It's very big difference between the personalities of these two presidents: Bush is worry about the relationship between west and east , peace in the world and fighting with terrorism, Clinton was worry about his personal relationship and thinking about his sexual enjoy. Isn't it a big difference?
I don't see much information to compare. We live in a very different world after 9/11...I doubt Clinton (or sKerry, or any other democrat) would really survive in the white house today...I'm glad to see we have a cowboy running the show.
EarlPearl you are right, Clinton was busy to make good use of bananas , that's why exactly in that time Bin Laden had opportunity to plan for 9/11 . Maybe if Clinton wouldn't be busy with bananas , now G.W.Bush wouldn't need to have hard time to clean the mess
GHW Bush hated Broccoli. On that issue alone, I voted for him in 92 (alan keyes in the primary though )! Death to Broccoli! Stewie: [After Lois tries to feed Stewie his broccoli "airplane style"] Damn you, Damn the Broccoli, and Damn the Wright Brothers.
Roman you are wrong about both Clinton and Bush. Clinton didn't want to screw 1/2 country, and Bush does not want to screw all country. Unfortunately people just talk , with no reason , I think we should be responsible for each word we use. I don't like Clinton but I won't accuse him that he wanted to screw 1/2 country. We should stop accusing people. Please try to write things that you can prove it.
I feel it's no use to compare unless it will end the war. However, I voted for Gore, I feel if he won we would be fighting a war on Global Warming instead of in Iraq.
Well, since he caused most of the world to hate us, it's a good thing he's protecting us. He has his work cut out for him.
Bush makes me embarrassed to be an American, Clinton did not have that affect on me. At this point, if I was traveling abroad, I would probably lie and tell people I was from some other country because I would be too embarrassed to say I was from America (really). BTW - I'm not Democrat or Republican (before someone starts that), since 1980 (as far back as I can remember) I think Reagan and Clinton were both great presidents, I think Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. were terrible presidents.
Bullshit. I've never seen the anti-american sentiment before the Iraq invasion that I see now. If you don't see the difference you're blind. Even if you're a superpower, you can't just go around acting like you can do whatever the hell you want, no matter what the world thinks. Bush didn't even put up an effort to pretend like he gave a shit what the world thought before the invasion. I remember him saying pretty blatantly that it didn't matter what they thought. Well, it does matter. Our standing in the world is weakened as a result of his actions. Even if Saddaam was an asshole and deserved to be overthrown, it was a stupid and arrogant move for us to do it against the will of the world. And I'm not your buddy.
We will not seek a permission slip to protect our country. As for as "the rest of the world," saddam had our allies bought off in the oil voucher scandal the UN bought off with the oil-for-food program. Given how profitable corruption is, it's no wonder France, Germany, Russia and China were not interested. They stood everything to lose under the corrupte oil-for-food program. "The rest of the world" wasn't on some high moral ground kick, they were bought off. Having travelled abroad, I saw anti-American sentiment long before Iraq. I lived in Germany in the mid-80s for two years. I saw it often while there. I saw it in The Netherlands, in Spain, Portugal, quite a bit in South Korea during the late 80s. It's popular and fashionable to "hate/blame America." So popular, that even some Americans do it to set themselves above their country and make themselves appear unscrutinable from non-Americans that perpetually attack anything American via the internet. Patriotism does not have a four year shelf life.
Yep. If democrats went after terrorists like they went after Foley (and other Republicans), they'd have no problem winning elections. Apparently they don't know who the real enemy is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk-benefit_analysis It's not about thinking like a third grader and doing something just because we have the power to do it. If there was a good chance of it turning out well in Iraq then maybe it would be worth the short term hit to our image and to the trust and good will we've built with most of the world. Instead the leaders chose to naively believe that the Iraqi people would be throwing flowers at us instead of IEDs. I say it was probably good old fashioned arrogance that caused the ones behind the idea to not listen to those who warned of what kind of shit storm Iraq could turn into. I'm not talking about just governments who may or may not of been benefitting from their ties to Iraq. I'm talking about the _popoulations_ of the world. Their anti-american sentiment has not grown because we screwed up a deal their government had with Iraq. They see us as a lone superpower who could really care less about what they think because they're not American. And to some degree, I can't blame them. Questioning the decisions and actions of ones own government is not unpatriotic. It's in the spirit of the founding fathers to do so. What HAS become fashionable these days is to question someone's patriotism in any instance where there is an inlinking that they may have an opinion that may not be in tune with the ruling party. If anyone questioned my patriotism in person for not agreeing with the actions of my government in a serious time like this, I'd punch them in the goddamn mouth.
Who said it was? Short term hit? Image? Sounds so vain. Perhaps you missed the oil-for-food scandals and oil voucher scandals that effectively bought off the UN and our closest allies? It's not that we didn't have good will built up, it's that it was sold out by our allies to the very person we were going after. Actually, "we" (those that don't believe patriotism has a four year shelf life and don't self-loathe on behalf of their country) - our soldiers, were greeted with cheers and flowers. You probably forgot. That sentiment was the very reason they didn't support going into Iraq. And they used it to their advantage to pretend to take the high moral ground. If in fact questioning was what was taking place. In fact, it's mostly just accusations and hatred. This is not questioning. Questions answered are just that, answered. Continuing to raise them (when in fact it's not really self-loathing attacks on our country) makes them no more valid. Contrary, the spirit of our Founding Fathers was not self-loathing and defeatism at all costs. Popular trends emerge when the same people continue to bash their country over and over again. Bashing is not asking questions. Hiding behind a veil of "asking questions" while doing nothing more than attacking one's country is popular also. Some people think it makes them look fashionable and beyond reproach from non-Americans who continuously attack our country. In other words, nothing more than a popularity contest. Which was is the wind blowing today? Can't beat em, join em! As for your "punch them in the mouth" comment, I'd probably do the same thing too. Like you, I can't stand a two-bit punk whose idea of service to our country is selling it out and self-loathing over it to win a popularity contest. I think we have something in common there!