Who Hates the USA?

[Liam]

I've been checking through political BBs for over a decade, and there was never anything remotely like BDR against Clinton. Not ever. Lots of snide commentary about Monica, some criticism of Kosovo, but never the gleeful bodycounts, desperate apologia and outright cheering for the enemy that goes on today. Nothing even close.

You must be joking. For the record, I have never seen nor heard a liberal "musing" "Where's Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him?" but I heard plenty of that and worse from right wingers during the Clinton years. Remember all the right winger talk that Bill and Hillary personally authorized a hit on Vince Foster? Does that qualify as civilzed parlour chat to you? Maybe in Republican households it is, but I actually try to elevate conversations around my kids. When you consider the 24/7 demonization of Hillary while she was first lady into the mix, it's clear that today's Bush Haters are minor league compared to the professional attack machine right wingers can and did mobilize from 1992 through 2005 (when Bush's post-Katrina debacle finally caused so many GOP and Bush apologists to recognize the hollowness of all their blather).

And gleeful bodycount? Preposterous! This is an administration that is trying to hide from the public the very fact that we're at war at all. No flag-draped coffin photos, no interviews unless the media is embedded (i.e., "protected and traveling") with a particular military unit, absolutely no truthful coverage of the war in the media or honesty about if from the White House and absolutely no ask of sacrifice among the general population. Unlike Vietnam, when the US ultimately pulls out of Iraq and the country implodes, the American public won't have learned anything from this war (and will be doomed to repeat its mistakes) because this administration has kept the public so insulated from the horror of this war and the administration's mistakes that the American public is almost oblivious to it. There is no glleful bodycount when the public isn't even aware of the day-in, day-out trials of the battle.

I seriously have to wonder what alternate universe some of these kamikazes-for-Bush zealots inhabit.

[moderateamericain]

I've been checking through political BBs for over a decade, and there was never anything remotely like BDR against Clinton. Not ever. Lots of snide commentary about Monica, some criticism of Kosovo, but never the gleeful bodycounts, desperate apologia and outright cheering for the enemy that goes on today. Nothing even close.

You must be joking. For the record, I have never seen nor heard a liberal "musing" "Where's Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him?" but I heard plenty of that and worse from right wingers during the Clinton years. Remember all the right winger talk that Bill and Hillary personally authorized a hit on Vince Foster? Does that qualify as civilzed parlour chat to you? Maybe in Republican households it is, but I actually try to elevate conversations around my kids. When you consider the 24/7 demonization of Hillary while she was first lady into the mix, it's clear that today's Bush Haters are minor league compared to the professional attack machine right wingers can and did mobilize from 1992 through 2005 (when Bush's post-Katrina debacle finally caused so many GOP and Bush apologists to recognize the hollowness of all their blather).

I actually did not mind Clinton so much. If you look at what he passed it to law he was fairly moderate as Liberals go. He was most assuredly fiscally conservative. I just didn't agree with his International policies so much, but domestically he did a fairly decent job.

[Liam]

I actually did not mind Clinton so much. If you look at what he passed it to law he was fairly moderate as Liberals go. He was most assuredly fiscally conservative. I just didn't agree with his International policies so much, but domestically he did a fairly decent job.

I didn't, either. I can't say I agreed with all his policies, but I could see he was a smart and affable guy. Heck, even Newt Gingrich liked being in his company. And I was never a big Hillary fan (then or now), but I recoiled at all the proverbial acid-thrown-in-the-face attacks that the GOP mastered during the Clinton years. Denying that any of that stuff happened is pure white washing of the truth, if you ask me.

[ft.niagara]

And gleeful bodycount? Preposterous! This is an administration that is trying to hide from the public the very fact that we're at war at all. No flag-draped coffin photos, no interviews unless the media is embedded (i.e., "protected and traveling") with a particular military unit, absolutely no truthful coverage of the war in the media or honesty about if from the White House and absolutely no ask of sacrifice among the general population. Unlike Vietnam, when the US ultimately pulls out of Iraq and the country implodes, the American public won't have learned anything from this war (and will be doomed to repeat its mistakes) because this administration has kept the public so insulated from the horror of this war and the administration's mistakes that the American public is almost oblivious to it. There is no glleful bodycount when the public isn't even aware of the day-in, day-out trials of the battle.

The point man for the Democrats is John Murtha. How he ever got as high as he has, who knows.

http://www.bootmurtha.com/MurthaInfo/MurthaSpeak.htm

The following were statements during Clinton's administration:

"They're subdued compared to normal morale of elite forces..."

(Rep. John Murtha on the Conflict in Somalia, NewsMax, September, 1993)

"Our welcome has been worn out."

(Rep. John Murtha on the Conflict in Somalia, The Today Show, September, 1993)

The following are statements during the Bush administration:

"Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk... It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America..."

(Murtha, from his congressional website, Nov. 17, 2005)

"Well, I say that the fight against Americans began with Abu Ghraib. It began with the invasion of Iraq. That's when terrorism started."

(Murtha, Nov. 17, 2005, News Hour with Jim Lehrer)

As I said, he is speaking for the Democratic Party. It is practically treasonous.

No, body count may not be mentioned, but the theme is the same. Negative

As far as day to day war coverage, this 'war' does not have the photo ops that Viet Nam provided. Bombed market, downed helecopter, damaged humvee, but no napalm in the morning like in Apocolipse Now.

[jbg]

I've been checking through political BBs for over a decade, and there was never anything remotely like BDR against Clinton. Not ever. Lots of snide commentary about Monica, some criticism of Kosovo, but never the gleeful bodycounts, desperate apologia and outright cheering for the enemy that goes on today. Nothing even close.

His impeachment?

[ft.niagara]

His impeachment?

His impeachment was for lieing under oath. As a lawyer, was that no big deal? This poor fellow Libby has been convicted of what? Lieing under oath. He has potential jail time, and huge fine for no crime, except lieing under oath. Now the President, what should be the penalty. Nothing, because it was not a crime. And then he turns around and pardons a known criminal who donates 40+ million to his library.

If anyone deserves a pardon and an apology it is Libby.

[jbg]

His impeachment?

His impeachment was for lieing under oath. As a lawyer, was that no big deal? This poor fellow Libby has been convicted of what? Lieing under oath. He has potential jail time, and huge fine for no crime, except lieing under oath. Now the President, what should be the penalty. Nothing, because it was not a crime. And then he turns around and pardons a known criminal who donates 40+ million to his library.

If anyone deserves a pardon and an apology it is Libby.

My point is that people had their knives out for Clinton to almost the same extent that they do for Bush. I actually like both of them as President, but fair is fair. As far as perjury, Clinton should have refused to answer that question, in my humble opinion. Questions about his conduct with Lewinsky six years or so after the allegedly offending conduct with Jones (which is what the deposition was about) were not, in my opinion, calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Again, I must emphasize, my opinion is based upon the approach I expect a New York state or federal court would take, and at that is a mere prediction. I can express no view as to what a Court in another jurisdiction would do.

No question, Bush's private life gives far less ammunition than Clinton's did.

[ft.niagara]

My point is that people had their knives out for Clinton to almost the same extent that they do for Bush. I actually like both of them as President, but fair is fair.

My point is the knives were pulled out on Clinton for GOOD reasons. First was the gay rights in the military issue. Then there was the firing of White House staffers. The Whitewater issue looked like favorite (illegal?) treatment in ultimately government backed loans. In fact, how did the Clintons escape being personally responsible for the failed loans instead on just their invested money? I could not go to a bank and risk millions for 40,000 dollars. Sopeaned documents show up in the middle of the night, years later, on a table? Not to mention the indiscression with women before, and after taking office. In the lawsuit by Paula Jones, I would think that a lawyer would be attempting to show a pattern of indiscression. How could he not answer it. Fifth Amendment? It was not a criminal case. Does not 'incriminate' mean to tie one self to a crime?

With regard to Bush, it could be that people have the knives out for him because of Clinton. Perhaps to get even as best as possible, but certainly as nice a guy as Clinton was, he was not Presidential in many ways.

[guyser]

My point is the knives were pulled out on Clinton for GOOD reasons.

And the knives out for Bush are not? jbg's point is valid.

[jbg]

My point is the knives were pulled out on Clinton for GOOD reasons.

And the knives out for Bush are not? jbg's point is valid.

My point more is that both Bush and Clinton have/had something to offer the country and these collateral issues don't help much. In the "good old days" before the Internet, the President could often informally keep the press in line. President Kennedy was famous for once in a while calling "Scotty" (James Reston, New York Times Columnist) and suggesting that it was not in the "national interest" for a given news story to run. Who does one call now, Bill Gates, or the head of ICAAN?

[ft.niagara]

And the knives out for Bush are not? jbg's point is valid.

No, they are not. There is a trace of logic to everything Bush has done. You might not agree with this or that, but there is none of the strange happenings that occured with Clinton. Yet, people hate him, as much or more than Clinton. My thoery is because the get even nature of people, Clinton was gone after, so I will return the favor. Also, the Bush/Gore election, although thank God Gore was not elected. And the thought that he is stupid, and everyone in the other camp is smarter.

[guyser]

And the knives out for Bush are not? jbg's point is valid.

No, they are not. There is a trace of logic to everything Bush has done.

I would respectively disagree. I am no fan of Bush, and do not suffer from BDS , but there is enough in his Presidency to pull out the knives.

[jbg]

I would respectively disagree. I am no fan of Bush, and do not suffer from BDS , but there is enough in his Presidency to pull out the knives.

My point is that except for a clear case of a deranged, off-the-reservation President (Nixon is the only recent example) the knives should be kept sheathed to some extent. Since we are not a Parliamentary country, there is no ready way to replace a crippled leader promptly.

[guyser]

Since we are not a Parliamentary country, there is no ready way to replace a crippled leader promptly.

Well , if that comes to fruition, just throw the keys to Pelosi and she can drive the bus.

Yikes ....!

[stignasty]

Well , if that comes to fruition, just throw the keys to Pelosi and she can drive the bus.

Well, they could always get Alexander Haig to come out of retirement and take "control."

[ft.niagara]

but there is enough in his Presidency to pull out the knives.

Hummmmm............

It should be interesting what conversations in the future will be like should Hillary get elected. Forget about the knives, she'll be passed around.

[jbg]

but there is enough in his Presidency to pull out the knives.

Hummmmm............

It should be interesting what conversations in the future will be like should Hillary get elected. Forget about the knives, she'll be passed around.

Hilarious Hilary has as much chance of election as POTUS as Jean Chretien does.

[weaponeer]

I have to admit I was a big GWB fan, but that has all changed.

I like the USA, lived there for 4 awesome years. No different that Canada in most respects.....

[jbg]

I have to admit I was a big GWB fan, but that has all changed.

In retrospect Bush will look better. He has presided over 6 years, so far, of relative prosperity, And I believe that sticking his head in the sand about Islamism would not have been a good response. We've tried that and it didn't work real well.

[Figleaf]

"Who hates the U.S.A?"

GEORGE BUSH HATES THE U.S.A.

[ft.niagara]

"Who hates the U.S.A?"

GEORGE BUSH HATES THE U.S.A.

intellectually challenged

[Figleaf]

looks kinda like a chimp

[jbg]

looks kinda like a chimp

"Who hates the U.S.A?"

GEORGE BUSH HATES THE U.S.A.

intellectually challenged

That's a candidate for "Understatement of the Year Award".

[Figleaf]

looks kinda like a chimp

"Who hates the U.S.A?"

GEORGE BUSH HATES THE U.S.A.

intellectually challenged

That's a candidate for "Understatement of the Year Award".

Is there some reason you changed the order of the quotes?

[jbg]

looks kinda like a chimp

"Who hates the U.S.A?"

GEORGE BUSH HATES THE U.S.A.

intellectually challenged

That's a candidate for "Understatement of the Year Award".

Is there some reason you changed the order of the quotes?

Your two intellectually challenged quotes are placed together, and separated from Ft. Niagara's accurate observation.