NationStates Jolt Archive

The man is making a comeback, it has to be said.

ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL - The Reincarnation of Bill Clinton (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,446408,00.html)

Eight years, seven weeks and five days later, Bill Clinton enters an ice rink in Worcester, Massachusetts. And this time he is a hero. He spreads his arms wide as if to embrace his luck, his fans, his worshippers, this crowd of 8,000 people, all yelling: "Thank you, Mr. President! Thank you!"

He walks to center stage, hugging everyone within reach. A spokesman introduces him as if he were a triple superlative: "William! Jefferson! Clinton!" Edward Kennedy, the aging senator and youngest brother of former President John F. Kennedy, bellows out the greatest hallelujah of them all: "We will never forget you. Never, never, never! We love you Bill!"

The last time Bill Clinton was in Worcester, an attractive city in New England, was eight years, seven weeks and five days earlier, on Aug. 27, 1998. It was no easy visit. In fact, it was more of a test of Clinton's courage, because it was his first public appearance after having admitted to his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. And it was a terrible day for Clinton. Protesters stood on the side of the road holding signs that read: "Enough. Resign from the presidency."

Though he hasn't forgotten those signs or that summer day, today Clinton wants to relegate it to the past, to make it go away. It is his way of exacting revenge on those who despised him, those who wanted to drive him out of office. And perhaps it is also his way of convincing himself that he can get past one of the greatest defeats in his life after all.

[continues...]

I'm curious to find out what Americans think of old Billy boy now, after six or so years of GWB.

I'd think that most people agreed with me that Clinton clearly was a better president than Bush Jr., right?

And why? Justify your arguments, so we can make a debate happen here!

Two words: Clinton Monument.

What do you think of Bill Clinton?

I think he makes a fine ex-president. His humanitarian efforts really helped in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, and he is a fine example of a retired politician (personal weaknesses notwithstanding). I make no comment regarding his presidency. ;)

I'd think that most people agreed with me that Clinton clearly was a better president than Bush Jr., right?

LOL. That's not saying a whole lot.

I was happy to vote for him twice. He is not president anymore and hasn't been for six years. He is no longer politically relevant. So, in that sense, I'm sick of hearing about him.

Though he does know how to make a kick-ass speech. Actually, now that I think of it, I wish the Dems could just replace Kerry with Clinton.

Two words: Clinton Monument.
Same as the Washington Monument, only bigger? amirite?

Same as the Washington Monument, only bigger? amirite?

Like it, but the Clinton Monument would be rounder and would have a large purple cap. [/zinger]

I didn't vote for him because I was convinced he was a liar and an adulterer. Imagine my amazement when the people who voted for him got all pissed off because he was a liar and an adulterer. I didn't understand their rage; they got what they voted for. :p

He did a decent job as President. He left the country better than when he found it. *nod*

Doing his secretary was the best thing a US President has ever done.

I didn't vote for him because I was convinced he was a liar and an adulterer. Imagine my amazement when the people who voted for him got all pissed off because he was a liar and an adulterer. I didn't understand their rage; they got what they voted for. :p

He did a decent job as President. He left the country better than when he found it. *nod*

A leader's sexual predilections are more important to you than his leadership ability?

Even knowing Clinton was getting his pole waxed by a tubby intern I'd have voted for him. The biggest screwup he ever made was Somalia and that was'nt so bad.

Still rather like him. Personally I don't care who he was boinging as long as it didn't effect what he was doing as president.

However, the GOP majority in Congress disagreed with me and decided to make an effect.

That being said, it's hard to say he's making a come back given he's an ex-president, they usually don't do, or get to do, anything really political afterwards.

At least modern presidents don't.

I think he loves blowjobs. :p

Not from the US. He was far too right wing for me to like.

The man is making a comeback, it has to be said.

ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL - The Reincarnation of Bill Clinton (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,446408,00.html)

I'm curious to find out what Americans think of old Billy boy now, after six or so years of GWB.

I'd think that most people agreed with me that Clinton clearly was a better president than Bush Jr., right?

And why? Justify your arguments, so we can make a debate happen here!
I think it would be very difficult to name a President that wasn't worse than George the Lesser Bush.

Having said that, I believe that Clinton was certainly one of the better ones. North America prospered during his years and he certainly was a much better ambassador for peace than the current warmonger.

Having said that, I believe that Clinton was certainly one of the better ones. North America prospered during his years and he certainly was a much better ambassador for peace than the current warmonger.
Really? Clinton attacked a number of countries, sometimes without UN permission. I know that Bush makes him look peaceful, but let's not forget the facts.

I was happy to vote for him twice. He is not president anymore and hasn't been for six years. He is no longer politically relevant. So, in that sense, I'm sick of hearing about him.

Though he does know how to make a kick-ass speech. Actually, now that I think of it, I wish the Dems could just replace Kerry with Clinton.
Speaking of "kick ass", I loved the Clinton interview on Fox:

Clinton Interviewed on Fox (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9026120716999978732)

And this commentary about that interview is bang on!!

Keith Olberman on Clinton Fox Interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9g8fzNSOrY)

Clinton better than Bush? No contest!! :D

Really? Clinton attacked a number of countries, sometimes without UN permission. I know that Bush makes him look peaceful, but let's not forget the facts.
Other then the first 9 months of 2001, Bush has been at war.....most of it (Iraq) was totally unnecessary!!!

No, let's not forget the facts!! :D

Not after selling diseased blood and those "genocides" in the Baltics.

Doing his secretary was the best thing a US President has ever done.

She was so ugly though!:( If you want to talk about taste in women, you need to go to my man Kennedy. The guy was pimpin up the white house pretty much every day.

He's a big "meh" in my book, but I think LG was dead on.

He did a decent job as President. He left the country better than when he found it. *nod*

Such should be the standard by which all presidents are judged...

...how will our current leader measure up, I wonder? :rolleyes:

Doing his secretary was the best thing a US President has ever done.

Not only was JFk doing Marilyn Monroe, but when he was not playing away he had Jackie too.

Guy had it made.

Not after selling diseased blood and those "genocides" in the Baltics.
Please do elaborate.....

Please do elaborate.....

Well, the "ethnic cleansings" in the Baltic never actually happened, and as governor he once sold bad prisoner's blood.

Well, the "ethnic cleansings" in the Baltic never actually happened, and as governor he once sold bad prisoner's blood.
So, ethnic cleansings in Bosnia didn't happen, and Clinton himself sold bad blood? Please do elaborate.....

So, ethnic cleansings in Bosnia didn't happen, and Clinton himself sold bad blood? Please do elaborate.....

The actual number killed in the "cleansings" were much less, and Clinton sold deiseased blood to somewhere. It's all in the book "You Are Being Lied To."

Other then the first 9 months of 2001, Bush has been at war.....most of it (Iraq) was totally unnecessary!!!

No, let's not forget the facts!! :D
... what's your point? This is a Clinton debate, after all...

Well, the "ethnic cleansings" in the Baltic never actually happened,

The actual number killed in the cleansings were much less, and Clinton sold deiseased blood to somewhere. It's all in the book "You Are Being Lied To."
Was there, or was there not ethnic cleansing in Bosnia?

Again, your proof that Clinton sold diseased blood is where?

BTW, many people write books.....whether they are factual or not is another question.

Edit: Added obvious contradiction by Zatarack

... what's your point? This is a Clinton debate, after all...
Strictly a Clinton debate?

I'm curious to find out what Americans think of old Billy boy now, after six or so years of GWB.

I'd think that most people agreed with me that Clinton clearly was a better president than Bush Jr., right?

And why? Justify your arguments, so we can make a debate happen here!
Apparently not?

A leader's sexual predilections are more important to you than his leadership ability?

Even knowing Clinton was getting his pole waxed by a tubby intern I'd have voted for him. The biggest screwup he ever made was Somalia and that was'nt so bad.

Clinton governed by popularity polls. That's why he left Somalia and why he lied, under oath, to a Federal court. That's not about sex, it's about perjury. It's about denying the due process that a court is supposed to provide. Clinton was forced into every good decision he ever made and while he was a great campaigner and speaker, he stunk as an executive.

Bill Clinton is irrelevant. The only thing currently interesting about him is the outside chance he'll be the first First Husband. Otherwise, he's last century's news.

Was there, or was there not ethnic cleansing in Bosnia?

Again, your proof that Clinton sold diseased blood is where?

BTW, many people write books.....whether they are factual or not is another question.

Edit: Added obvious contradiction by Zatarack

I never said they were ethnic cleansings, I just decided to not put quote marks on that time.

I never said they were ethnic cleansings, I just decided to not put quote marks on that time.

Cleansings based on ethnic background = Ethnic cleansings.

Were there, or were there not Ethnic cleansings?

Clinton governed by popularity polls. That's why he left Somalia and why he lied, under oath, to a Federal court. That's not about sex, it's about perjury. It's about denying the due process that a court is supposed to provide. Clinton was forced into every good decision he ever made and while he was a great campaigner and speaker, he stunk as an executive.
Conservatives were more concerned about Clinton's sex life than Osama Bin Laden........sad commentary indeed.


Bill Clinton Blames Others For 911 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4)

About 1 minute, 30 seconds in, Clinton talks about Somalia, and how the conservatives wanted the US to leave Somalia right away.

You have to go back a long way to find a better president.

I never said they were ethnic cleansings, I just decided to not put quote marks on that time.
I do believe that you did say that there were cleansings, after you said there wasn't any:

The actual number killed in the "cleansings" were much less,

As a non-American, I'd say he was a better diplomat than the one at the head of the United States at the moment, and he knew how to compromise. Domestically, I can respect his policies and rather commend them in fact.

True, Clinton lied both about sex and about the fact that he abused executive power to cover up his personal life, but that is really a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things.

Besides, Clinton hardly is the first politician to have sexual relations and cheat on his wife and ain't gonna be the last.

But nevertheless, he was a great president because, in my humble opinion, he had better foreign and domestic policies than that of President George W. Bush.

Conservatives were more concerned about Clinton's sex life than Osama Bin Laden........sad commentary indeed.


Bill Clinton Blames Others For 911 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4)

About 1 minute, 30 seconds in, Clinton talks about Somalia, and how the conservatives wanted the US to leave Somalia right away.

That's a silly statement to make, when it was Clinton that had no interest in holding Bin Laden. This nation is based on the rule of law, to suggest that all of the criticism of Clinton was about sex, and not the numerous allegations of illegal activity that he and Ms Clinton participated in, is just your ignorance of the facts.

Then there was the Clintonesque episode that brought our troops to the shores of Haiti to aid Aristide, but never allowed them to land. There's the mark of a truly great CinC, eh?

Remember the scene in the Blues Brothers, where Belushi is confronted by Carrie Fisher in the tunnel? Where he makes every excuse in the world for missing the wedding? It all ends up with "but it wasn't my fault." That's about how transparent all the excuses the Clinton makes become. It was always his fault, but he found a way to blame someone else. What ever happened to Harry Truman's 'The Buck Stops Here' sign. Must have been packed far away in the DNC.

I think we should send an attack chicken after him.

http://pictureserver.funnyjunk.com/pics2/ninjakid.gif

Not from the US: Meh!

Strictly a Clinton debate?


Apparently not?
I'll assume you're referring to Ardee's post, since no one should be construed to claim otherwise. The imperative phrase there was I know that Bush makes him look peaceful...

I voted meh … probably would have been higher if I had been older or really interested in politics at the time. (does not help that my dad hated the man)

Two words: Clinton Monument.



Every College in the US should have one.

They should name a brand of flavored condoms after him and a Brand of Cigars.

A guys guy..who also happened to be president.

Well, the "ethnic cleansings" in the Baltic never actually happened, and as governor he once sold bad prisoner's blood.So, ethnic cleansings in Bosnia didn't happen, and Clinton himself sold bad blood? Please do elaborate.....

Bosnia is in the Baltic area now?! Where did they put it, next to Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia? :p

Bosnia is in the Baltic area now?! Where did they put it, next to Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia? :p

The bloody EU up and moved it. ;)

I think it would be very difficult to name a President that wasn't worse than George the Lesser Bush.

Not really. Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Carter...

Clinton? He screwed up less than most.

Clinton definitely should have been impeached, but he was impeached for the wrong reason. Instead of being impeached over something as meaningless as a blowjob, he should have been impeached over Chinagate. Clinton, while not nearly as bad as G.W.B., was still a piece of crap. Let's not forget the sanctions which killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Although to his credit, he did pull us out of Somalia before things got too ugly for us.

I think he was a fine President (voted for him twice) and is a terrific Elder Statesman and would make a kick-ass Sec. General of the UN.

And there you go.

klintoon is a sociopath - hildabeast is worse

9/11 was a direct outcome of the wishywashy foreign policies and the vaunted middle east initative is gone/dead/etc - .gov by polls doesn't work

I think he loves blowjobs. :p

blowjobs love him

klintoon is a sociopath - hildabeast is worse

9/11 was a direct outcome of the wishywashy foreign policies and the vaunted middle east initative is gone/dead/etc - .gov by polls doesn't work

Wow, you're really uninformed.

Clinton bombed al qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. The Republicans then whined that he was "wagging the dog". That is, making up a war to distract from their investigation of his blowjob. Clinton's administration warned incoming National Security Advisor Condi Rice that al qaeda would be the biggest threat faced by the US. Dubya put terrorism on the back burner until 9/11.

In short, you don't know what you're talking about and you're making a fool of yourself. I seriously hope you're not able to vote yet.

I'm curious to find out what Americans think of old Billy boy now, after six or so years of GWB.

I'd think that most people agreed with me that Clinton clearly was a better president than Bush Jr., right?

And why? Justify your arguments, so we can make a debate happen here!

I dislike him intensely, but not as much as GWB.

1) The main job of the president is supposed to be dealing with foreign affairs. Both Clinton and Bush have screwed up on this, GW worse so.

2) I regard both as criminals, but Clinton's perjury pales in comparison to Bush's war crimes.

3) Both administrations have been moderately corrupt - neiother on the scale of Harding or Grant, but still none too clean.

4) Clinton was relatively honest in regards to his draft dodging. Bush has been relatively dishonest, and is quity likely a deserter.


Oh but for the likes of good old TR or Ike....

Doing his secretary was the best thing a US President has ever done.

*Moronic quote of the day*

I think Clinton should be on the list of 5 best presidents ever. he got us out of the national deficit and we were better of when he took office. His personal affiars has nothing to do with his presidency. I would take Clinton for life than Bush for a minute.

I think Clinton should be on the list of 5 best presidents ever. he got us out of the national deficit and we were better of when he took office. His personal affiars has nothing to do with his presidency. I would take Clinton for life than Bush for a minute.

He wasn't perfect. He gave China "most favored nation" trading status despite human rights abuses and despite the loss of American jobs. He also took contributions from the Chinese. Sounds like corruption and conflict of interest to me. What are US politicians doing taking contributions from foreign interests? Aren't they supposed to represent the interests of US citizens?

I think it would be very difficult to name a President that wasn't worse than George the Lesser Bush.

Easy: Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, U.S. Grant, and Warren Harding were substantially worse. I particularly despise A. Johnson for the incredibly destructive effect his version of reconstruction had on the entire US, the results of which are still eating away at the country, especially in regards to inter-ethnic relations. Even rapscallions like Nixon, LBJ, Lincoln, and FDR have quite good points to offset their horrors. A. Johnson has none.

I like him.

In fact, I kinda wish I'd interned with him. :D

Oh, you mean the rapist? He should have been convicted of the articles of impeachment, and then tried for perjury, and put in a federal prison for 5 years.

Oh, you mean the rapist? He should have been convicted of the articles of impeachment, and then tried for perjury, and put in a federal prison for 5 years.

You're a rapist. There is just as much proof that you're a rapist as there is for Clinton.

You're a rapist. There is just as much proof that you're a rapist as there is for Clinton.

Maybe we can turn this into a Spartacus type thing.

*stands up*

"I'm a rapist!"

Clinton governed by popularity polls. That's why he left Somalia and why he lied, under oath, to a Federal court. That's not about sex, it's about perjury. It's about denying the due process that a court is supposed to provide. Clinton was forced into every good decision he ever made and while he was a great campaigner and speaker, he stunk as an executive.

So, wait, as a popularly elected democratic official, he let the nation help run the nation?

My God, the whole concept of Democracy has gone all topsy-turvy!

SOMEONE LET ME OFF THIS COUNTRY!

You have to love a man who can get some anytime he wants , and like a whipped little puppy his wife stands bye his side.
Him I admire.
His wife is weak, she should have dumped him years ago but I guess for some reason she feals she needs a man ( no one Needs a man ) .

I had the honor and pleasure of seeing him give a speech last thursday, a great president, a great man.

You have to love a man who can get some anytime he wants , and like a whipped little puppy his wife stands bye his side.
Him I admire.
His wife is weak, she should have dumped him years ago but I guess for some reason she feals she needs a man ( no one Needs a man ) .

That, or she knows a divorced woman would have even less of a chance of winning the presidency than a woman who was married.

True story.

Great. I called myself a rapist and nobody is with me. You know, the whole tone of Spartacus would have been changed if only one person yelled, "I'm Spartacus!"

Great. I called myself a rapist and nobody is with me. You know, the whole tone of Spartacus would have been changed if only one person yelled, "I'm Spartacus!"

<< (not a rapist.) :p

Sorry, dude, I think it's still taboo to claim being a rapist on the net. Even anonymous rapists are stigmatized.

<< (not a rapist.) :p

Sorry, dude, I think it's still taboo to claim being a rapist on the net. Even anonymous rapists are stigmatized.

Can I rape my opponents in online games?

Great. I called myself a rapist and nobody is with me. You know, the whole tone of Spartacus would have been changed if only one person yelled, "I'm Spartacus!"

I'll cop to being a little freaky, but definitely not a rapist. Sorry.

But I'm not really a rapist...

fuck...

this backfired tremendously...

Can I rape my opponents in online games?

Maybe in Grand Theft Auto ? I tend to play Madden; I don't think it would be looked upon too highly in that game...:)

So, wait, as a popularly elected democratic official, he let the nation help run the nation?

My God, the whole concept of Democracy has gone all topsy-turvy!

SOMEONE LET ME OFF THIS COUNTRY!

You are an idiot. We are not a democracy and I wouldn't expect a President to govern so that he can get good reviews on the Sunday talk shows. It's like spoiling your kids, no good comes from that, either.

Maybe in Grand Theft Auto ? I tend to play Madden; I don't think it would be looked upon too highly in that game...:)

The day an ass slap went too far...:(

Maybe in Grand Theft Auto ? I tend to play Madden; I don't think it would be looked upon too highly in that game...:)

I could just see Madden's legendary commentary on that one:

Madden: Wow, that guy is literally pulling down his pants and raping his opponents. If they don't want to be raped, they'd better keep away from him.


Or some such. I dunno, I'm sleepy. I wrote a ten page story about a walrus last night for creative writing, and my mind is kinda fragged. Used up all my funny already.

While he may have some good points, some of his actions disgust me..

Total verdict: Hillary, dump the bum!

I could just see Madden's legendary commentary on that one:

Madden: Wow, that guy is literally pulling down his pants and raping his opponents. If they don't want to be raped, they'd better keep away from him.


How about:

Madden: Without a doubt, that guy's the best tight end in the league...:D

You're a rapist. There is just as much proof that you're a rapist as there is for Clinton.

Well, he was never convicted, however more than one woman has been willing to accuse him without hiding her identity. In these days of sexual harrassment and political correctness, I thought we were all supposed to presume a man guilty once accused? :p

The Music sucked under Bill Clinton, However he ran the country quite well...but still, that 90's pop....yuuuhhhk!

Now Regean, Carter, Ford, or Nixon, shit, that music ruled!!!

You are an idiot. We are not a democracy and I wouldn't expect a President to govern so that he can get good reviews on the Sunday talk shows. It's like spoiling your kids, no good comes from that, either.

Yes! A FLAME!


Anyway, yes we ARE a democracy, but we're also a republic. Last I checked, the president was supposed to make decisions, sure, but at the same time, ignoring the population's wishes is the same as being a dictator. If 200 million Americans want something to happen, then it should happen.

Conservatives bitch about how the "liberal elite" is all "We know best stupid commoners," but you've got an asshole in office who ignores everything and just goes by what he wants. He's acting like he knows best...like...gee, I dunno, someone who's better and smarter than us?

I agree that it shouldn't be run on popularity, but there's something to be said for a president who listens to his nation and adjusts policy accordingly.

How about:

Madden: Without a doubt, that guy's the best tight end in the league...:D

LOL!

Well, he was never convicted, however more than one woman has been willing to accuse him without hiding her identity. In these days of sexual harrassment and political correctness, I thought we were all supposed to presume a man guilty once accused? :p

Absolutely. I believe Mark Foley has been condemned and has resigned before any trial. And that's just the most recent. Clinton hung on through allegations, which would have caused any Republican officeholder to resign. There seems to be a double standard at work, at least on the surface of things. Maybe we just have lowered expectations for Democratic officeholders.

Absolutely. I believe Mark Foley has been condemned and has resigned before any trial. And that's just the most recent. Clinton hung on through allegations, which would have caused any Republican officeholder to resign. There seems to be a double standard at work, at least on the surface of things. Maybe we just have lowered expectations for Democratic officeholders.

Maybe he was just a better candidate that was more driven then any republican counterpart

Absolutely. I believe Mark Foley has been condemned and has resigned before any trial. And that's just the most recent. Clinton hung on through allegations, which would have caused any Republican officeholder to resign. There seems to be a double standard at work, at least on the surface of things. Maybe we just have lowered expectations for Democratic officeholders.

There was no reason for him to resign. He lied to the nation about an inconsequential matter. Whether to protect his wife or his image, the impeachment proceedings did more damage to his ability to act as president than the actual transgression. I doubt Bush would resign under the same circumstances. I imagine that he would feel that his country would be lost without him during this time of warring on terror.

There was no reason for him to resign. He lied to the nation about an inconsequential matter. Whether to protect his wife or his image, the impeachment proceedings did more damage to his ability to act as president than the actual transgression. I doubt Bush would resign under the same circumstances. I imagine that he would feel that his country would be lost without him during this time of warring on terror.

President Bush would not commit perjury. Also, he would not put himself in a position that would result in having to testify in a legal proceeding.

President Bush would not commit perjury. Also, he would not put himself in a position that would result in having to testify in a legal proceeding.

Sure he would. It's just that he hasn't had to deal with a strong Democrat congress that would call on him to testify. After the Democrats get control in this election I think you'll find Bush and his administration investigated thoroughly.

Sure he would. It's just that he hasn't had to deal with a strong Democrat congress that would call on him to testify. After the Democrats get control in this election I think you'll find Bush and his administration investigated thoroughly.

Maybe. Actually, I think it would be great if the Democrats did that. Then they will find out that the majority of the people won't support them in it. Just like the Republicans found out that the majority of the people did not support the impeachment of Clinton.

If the Democrats truly believe what they claim to, then they should follow through, and darn those political consequenses! :D

I had the honor and pleasure of seeing him give a speech last thursday, a great president, a great man.


Don't tell me it was the speech that he gave where he mentioned the Foley scandle and lectured on " morals "....:D

Please don't say that was the one...:eek:


Whomever wrote that speech for him should be shot .:D

Don't tell me it was the speech that he gave where he mentioned the Foley scandle and lectured on " morals "....:D

Please don't say that was the one...:eek:


Whomever wrote that speech for him should be shot .:D

No, not at all, though he is certainly in a position to lecture on morals.

Pederasty and what we've done to Iraq are incomparably more immoral than an affair with an intern.

His speech was about how ideologues run the country and how they aren't interested in facts, because they already have all the answers.

He also explained that he didn't watch many republican TV ads, but he knew what they all said:

"The democrats will tax you into the poor house. On the way, you'll find a terrorist on every street corner. When you try to flee, you'll trip over an illegal immigrant"

And, of course, in English that's "whoever" ;)

Maybe. Actually, I think it would be great if the Democrats did that. Then they will find out that the majority of the people won't support them in it. Just like the Republicans found out that the majority of the people did not support the impeachment of Clinton.

If the Democrats truly believe what they claim to, then they should follow through, and darn those political consequenses! :D

The people might support them more if the investigation is about something like sending soldiers to die in a pointless war, or vote rigging, or some other important issue rather than a blowjob.

Clinton definitely should have been impeached, but he was impeached for the wrong reason. Instead of being impeached over something as meaningless as a blowjob, he should have been impeached over Chinagate. Clinton, while not nearly as bad as G.W.B., was still a piece of crap. Let's not forget the sanctions which killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Although to his credit, he did pull us out of Somalia before things got too ugly for us.


Ummm him pulling out of Somalia the way he did was one of the WORST descisions a president ever made and is one of the reasons and examples the terrorist orgs use to illustrate a typical American response to any type of determined attack... ex...."they run away" .

Its caused more attacks and more deaths than if he would have stayed and punished Adid for the attack and THEN left .

Stop drinking koolaid its bad for you.:D


You need to learn to think more like a "terrorist" or whatever you choose to call " them " ...:) Really it will help you understand some things better

A leader's sexual predilections are more important to you than his leadership ability?

Even knowing Clinton was getting his pole waxed by a tubby intern I'd have voted for him. The biggest screwup he ever made was Somalia and that was'nt so bad.

If a man will lie to and cheat on his wife, why would I trust him in a position of power?

The people might support them more if the investigation is about something like sending soldiers to die in a pointless war, or vote rigging, or some other important issue rather than a blowjob.

Indeed, there is a whole lot that congress can investigate if the democrats win back control.

Money stolen from taxpayers via the iraq war reconstruction sham, false intelligence, &c &c &c

If a mean will lie to and cheat on his wife, why would I trust him in a position of power?

Because ruling isnt about telling to the truth to everyone about everything all the time, it is about results and making things better in the country.

Many great leaders have had affairs, it is part of being in power.

Might as well ask "why should I trust a black man in a position of power?"

Having an affair and being black bear in equal measure on the characteristics that make a leader good.

If a mean will lie to and cheat on his wife, why would I trust him in a position of power?

Well, nobody's perfect. Problem is that sometimes a politician makes one mistake and even if most of his policies were good, he's only remembered for that.

http://i13.tinypic.com/47wtq53.jpg

Clinton? He screwed up less than most.


He also srewed up, down ,sideways, backways , inside , outside ,on the side, over the side , beside , and he did it more than most! :D

The perfect Guy for the 90's.....hell he should have been president in the sixty's ! Dammit ! :D

Because ruling isnt about telling to the truth to everyone about everything all the time, it is about results and making things better in the country.

Many great leaders have had affairs, it is part of being in power.

Might as well ask "why should I trust a black man in a position of power?"

Having an affair and being black bear in equal measure on the characteristics that make a leader good.

I like you. You're silly. :)

That's a silly statement to make, when it was Clinton that had no interest in holding Bin Laden. This nation is based on the rule of law, to suggest that all of the criticism of Clinton was about sex, and not the numerous allegations of illegal activity that he and Ms Clinton participated in, is just your ignorance of the facts.
Silly comment? I guess you didn't watch the video? Apparently Clinton tried to get Bin Laden and failed and he admits that, wheras your boy stated that he would get him, has failed, and has diverted troops to other bad ventures, such as the War in Iraq. Silly comment, yeah, yours suggesting that I am ignorant of the "facts".

As far as the sex comment I made, I have seen on these boards too many conservatives use that as their shining example of a failed Clinton administration. Say what you will, they trot it out all the time.

If you can't look at the positive things that Clinton did in office, especially in comparison to your failed hero Bush, that would be your problem. Hopefully, the electorate will take away the keys that Bush has inappropriately used.

Then there was the Clintonesque episode that brought our troops to the shores of Haiti to aid Aristide, but never allowed them to land. There's the mark of a truly great CinC, eh?
Yeah, he could have done much worse, such as invade a country illegally, for the wrong reason, resulting in the deaths of way too many people, and charging the American public $300 Billion for the privelege of being wrong.

Well, nobody's perfect. Problem is that sometimes a politician makes one mistake and even if most of his policies were good, he's only remembered for that.

http://i13.tinypic.com/47wtq53.jpg

On the contrary, not only do I think the whole Monica Lewinski situation was way overblown, but I think Clinton did a good job as President. I'm certainly not fixated on it.

I'm just saying that I didn't vote for him in 92 because there was reason to believe even then that he had cheated on his wife. Not caring about one's personal life in office is one thing, but voting him in is something entirely different. :p

On the contrary, not only do I think the whole Monica Lewinski situation was way overblown, but I think Clinton did a good job as President. I'm certainly not fixated on it.

I'm just saying that I didn't vote for him in 92 because there was reason to believe even then that he had cheated on his wife. Now caring about one's personal life in office is one thing, but voting him in is something entirely different. :p

Well at least I got to post a picture.

Well at least I got to post a picture.

And a funny one too. :)

Not really. Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Carter...
They are worse than George Bush the Lesser? I think not, by a long shot.

Even Bush's approval rating should be a clue?

President Bush would not commit perjury. Also, he would not put himself in a position that would result in having to testify in a legal proceeding.

Oh... good argument. Thanks.

They are worse than George Bush the Lesser? I think not, by a long shot.

Even Bush's approval rating should be a clue?

Ulysses S. Grant was pretty awful. Not directly because of him, but because he was used by corrupt party members and appointees and didn't have the will or ability to rein it in.

I think he was a pretty darn good president. Not perfect - who is? - but good, and certainly immensely preferable to his successor.

Sure he would. It's just that he hasn't had to deal with a strong Democrat congress that would call on him to testify. After the Democrats get control in this election I think you'll find Bush and his administration investigated thoroughly.
I think that would be the best thing that could happen for your country right now. The President should be held accountable, especially for what appears way too many indiscretions.

(bolding mine)

Ulysses S. Grant was pretty awful. Not directly because of him, but because he was used by corrupt party members and appointees and didn't have the will or ability to rein it in.
Probably should have stuck to military matters huh? :D

I thought we were all supposed to presume a man guilty once accused? :p
I accuse you of being an attention whore. :p

Must be true by your logic, simply because I accused you?

The saying is innocent until proven guilty. You need to buy a new program. :D

I accuse you of being an attention whore. :p

Must be true by your logic, simply because I accused you?

The saying is innocent until proven guilty. You need to buy a new program. :D

I accuse you of only quoting part of my post. Gee, it's true. Sometimes accusations are actually true! Wow, who woulda thunk it?

Ulysses S. Grant was pretty awful. Not directly because of him, but because he was used by corrupt party members and appointees and didn't have the will or ability to rein it in.

Probably should have stuck to military matters huh? :D

What party was that Grant belonged to, I forget. :p

And yeah, he was a better general than president. His memoirs are worth reading, if you like that sort of thing.

If a man will lie to and cheat on his wife, why would I trust him in a position of power?

I agree. If a person with a government security clearance is found to have committed adultery, he looses that clearance. The assumption is that if he will not keep faith with his wife, how can he be trusted to keep faith with his country? Should we hold Presidents to a lower standard?

Because ruling isnt about telling to the truth to everyone about everything all the time, it is about results and making things better in the country.

Many great leaders have had affairs, it is part of being in power.

Might as well ask "why should I trust a black man in a position of power?"

Having an affair and being black bear in equal measure on the characteristics that make a leader good.

Well, that was one of the dumbest arguments I've read in a long time. Being black is how a man was born, while adultery is a CHOICE!

Well, that was one of the dumbest arguments I've read in a long time. Being black is how a man was born, while adultery is a CHOICE!

Je t'accuse of missing the point.

Maybe you should muck up someone else's forum?

When you throw out the MEH's, Clinton is holding a 64% approval rating by Americans, and a 92% approval rating by non-Americans.

Clinton left office with a 68% approval rating.

How fares the Bushmeister? Poorly, apparently:

A Presidency On Life Support (http://www.pollingreport.com/whitejk.htm)

I accuse you of only quoting part of my post. Gee, it's true. Sometimes accusations are actually true! Wow, who woulda thunk it?
Okay, let's look at the whole sentence:

In these days of sexual harrassment and political correctness, I thought we were all supposed to presume a man guilty once accused?
I stand by my original statement, and that is innocent until proven guilty. That is, unless your laws have changed?

Easy: Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, U.S. Grant, and Warren Harding were substantially worse. I particularly despise A. Johnson for the incredibly destructive effect his version of reconstruction had on the entire US, the results of which are still eating away at the country, especially in regards to inter-ethnic relations. Even rapscallions like Nixon, LBJ, Lincoln, and FDR have quite good points to offset their horrors. A. Johnson has none.

I would, however, like to point out the bench mark for right-down-the-middle:

Harrison. Died a month after inaugeration, due to pneumonia caught from the longest inaugeration address ever.

Did nothing bad nor good. Thus, purely average and neutral.

Well, that was one of the dumbest arguments I've read in a long time. Being black is how a man was born, while adultery is a CHOICE!

The point was that neither really affect how well a person leads the country.

A farely poor analogy, I will admit, though.

Okay, let's look at the whole sentence:


I stand by my original statement, and that is innocent until proven guilty. That is, unless your laws have changed?

Are you familiar with sarcasm? My entire post makes it clear that I was being facetious. Also, sadly, our laws have changed in some respects. With sexual harrassment, the accused is presumed guilty. Aside from the law, the pc crowd has made it so that men are automatically considered guilty by the media of any charge leveled against them.

Speaking of "kick ass", I loved the Clinton interview on Fox:

Clinton Interviewed on Fox (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9026120716999978732)

And this commentary about that interview is bang on!!

Keith Olberman on Clinton Fox Interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9g8fzNSOrY)

Clinton better than Bush? No contest!! :D


Keith Olberman is my new hero.

Easy: Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, U.S. Grant, and Warren Harding were substantially worse. I particularly despise A. Johnson for the incredibly destructive effect his version of reconstruction had on the entire US, the results of which are still eating away at the country, especially in regards to inter-ethnic relations. Even rapscallions like Nixon, LBJ, Lincoln, and FDR have quite good points to offset their horrors. A. Johnson has none.

I don't think you can blame Reconstruction's evils on Andrew Johnson, by any means. On the Radical Republicans in Congress, and especially in the House, absolutely. Remember, it was they who impeached Johnson when he fired the Secretary of War, Stanton. The Republicans always push the envelope, even back then, impeaching a president of their own party!

Other then the first 9 months of 2001, Bush has been at war.....most of it (Iraq) was totally unnecessary!!!

No, let's not forget the facts!! :D
Do you even think? Where did you get the idea that I was making excuses for Bush? Bush is the worst, but that doesn't mean Clinton was good.

The world is not black and white. The fact that Bush is bad, does not automatically mean that Clinton was good.

I really hate it when people mistake me for a Bushevik. How could anyone ever think such a thing?

Not from the US. He was far too right wing for me to like.

From the US, but I don't like him for the same reason.

Bosnia is in the Baltic area now?! Where did they put it, next to Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia? :p
They keep moving it around to keep everyone guessing and as a result, people make inaccurate posts. :D

Do you even think? Where did you get the idea that I was making excuses for Bush? Bush is the worst, but that doesn't mean Clinton was good.

The world is not black and white. The fact that Bush is bad, does not automatically mean that Clinton was good.

I really hate it when people mistake me for a Bushevik. How could anyone ever think such a thing?
Thinking is for dummies. :rolleyes:

The OP kinda asks us to compare Billy Boy with the Bush-ke-bob and as a result, I honestly believed that you were supporting Bush over Clinton. If that is not the case, and apparently it isn't, then I apologize for my incorrect assumption.

I think he was a fine President (voted for him twice) and is a terrific Elder Statesman and would make a kick-ass Sec. General of the UN.

And there you go.
That's an odd opinion for you. I recently saw a documentary about public opinion in America in the 1990s. The US public repeatedly assumed that Clinton took the liberal position on various issues, but in reality his implemented policies were on the conservative side. Clinton was about as left-wing as Barry Goldwater. Congratulations on being duped.

Thinking is for dummies. :rolleyes:

The OP kinda asks us to compare Billy Boy with the Bush-ke-bob and as a result, I honestly believed that you were supporting Bush over Clinton. If that is not the case, and apparently it isn't, then I apologize for my incorrect assumption.
OK, I just read the poll really. In my mind condemning Bush for being a shit president is just a given, and thus redundant!

During his watch as president Clinton did little to make us feel safe. The only time Clinton acted on terror was when the Lewinsky thing was going down. The first WTC bombing nothing;USS Cole nothing;Khobar towers nothing. Clinton is the most overated president ever serving in the office, he did little for the US or thye world. He was a do nothing president and hope that everything came out alright. The only reason europeans liked him was that he represented the appeasment that europle loves. It is quite finny how his staff screwed up everything that came across thier table such as Waco.:upyours:

During his watch as president Clinton did little to make us feel safe. The only time Clinton acted on terror was when the Lewinsky thing was going down. The first WTC bombing nothing;USS Cole nothing;Khobar towers nothing. Clinton is the most overated president ever serving in the office, he did little for the US or thye world. He was a do nothing president and hope that everything came out alright. The only reason europeans liked him was that he represented the appeasment that europle loves. It is quite finny how his staff screwed up everything that came across thier table such as Waco.:upyours:

http://i13.tinypic.com/2prtid5.jpg
Ceiling cat likes you.

During his watch as president Clinton did little to make us feel safe. The only time Clinton acted on terror was when the Lewinsky thing was going down. The first WTC bombing nothing;USS Cole nothing;Khobar towers nothing. Clinton is the most overated president ever serving in the office, he did little for the US or thye world. He was a do nothing president and hope that everything came out alright. The only reason europeans liked him was that he represented the appeasment that europle loves. It is quite finny how his staff screwed up everything that came across thier table such as Waco.:upyours:

Do you really feel safer now than you did between 1993 and 2001?

During his watch as president Clinton did little to make us feel safe. The only time Clinton acted on terror was when the Lewinsky thing was going down. The first WTC bombing nothing;USS Cole nothing;Khobar towers nothing. Clinton is the most overated president ever serving in the office, he did little for the US or thye world. He was a do nothing president and hope that everything came out alright. The only reason europeans liked him was that he represented the appeasment that europle loves. It is quite finny how his staff screwed up everything that came across thier table such as Waco.:upyours:
Welcome to the Forum. :rolleyes:

Is that KKK (minus) Blacks, or is that KKK (dash) Blacks?

Be careful not to trip over your gown and stay away from any source of fire. :D

Clinton clears the air regarding your concerns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4).

Clinton was certainly preferable to the chimpanzee we have in office now, in fact my personal belief is that he was one of the greatest Presidents this country has ever had.

And what he does in the bedroom is his own damn business.

Clinton was about as left-wing as Barry Goldwater.

Let's see:
NAFTA
Welfare "reform"
Iraq sanctions and bombing
Defense of Marriage Act
Don't Ask Don't Tell betrayal

Maybe not Barry Goldwater, but certainly no leftist.

Let's see:
NAFTA
Welfare "reform"
Iraq sanctions and bombing
Defense of Marriage Act
Don't Ask Don't Tell betrayal

Maybe not Barry Goldwater, but certainly no leftist.

Sure, don't you remember the GOP whining about Clinton beating their candidates by masquerading as a republican?

Billy boy wasnt half bad. He's a hell of a better Pres. than the Chimp we have now.

I liked him, makes a change for you guys to have a leader with a bit of charisma for once! Plus I don't recall any other president entertaining with a saxaphone! Fuck politics! Music FTW!

OK so he did boff an intern, sure she wasn't as great looking as JFK's efforts with Marylin Monroe, but she did have proper full-on lips....perfect for....:eek: :D

http://i13.tinypic.com/2prtid5.jpg
Ceiling cat likes you.

LMAO!!!!!!!

I generally like Clinton, though the Lewinsky thing was stupid, and the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" bullshit pissed me off.

He’s a good guy and he was a good president.

in politics he is better known for his charisma than his policies. he is a good "spokesman" as long as he isnt comming up with policies. he is able to get a message out and have people listen to him.

i dont think he would make a very attractive first lady though :D . although he is a much better image then the one that was there when he was president :D

From the US: I dont like him,
slick Willie Clinton, lol, Yuck.
In my view, he is no friend of Cuban Americans.

He was a bit conservative for me, but he did a good job as president most of the time. I don't care who was blowing him, that's not really any of my business.

Clinton also looks better with every passing day of Bush.

Let's just say we should have repealed the term-limit before 2000.

I think he was a good president. He wasn't the best there could be but... well, no politician lives up to the glory of Abraham Lincoln anymore.

teh clinton is a god! only teh gore is better tan him. i pray to gore every nite dat wen i wak up dar r no mor eval right ppl. every day he aint anser my prairs:(

teh clinton is a god! only teh gore is better tan him. i pray to gore every nite dat wen i wak up dar r no mor eval right ppl. every day he aint anser my prairs:(

I love coming onto the forums because people speak directly from the heart and are unashamed of their disabilities.

I do not like him, primarily because of the unprovoked air war in Kosovo and the severe mismanagement of that place afterwards. Other than that, I just find him mediocre.

Edit: Oh yeah, Waco was terrible, too.

From the USA and have little respect for him.

He made decisions based upon public opinion polls. We elect leaders to make decisions based on facts as they know them and upon the advice of their confidants. To rely on what a mis- or un-informed public to influence too greatly his decision making was astounding to me.

I could not care less about who he did not have sex with, but I detest the fact that he lied under oath about it.

There is very little that a president can do to effect the economy during his term of office. The process is too slow. The economic upturn during his years is attributed to Reagan and Bush Sr's earlier policies and Alan Greenspan. The economy we have today can be attributed to Clinton. Yes, I know this is arguable. Don't waste your time. I won't bother responding on this point.

My summary of his presidency: He took very few risks and got lucky.

I would, however, like to point out the bench mark for right-down-the-middle:

Harrison. Died a month after inaugeration, due to pneumonia caught from the longest inaugeration address ever.

Did nothing bad nor good. Thus, purely average and neutral.

He did nothing at all, making him the gold standard. :D

I don't think you can blame Reconstruction's evils on Andrew Johnson, by any means. On the Radical Republicans in Congress, and especially in the House, absolutely. Remember, it was they who impeached Johnson when he fired the Secretary of War, Stanton. The Republicans always push the envelope, even back then, impeaching a president of their own party!

But it was Johnson's overly soft line (supporting the "black codes", pardoning former confederates), utter total incompetence in office, and inability to rech a compromise that provoked the much harsher reconstruction.

If Lincolns successor had been even moderately competent, reconstruction could have been carried out in a much fairer manner, and would not have resulted in the excessive backlash that still haunts us today.

Speaking of "kick ass", I loved the Clinton interview on Fox:

Clinton Interviewed on Fox (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9026120716999978732)

And this commentary about that interview is bang on!!

Keith Olberman on Clinton Fox Interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9g8fzNSOrY)

Clinton better than Bush? No contest!! :D
That was a fun episode, wasn't it?

I was happy to vote for him twice.
...
I wish the Dems could just replace Kerry with Clinton.If Germans can vote for the man more than twice.. WHY cant we? (stoopid rule)

If Germans can vote for the man more than twice.. WHY cant we? (stoopid rule)
Because the Australians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_howard) can.

If Germans can vote for the man more than twice.. WHY cant we? (stoopid rule)
FDRaphobia.

He’s a good guy and he was a good president.
And now he's good at not being president. He's good at everything he does. I'll bet, if we all stop obsessing over him, he'd be real good at disappearing from public view, too. But we will always have Bill, as long as liberals need nostalgia for a better time and as long as neocons need an excuse and a punching bag. I predict that, if the neocons get crowbarred out of the Republican party, Bill Clinton will cease to pop up in this forum.

As a furriner, his foreign policy towards my country and the region tend to have more weightage than his domestic policies and performances, and judging from that perspective, he did nothing to improve or even mitigate the failures and the consequences from previous policies. He just continued the basic underlying policies and gave some nice lip services blah blah and took the cursory photo before the Taj Mahal. The activities of people in his administration specially the state dept - Robin Raphael in setting up the Hurriyat and that of Madeline Albright, and the NPT hacks (when India went nuclear) etc, reflects very poorly on him (IMO, of course).

As a furriner, his foreign policy towards my country and the region tend to have more weightage than his domestic policies and performances, and judging from that perspective, he did nothing to improve or even mitigate the failures and the consequences from previous policies. He just continued the basic underlying policies and gave some nice lip services blah blah and took the cursory photo before the Taj Mahal. The activities of people in his administration specially the state dept - Robin Raphael in setting up the Hurriyat and that of Madeline Albright, and the NPT hacks (when India went nuclear) etc, reflects very poorly on him (IMO, of course).

I'm a little surprise by that; I do a fair amount of business with India (I'm one of the 'evil americans' that outsourced jobs to India). The Indians I talk to speak highly of Clinton (admittedly, a small sample). Did you know that US-India trade doubled during Clinton's reign?

India – U.S. Trade Relations
USA is India's largest trading partner and premier export destination. Two-way trade in 2000 totaled US $ 14.35 billion, reflecting an increase of nearly 100% since 1993. During the year 2000, India’s exports to USA increased by 17.65% in dollar terms, compared to 1999, but India's imports from USA marginally declined by 1.20%. India - US trade over the last eight years has been as under: **see link** (http://www.indianembassy.org/indusrel/trade.htm)


(* Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census)


That's at least something.

**Slaps self for defending Clinton**

I'm a little surprise by that; I do a fair amount of business with India (I'm one of the 'evil americans' that outsourced jobs to India). The Indians I talk to speak highly of Clinton (admittedly, a small sample). Did you know that US-India trade doubled during Clinton's reign?

Yes. Trade is trade. It happened because American companies profitted from it too. Nothing altruistic there. You woudn't be doing what you are doing, if it is not benefitting you and your shareholders, do you?

There are many other reasons for my reply, some of which I outlined above. The increased terrorism by US's ally Pakistan. We see them as your dog. If a dog bites you, you do hold the owner responsible, especially when the owner does not allow you to hit back at the dog. Plus the NPT hacks perpetuating the India-Pakistan equation, specially after the 1998 tests by India. Clinton was pissed off because we tested. He wanted us to ignore the missile-nuke exchange between Pak and NK, due to which Pak had no need to test their nukes, since both the nukes and missiles were Chinese origin, they were mated and ready to go, while we had to test ours and validate our designs.

Plus Robin Raphael, under his administration and presumably with his approval, had a role to play in the formation of Hurriyat - the "seperatist" party in Kashmir (Pak paid hacks).

Yeah, Bill Clinton visited India and made a nice speech in the Parliament and took a photo before Taj.

But when we presented evidence of US supplied detonators used in the Mumbai blasts (which they had supplied to Pak), we got "restrain, peace blah blah)...

Clinton may have been a great president domestic-wise, but I am no fan of his foreign policy when he was president. But I do like what he is doing as an ex-president. I appreciate him for that very much.

I met bill at a kegger at a co-workers house. Its... hard to talk about. Lets just say when he whipped out the sax, and would only play when I was actively drinking...

Therapist said not to think about it.

Yes. Trade is trade. It happened because American companies profitted from it too. Nothing altruistic there. You woudn't be doing what you are doing, if it is not benefitting you and your shareholders, do you?

For the record, I have no shareholders; however, it is of course beneficial to me. I would not be there if it were not. However, it benefits Hyperabad Indian workers as well as it does me or mine (speaking solely of the 'work').

There are many other reasons for my reply, some of which I outlined above. The increased terrorism by US's ally Pakistan. We see them as your dog. If a dog bites you, you do hold the owner responsible, especially when the owner does not allow you to hit back at the dog. Plus the NPT hacks perpetuating the India-Pakistan equation, specially after the 1998 tests by India. Clinton was pissed off because we tested. He wanted us to ignore the missile-nuke exchange between Pak and NK, due to which Pak had no need to test their nukes, since both the nukes and missiles were Chinese origin, they were mated and ready to go, while we had to test ours and validate our designs.

Plus Robin Raphael, under his administration and presumably with his approval, had a role to play in the formation of Hurriyat - the "seperatist" party in Kashmir (Pak paid hacks).

Kashmir has existed since well before the US even became an entity; surely you do not blame the USA for an India/China/Pakistan border dispute? That seems a bit silly...however, the AQ Khan reference is valid. I am not happy about that, either. And for the record, I am of the ilk to kick any of my dogs that are 'growling', as opposed to rubbing their belly, and telling them to be good. The question, of course, is if they are indeed 'our' dogs. Maybe so; I think not. For what it's worth (probably not much).

Yeah, Bill Clinton visited India and made a nice speech in the Parliament and took a photo before Taj.

But when we presented evidence of US supplied detonators used in the Mumbai blasts (which they had supplied to Pak), we got "restrain, peace blah blah)...

Clinton may have been a great president domestic-wise, but I am no fan of his foreign policy when he was president. But I do like what he is doing as an ex-president. I appreciate him for that very much.

Clinton has a way of doing that (hell, all US / world power leaders do), when it comes to admitting that our shit does sometimes stink...sometimes, it does.

I am no fan of Clinton, believe me. And ESPECIALLY his foreign policy. I could really care less about his current work; if it does good, then so be it.

I have enjoyed reading your perspective...it is one that is not so readily proffered during a business meeting or conference call, yet it is still a valid insight into the Indian mindset. I thank you for your frank response. :)

The man is making a comeback, it has to be said.

ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL - The Reincarnation of Bill Clinton (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,446408,00.html)



I'm curious to find out what Americans think of old Billy boy now, after six or so years of GWB.

I'd think that most people agreed with me that Clinton clearly was a better president than Bush Jr., right?

And why? Justify your arguments, so we can make a debate happen here!

By far, the best president in my 45 years! With LBJ a close second. I liked JFK but didn't like his Cuba solution. Nixon? hmmm.. Just how many poititians that ran against Nixon got shot or shot at? Ford? Who knows? (wasn't in office long enough) The voters sure didn't like him in 1976. Carter?....Damm it Billy!!!:headbang: Reagan? Puppet. Bush I and II? ...Need you even ask?

He was a genius. He was THE best president of the latter 20th century. For the first time, we had a surplus. Our economy was beautiful. He cheated on his wife, so what? Screwing around doesn't make you a bad politician. Hell, JFK cheated on his mistresses with other mistresses. He was a playa.

Kashmir has existed since well before the US even became an entity; surely you do not blame the USA for an India/China/Pakistan border dispute? That seems a bit silly

Yeah, the origins of the dispute has nothing to do with US (it was UK which was the culprit at that time). But terrorism was not an issue until 1989 (the year when the Soviets withdrew from Afg). Pak awash with US funds and arms let loose their jihadis on us. The US does not understand that funding and arming Pak will never go down well with Indians. The equivalent would be Mexico claiming Texas and India funding and arming Mexico, while Mexicans are carrying out audacious terrorist strikes everywhere in Texas and also some major attacks in other main cities. And imagine if India is hypothetically a superpower and being a sugar daddy of Mexico, does not allow US to strike back at Mexico - by proliferating arms which make the cost of retaliation too high for the US. You would be not having a kind opinion on India's foreign policy either.


The question, of course, is if they are indeed 'our' dogs. Maybe so; I think not. For what it's worth (probably not much).

You see, the problem is that, the dog certainly thinks so. You throw some crumbs, the dog thinks that you will protect him and starts biting others. You have to read about the psyche of the Pak army generals.

The classic case is when you gave F-86 sabres and Patton tanks. They started the 1965 war thinking that you will continue support to them. The current propping up of Musharraf goes a long ways in their thinking that they are indispensable to you and so they can have their way with us.


I have enjoyed reading your perspective...it is one that is not so readily proffered during a business meeting or conference call, yet it is still a valid insight into the Indian mindset. I thank you for your frank response. :)

You are welcome. The business type people you meat would have less knowledge about these things and also many have this "guest should be treated politely" and all that jazz. Business is business :) . Oh and for the record, I am one of those evil immigrant furriner worker. I love the country and the people. Just not the past and current foreign policies.