Cynical Nation

And just so you don't think I'm singling out lefties unfairly, many conservatives were guilty of exactly the same type of irrational Clinton hatred back during the 90s.

Barry,
Clinton's error was a blowjob. And I agree that the hatred against him was irrational. Hating someone for a blowjob? It is certainly irrational.

Bush on the other hand has been destructive for the country. Look what he has done. I dont think there is an "irrational hatred" against him. I think is the other way around. It is the irrational and irresponsible actions of his administration that create such strong reactions.

Afterall, this is the USA and we do not like incompetent people for the job of the president. Especially if, on top of this, they lie for important things. This is just reality. The fact that his approval ratings are 34-36% now simply establishes that the country has come to realize how disastrous his presidency has been.

The one overriding reason I've stuck with the President this far is my belief that he is genuinely committed to meaningful change for the better than either of his two predecessors.

My one big issue with the President is the failure to contain Federal spending. Yes, I know that "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills" but a little bit of presidential leadership would have gone a long way -- particularly in the glory years of 2002 and 2003.

I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, and still believe it was a strategic error, but I don't believe the situation is even close to irretrievable.

I admire the tax cuts more each year as I see the actual results in terms of realized revenue and distribution of tax burden.

As history has played out in the last three years, I am a lot less concerned about earning the disdain of the Europeans -- particularly the French.

John Roberts and Sam Alito look like two of the best SCOTUS nominations in this century.

And I can (easily) live with wiretapping phone calls involving to Al Qaeda operatives outside of the U.S.

Lots of things to dislike about this president, but on balance I'd vote the same way all over again.

"Clinton's error was a blowjob. And I agree that the hatred against him was irrational. Hating someone for a blowjob? It is certainly irrational."

Ummm...actually I think Clinton's error was lying under oath and obstructing justice. How can a blowjob ever be wrong?

> How can a blowjob ever be wrong?

Only when the practitioner interprets the term "blow" job a bit too literally.

Only when the practitioner interprets the term "blow" job a bit too literally.

I hate when that happens!

my belief that he is genuinely committed to meaningful change for the better than either of his two predecessors.

I dont think so. I think he simply does not care. But even if thats true, he can not do it. He is incompetent. Would you hire that guy to run your business? or manage your finances? or organize the security of your business?

I dont think so.

Oh, well...since you offer such compelling evidence I guess I'll have to rethink my position.

I think he simply does not care. But even if thats true, he can not do it.

"...simply does not care[?]" If you mean he doesn't care what the French think of him, I believe you're right. Otherwise, I don't think you have much objective evidence to back up your assertion.

He is incompetent.

Wait -- I thought he was "dangerously oblivious." Oh snap! I just can't keep up with the official DNC meme of the day.

Would you hire that guy to run your business? or manage your finances? or organize the security of your business?

Depends...I think he is amply qualified to run a business. For finances and security, I'd prefer to hire a specialist.

For finances and security, I'd prefer to hire a specialist.

So you would not trust him with the security of your business, but you think it is ok that he is in charge of the war against terrorism? Is that the RNC line?

P.S. I dont think he cares what happens to the country. He has shown that again and again. When Katrina hit, he did not even bother to interrupt his vacation.

"So you would not trust him with the security of your business, but you think it is ok that he is in charge of the war against terrorism?"

I don't think that's what I said.

"Is that the RNC line?"

How would I know?

"P.S. I dont think he cares what happens to the country. He has shown that again and again. When Katrina hit, he did not even bother to interrupt his vacation."

What did you want him to do? Take the controls of Marine One and start rescuing people? BTW, I guess this means that you won't be trying to use the "topping versus breaching" tape anymore as evidence that he was fully informed about the dangers to NOLA, since you don't believe that conference ever took place.

So, you think it is ok for the president of the country to continue his vacation while an American City is being destroyed? As far as he gives tax cuts I guess?

The fact that he did not bother to disrupt his vacation reflects how much he cares about the country. The same applies for the real president: Dick Cheney.

So, you think it is ok for the president of the country to continue his vacation while an American City is being destroyed? As far as he gives tax cuts I guess?"

You have to be a complete moron to believe that the President of the United States is ever on vacation.

I admire the man for getting the hell out of Lobbytown as often as he can.

BW's point i guess is that it's important to at least get on TV and be concerned. Staying on vaction, campaigning for others, shopping for shoes, or taking in some theatre while Katrina rips through a city certainly looks like you don't give a shit....i mean "feel their pain".

i mean, none of us went shopping or went to a show during the WEEKS of Katrina right? Wait, i don't run the country or anything.

You have to be a complete moron to believe that the President of the United States is ever on vacation.

First of all, try to avoid using names. Second, the problem with this president is that he is always on vacation. Cheers.

"First of all, try to avoid using names"

You're right. I apologize.

I don't agree with you on anything, but I honestly don't think you're a moron.

"Clinton's error was a blowjob. And I agree that the hatred against him was irrational. Hating someone for a blowjob? It is certainly irrational." (Blue Wind)

Actually Clinton's "crime" would normally be considered "sexual harrassment." That's what the Left generally calls a fifty-something executive getting sexual favors from a twenty-something underling.

Since I DON'T generally consider such sexual indiscretions either abnormal or wrong (many young women are simply attracted to older, successful men)...I didn't have a big problem with Clinton's indiscretions.

I honestly think this country would be a lot better off if all such affairs were largley ignored by the media and so-called "women's groups."

However, anonymous is right on spec, "Clinton's error was lying under oath and obstructing justice."

His bigger errors were his all but ignoring the war that radicalized Islam had declared on the U.S. in 1993. That and his mishandling the late 1990s economy - the loosening of SEC rules made IPOs way too easy to bring to market, resulting in rampant speculation, the resulting "Tech Bubble" and its BUST in the Spring of 2000.

That "Tech Bubble Bust" resulted in a huge and deepening recession hitting the country BEFORE Election 2000 and eventually brought the DOW down with it.

Thank God for those tax cuts...or else we'd probably be mired in a near Depression, instead of humming along with low inflation (2.1%), low unemplyment (4.7%) and still relatively low interest rates....and Dow 11,000+.

Forgot to sign in...the above post is, of course, mine.

JMK,
How about Bush? Has he made any errors? Or is he perfect?

I've NEVER said Bush was "perfect," nor anything close, BW.

He has done remarkably well with the economy and he's done a credible job on the war on terrorism.

Sure, the latter was thrust upon him, more than anything else.

America's war against radicalized Islam is NOT optional.

And it didn't begin with 9/11.

The other side was actively engaged against America for a full ten years before that.

Two nations that had harbored international terrorists, including al Qaeda (both Afghanistan & Iraq did that), were brought down, but we're probably not even a third of the way done.

Syria and Iran are both going to be immediate problems. Should Musharef lose Pakistan and the Saudi Royal Family lose Saudi Arabia to radical Islamicists, those two nations will also have to be "re-taken."

I agree with Michael Scheuer (author of Imperial Hubris) that it will very possibly (hopefully) end some twenty-years hence in Sub-Sahahran Africa where radicalized Islam will retain its last outpost.

So on the economy and the war on terrorism, this administration has done well, in my view.

They've done very poorly on the borders, on reining in run-away domestic spending and COMMUNICATION.

This administration has been quite poor at taking their case to the American people.

Two nations that had harbored international terrorists, including al Qaeda (both Afghanistan & Iraq did that), were brought down, but we're probably not even a third of the way done.

That is complete distortion of the truth as it relates to Iraq. The only training camp of Alqaeda allies that were in Iraq during Hussein's rule were in the Kurdistan area outside of the control of his goverment. You are repeating something that has been clearly proven false in the past. Thats not good for your credibility.

You are repeating something that has been clearly proven false in the past. Thats not good for your credibility.

And you just say things you believe in without providing any evidence.

That is worse for your credibility.

Actually, the Ansar al Islam camps in northern Iraq (still under Saddam's control) were not only "in Iraq," they were supported by Saddam's Baghdad government, as they both shared a common enemy in the Kurds.

Moreover, that's NOT Hussein's ONLY apparent link to al Qaeda, as new documents come out.

For instance, "SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME PROVIDED FINANCIAL support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law in the Philippines in the late 1990s, according to documents captured in postwar Iraq."

From: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/990ieqmb.asp

However, anonymous is right on spec, "Clinton's error was lying under oath and obstructing justice."

Whoops, sorry. I didn't mean to post that anonymously.

On another note --

Speaking of "...nations that had harbored international terrorists..." Why are we still doing business with Germany? Didn't a couple of 9/11 hijackers live, study and even leave families in Germany? I sure hope none of our strategic assets are in the hands of Germans!

And you just say things you believe in without providing any evidence.

Adam,
What I wrote there is something accepted even by the Bush administration and it has been widely reported in the news. The Bush administration agrees with me on that. If you dont read the news and you ignore basic facts, that's your problem, not mine. I will not be quoting sources for well-known established facts that everyone agrees on (including the Bush administration). Just follow the news a little more carefully and you will realize that I only quote real facts. Cheers :)

Actually, the Ansar al Islam camps in northern Iraq (still under Saddam's control) were not only "in Iraq," they were supported by Saddam's Baghdad government, as they both shared a common enemy in the Kurds.

Thats completely false. The Ansar al Islam jihadists were enemies of Saddam. Check the facts. Thats accepted even by the Bush administration. Repeating clear-cut lies circulating in far-right publications (i.e. weekly standard) can not reverse reality.

Why are we still doing business with Germany? Didn't a couple of 9/11 hijackers live, study and even leave families in Germany? I sure hope none of our strategic assets are in the hands of Germans!

We already occupy Germany. And yes, we should get our troops out of that country. I dislike paying for another country's defense while they can crap all over us.

Blue, you can't post any documentation about Ansar being alligned against Saddam's regime, because there are no credible reports of that.

The Kurds, a non-Arabic people, have sought their independence and and an independent Kudish state since 1920, when the Treaty of Sevres, which created the modern states of Iraq, Syria and Kuwait, was to have included the possibility of a Kurdish state in the region.

Saddam's Iraq repressed and brutalized the Kurds who've supported every enemy of Saddam's going back to the Iran-Iraq war.

Saddam's regime opposed the Kurds, the al Qaeda run Ansar al Islam camps opposed the Kurdish independence movement and sided with Saddam's Baghdad government.

I'm NOT averse to posting actual sources (the THREE best sources on Iraq, at this point IMO, are Hitchens, Hayes & Scheuer), but here are some other sources;

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/2395416

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110006953

Check'em out.

Blue, you can't post any documentation about Ansar being alligned against Saddam's regime, because there are no credible reports of that.

The Kurds, a non-Arabic people, have sought their independence and and an independent Kudish state since 1920, when the Treaty of Sevres, which created the modern states of Iraq, Syria and Kuwait, was to have included the possibility of a Kurdish state in the region.

Saddam's Iraq repressed and brutalized the Kurds who've supported every enemy of Saddam's going back to the Iran-Iraq war.

Saddam's regime opposed the Kurds, the al Qaeda run Ansar al Islam camps opposed the Kurdish independence movement and sided with Saddam's Baghdad government.

I'm NOT averse to posting actual sources (the THREE best sources on Iraq, at this point IMO, are Hitchens, Hayes & Scheuer), but here are some other sources;

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/2395416

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110006953

Check'em out.