Bush is listened to prior 10 years or more ago back in college. He was a great speaker yu should listen. He never paused like he does now, no fake words, no mispornouncing, and more.

I'd say before Cocaine he might have had: Int 18 Wis 18

Oh and I forgot he gets a Fort save vs DC 10 + year of use + 4 for damaging power of coaine with each year. sometimes I think Bush passed save...but other times.

For me, it has nothing to do with the party. What matters is what they have actually done. I didnt have a problem with Bush until he started showing his true colors. Bush is the worst president in modern history because of what he has done, not because of the party he belongs to. Raegan wasnt a bad president even if he was a Republican. The same goes for Bush Sr.

For me, it has nothing to do with the party. What matters is what they have actually done. I didnt have a problem with Bush until he started showing his true colors. Bush is the worst president in modern history because of what he has done, not because of the party he belongs to. Raegan wasnt a bad president even if he was a Republican. The same goes for Bush Sr.


I'm not sure if I agree with that completely. What if Sinn Fein were elected to government in Ireland? Admittedly they do amazing ground work in local communities..they genuinely do, I'm not by any means an SF supporter. This policy is what gives them so much support. But can you imagine how much they would feck up the Peace Process..like they haven't already.
My point is that in theory it should be the person who you give your vote to, not the party. In the last local elections in Irl there were some great candidates, but their parties policies aren't the best

Actually 8 is below average, 10 is average. Granted there are more less smart below 10 so now 8 is condidred average, but really 10 is average.

I don't know what gaming system you use, but in most d20 based games (ie. D&D), 8 is considered average.

I'm not sure if I agree with that completely. What if Sinn Fein were elected to government in Ireland? Admittedly they do amazing ground work in local communities..they genuinely do, I'm not by any means an SF supporter. This policy is what gives them so much support. But can you imagine how much they would feck up the Peace Process..like they haven't already.
My point is that in theory it should be the person who you give your vote to, not the party. In the last local elections in Irl there were some great candidates, but their parties policies aren't the best

Im not saying thats how most people feel, Im saying it is how I feel. I am aware that most partisans would vote for the Antichrist for president and satan for vice president before voting for someone from the other party. Its an unfortunate fact of the electoral process.

I don't know what gaming system you use, but in most d20 based games (ie. D&D), 8 is considered average.Well, then, if 8 is considered average, any score accorded to GWB (aka "li'l shrub"), in order to be valid, has to be something below average. :cool:

Reposted for those who still don't believe Clinton would ever implment Bush-like policies:

Bill Clinton would never back a conservative agenda!?!?!

He would never do anything like, say, pushing through the pro-big business, anti-environmental, anti-labor NAFTA legislation, or the atrocious Telecommunications Bill (resulting in the growing trend toward media monopoly), or the anti-poor Welfare Reform Act, or sign the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, or implement the prejudicial "Don't Ask, Don’t Tell" military policy, which has resulted in more gay people being expelled from the military than under the previous policy.

The truth is Clinton did almost nothing for labor or the poor (it took him seven years as president before he even visited an Indian Reservation), sold out Haiti, turned Africa policy over to a Bush appointee, put Middle East policy in the hands of Israel's lobbyists, appointed Republican William Coen as Secretary of Defense, had Republican Dick Morris as his chief political strategist and advisor (now one of FOX News' favorite talking heads), maintained full funding for the DEA, sold out grazing and mineral rights on public land, pushed through many of the changes in national security that later became part of the more comprehensive Patriot Act, and continued to fund the military at Cold War levels.

As further evidence that Bill Clinton actually represented the right wing of the Democratic Party I should add:

- Destructive logging in old-growth forests--suspended during Bush Sr.’s term--was resumed due to a loophole in an industry-environmentalist agreement supported by Clinton.

- Clinton also signed a law eliminating the Delaney Clause, which prohibited the use of any cancer-causing agents that accumulate in processed foods.

- There were at least 3 million more people uninsured in the U.S by the time the “Big Dog” left office, due to his failure to pass Health Care Reform.

- The U.S. military and economic war on Iraq, which caused more than 1 million Iraqi deaths, never let up under his reign. In fact, during his eight years in office, Clinton sent U.S. forces into combat situations nearly twice as many times as the four preceding presidents combined had over 17 years.

I cast my first presidential vote 25 years ago and have been a liberal Democrat the entire time. Bill Clinton was many things as president. He was brilliant, he was charismatic, and he could piss off the right. But, one thing he wasn't was a liberal.

*snip*
I'm not American so I don't care if your right-wing nutcase of a president is Democrat or Republican. Still a right-wing nutcase to me, and still frowned on (maybe even protested against) by me.

Any location deemed to be in non-compliance with these demands will be destroyed by thermonuclear weapons.

So, hypothetically, if there were another 9-11, I would probably destroy a major Islamic holy site, as well as a major Islamic population center at random. I would probably select upwards of 100 million as a total casualty count until I stopped the retaliation.
Are you some kind of psychopath? No we will not accept an overblown genocidal response to attacks on the USA. Taking out those that attacked you is fine; killing 100 million people who didn't is not permissible.

No, because its not about the policies, it's about which team to root for.
Surely you decide your favourite team by their policies?

And here you demonstrate exactly what is wrong with American politics and why George Washington warned against political parties.If Washington was against such partisan thinking maybe he and the other founders shouldn't have designed a system that favours a two-party model.

I have noticed that many of the same critics of Clinton's sex life, drug use, ...willingly accept Bush's "Clinton-like" parsing of the English language to avoid saying whether or not he used cocaine;
I don't think it matters at all whether your presidents did drugs 30 years ago. Their sex lives are also private. Why criticise that when there is so much more relevant stuff to criticise?

Yeah, if Clinton did all those things, he wouldn't be in the Democratic Party.
Why do you think he wouldn't? The man slashed welfare and let corporations crush the trade unions, then outsource. Doesn't sound traditionally Democrat to me, but still you Dem fools adore him.

Yo, John park, simmer with the thermonukes, or you will start talking like OMFG I NUKKK U!!!!!11!!!!!!!!!!11! pWnEd!1!!!!

1 hate
2 meh
3 great

Bush goes from 1 to 3
Clinton stays at 2.

The only thing I agree with Michael Moore on is that Clinton was the best Republican President since Ronald Reagan. As a Republican, I was pleasantly surprised by Clinton's agenda and effectiveness, and the massive screwjob that he laid on his Democratic constituency.

If Bush had "ended welfare as we know it," I know half of you would be in the streets protesting the vile, evil actions of the President. But when Clinton did it, there wasn't a peep out of anyone.

Clinton was a Stealth Republican. So is Hillary, if you haven't noticed. Apparently, she has ideas to improve the Patriot Act that make John Ashcroft look like an anarchist.
For once I agree with you. It saddens me to see American liberal Democrats defending Clinton and bashing Reagan, when they were really both the same. When I see those liberals defending Clinton, my respect for them evaporates.

Clinton got away with it because he was a smooth talker. His Democrats lapped it right up line and sinker.

I'm not sure if I agree with that completely. What if Sinn Fein were elected to government in Ireland? Admittedly they do amazing ground work in local communities..they genuinely do, I'm not by any means an SF supporter. This policy is what gives them so much support. But can you imagine how much they would feck up the Peace Process..like they haven't already.
If Sinn Fein became the majority party I would leave this country.

If this northern bank robbery has any positive consequences, I hope it is that Sinn Fein forever (or at least for a long time) fall out of favour with the Irish voters.

Not that I'm happy about the robbery. It has done significant damage to the peace process, and thus its perpetrators are traitors to everyone on this island.

Could you tell me about the "amazing ground work" that the Shinners do?

*For those who don't know, Sinn Fein are the political wing of the IRA terrorist organisation (of course they deny this). They have recently been gaining ground in Republic of Ireland local elections.