How do/did you feel about Bill Clinton's foreign policy as compared to that of George W. Bush?
How did you perceive America under Clinton, as opposed to Bush?
Printable View
How do/did you feel about Bill Clinton's foreign policy as compared to that of George W. Bush?
How did you perceive America under Clinton, as opposed to Bush?
proof is the puddin.... look at the US now and compare its state to the Clinton admin.
lol what is Bush's policy, blow shit up?
I don't think the US has had a good foreign policy in my lifetime, just varying degrees of badness.
Clinton felt we were safe with his policies, and I'm guessing you disagree with him.
Bush felt we were too safe, so adjusted the policy to change this :dry:
proof is in the puddin?Quote:
Originally Posted by ram82082
What proof?
What "puddin"?
Clinton really liked to blow shit up, too, but never anything worthwhile.
Odd that Clinton's foreign policy was criticized in much the same terms as Bush's, but no one seems to remember.
Foreign policy vis a vis the U.S.S.R. under Reagan was perhaps our finest hour in the international arena.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I will agree the U.S. is akin oft times to a bull in a china shop, but the bull is the role we have to play.
If we didn't do it, maybe, oh....China, France...maybe Iran would try it, huh?
I did indeed disagree with Clinton's foreign policy; what do you mean, though, when you say, "Clinton felt we were safe with his policies"?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
This last is not clear at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
b4 u jump the gun... first let me say iam not at all familar with either "policy". what i do know is that with Clinton we had no fear of bin laden or terrorism, and i do remember clinton shakin alot more hands than Bush. i remember my econ prof talkin of repression with Bush in office. i remember how much "we" liked Clinton. i remember the rest of the world hating us alil less. lol, shit i remember we had a prez that could f*ckin read
With Clinton we had no fear of terrorism? WTF are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by ram82082
First WTC bombing.
Oklahoma City bombing.
Al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole. I'll never forget the sight of that ship afterwards.
3 (maybe more) embassy bombings in Africa, etc.
Clinton failed miserably at defending this country from not only terrorists, but al Qaeda itself. After those attacks, Clinton ordered one attack on a single building, and I think we all remember how that turned out. :dry:
In a letter to President Clinton, a CBS jounalist asked him about the attck on the USS Cole, and Clinton's reply was:
Their "clean hands" solution?Quote:
....I have absolutely no doubt that President-elect Bush will continue to pursue the investigation and when the evidence is in will take appropriate action. And when that happens, I will support him in doing so.
On a side note, are you insinuating that it is Bush's fault that Bin Laden is a threat by stating, "with Clinton we had no fear of bin laden or terrorism"? If not, what are you saying??Quote:
These days, the best the former Clinton aides can say is that, at the end of their time in office, after they failed to adequately respond to the growing threat, they came up with a really great plan to strike back at al Qaeda. As they walked out the door, they handed it to incoming Bush officials and said, "Here — do this."
WTC "bomb" in which u speak of was like 92 n had no terror in it. it was in the fucking garage. dunno about u but i was scared n there was no so-called "war on terrorism. if a car bomb in a garage and blowing up a boat count as terrorism, then what was it laden did?
i aint insinuating shit, im stating what the post asked MY OPINION. the current admin is just as bad as al queda, they're fearmongers.
and i c u left out the part about how many countries we were enemies of pre-bush and present.
One of the things we've heard over and over again, ad nauseum, is the complaint that the U.S., under Bush, has developed this nasty habit of pre-emptory and unilateral foreign policy.
The overarching message is that this "tendency" began with Bush.
Well, the message is bullshit.
Read, with special attention to the parts I have emboldened:
Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright
Interview on NBC-TV "The Today Show" with Matt Lauer
Columbus, Ohio, February 19, 1998
As released by the Office of the Spokesman
U.S. Department of State
MR. LAUER: On "Close Up" this morning -- the showdown with Iraq. As UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan heads to Baghdad in a last-ditch diplomatic effort to end the standoff, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is traveling around the United States making the administration’s case for a possible strike against Saddam Hussein. Madame Secretary, good morning to you, good to see you.
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Good morning, Matt, nice to see you.
MR. LAUER: Thank you. To put it bluntly, you were heckled yesterday. What was your reaction to the reception you received?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, actually, I thought it was a very interesting meeting. There were a couple of dozen hecklers. But for the most part, there were some very serious people in the audience who had serious questions that we tried to answer. And we’ll continue to do so.
MR. LAUER: That’s true. You did have people who stood up and expressed their concern over military action against Iraq. Did you walk away from the meeting, Madame Secretary, with a different point of view, a different perspective on the situation?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Absolutely not. I think that we know what we have to do, and that is help enforce the UN Security Council resolutions, which demand that Saddam Hussein abide by those resolutions, and get rid of his weapons of mass destruction, and allow the inspectors to have unfettered and unconditional access. That’s what we have to do.
Matt, we would like to solve this peacefully. But if we cannot, we will be using force; and the American people will be behind us, and I think that they understand that.
MR. LAUER: I’m just curious. Do you think yesterday’s session helped or hurt your case? I mean, back in the early 1990s, Madame Secretary, you used to appear on this show as an analyst for foreign affairs with William Hyland. And you’d come on and talk about the Administration’s reaction to foreign affairs. If you were analyzing yesterday’s performance by you and your colleagues, how would you rate it?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I thought our performance was great. But I think that the issue here is that there were people who disagree. I would probably say that there were a few dozen hecklers who disagreed. But what I would have said, actually, is that there were more people that asked questions and directed their thoughts about the fact that we ought to send in ground forces.
That’s what I found interesting -- that there are more Americans who really would like us to go in and finish off Saddam Hussein. That was the message that I got from that meeting.
MR. LAUER: And you lead me right into my next question, because one man you heard from yesterday was a retired serviceman named Mike McCall, whose son died during the Vietnam War. Here’s what he said.
(Audio clip.)
Madame Secretary, Secretary of Defense William Cohen attempted to answer that question yesterday. Why don’t you give it a shot for me today.
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, we had a half-a-million troops there in 1991. And the decision was that they could not take out Saddam Hussein. And I don’t think, frankly, that if we got into it, that the American people would want us to send in huge numbers of forces. So we are doing what must be done.
First of all, we would like to have a diplomatic, peaceful solution and have him give unfettered access to these places, so that we could tell what is happening with his weapons of mass destruction. But otherwise, the purpose of a very substantial strike will be to substantially reduce his weapons of mass destruction threat and his threat to the neighbors. We think that is an appropriate goal, and our goal -- and we’ve said this, Matt -- may not seem really decisive; but what we’re trying to do here is contain Saddam Hussein. We’ve managed to do that for seven years. This has been a successful policy. Whenever he puts his head up, we push him back.
MR. LAUER: Let me bring in the man who asked that question in Columbus yesterday, Madame Secretary. Mike McCall, good morning to you.
MR. MCCALL: Good morning, sir, how are you?
MR. LAUER: Oh, thank you, I’m fine. It was a bit impersonal and somewhat raucous in that room yesterday, so let me give you a chance to ask a question one-on-one to the Secretary of State.
MR. MCCALL: Good morning, Madame, how are you?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Good morning, good to see you again.
MR. MCCALL: Thank you, kind of early in the morning. My question is, actually, more of a statement. I’m not a warmonger; I don’t want to see a war; and I don’t think there was any man in that room that was in uniform yesterday, if I’d have asked the question, who wants a war, who would have stood up.
My thought was, if we send in troops after a saturated bombing run and get this thing neutralized to where the troops could almost walk in there in parade formation as more or less of a police force to support the inspectors that come in; get those weapons; destroy them and then turn around to Saddam Hussein and say, "Hey, run your country now, run it like a human being, take care of your people, we’ll buy your oil, we’ll give you money for your oil, and make this country for your people." I don’t want to hurt those people.
MR. LAUER: Let me ask the Secretary of State, is that feasible?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, let me say how much I admire the gentleman who asked the question; I did yesterday; he is clearly a great patriot.
I think the problem with the idea is that we would have to end up being an occupying force. The Americans don’t want to do that. I don’t think the American people would want us to do that. But after the substantial strike, I think we have a much better chance of having the inspectors go back in or make sure that these weapons are not reconstituted by being willing to do another strike.
This is a very serious problem. None of us are saying that there are easy solutions to it, but we have to contain Saddam Hussein. And, as I’ve said many times, we are prepared to deal, ready to deal with a post-Saddam regime.
But I appreciate what he’s saying, because I think he’s a very brave American and a patriotic American who understands why we have to do this.
MR. LAUER: Mike, let me ask you to stand by, and let me ask a couple more questions to Madeleine Albright.
Madame Secretary, your trip to the Middle East several weeks ago was not as successful as I think you would have liked, in building a coalition against Saddam Hussein at this point -- certainly not as successful as the coalition in 1991. Have you spoken to President Bush or former Secretary of State Baker and asked for any advice on gaining support from the Arab world?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: First of all, I think my trip actually went pretty well, because this is a very different situation from ’91, when there was a cross-border invasion of one Arab country into another. And frankly, I got a lot more support than is publicly visible, because these people live in the region.
MR. LAUER: So they’re saying one thing in public, and saying something else to you in private?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Yes, yes. And we feel comfortable that should we have to use military force, that they will be very cooperative.
And as a matter of fact, I did talk to both former President Bush and former Secretary of State Baker; and they both agreed that we have a much more complicated situation than they had on their hands. And they were very supportive, and I especially enjoyed -- well, I enjoyed talking to both of them, because they do have some very good points.
MR. LAUER: Will you speak for me, Madame Secretary, to the parents of American men and women who may soon be asked to go into harm’s way, and who get the feeling that many countries in the rest of the world are standing by silently while their children are once again being asked to clean up a mess for the rest of the world?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, let me say that there are, a couple of dozen countries that are with us on this that are providing a variety of equipment, support and are willing to be with us. So there is a misunderstanding about saying that there is no coalition; there is. And the truth is that in the Gulf War, we did most of the work, too. There’s no question that we, with the British and French, did a large proportion of the work.
Let me say that we are doing everything possible so that American men and women in uniform do not have to go out there again. It is the threat of the use of force and our line-up there that is going to put force behind the diplomacy. But if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us. I know that the American men and women in uniform are always prepared to sacrifice for freedom, democracy and the American way of life.
MR. LAUER: Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Thank you so much again.
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Thank you.
lol bullshit it is, we get bombed by bin laden and go after sudam.... lol now i know they all pretty much look alike, but c'mon.
and it always trips me out when politicians talk about use force, like they're the ones that are gonna lead our young men/women in battle.
i pose a ? --- do you think we'll ever have another prez that will actually fight? like g.w. crossin the delaware or .... to me that a leader. yea he could die but thats why we have VP's and cabinets. if our prez did sumthin like that man! u'd see me on the next ship talkin bout sum "whoo-raaah"
f*ck it, can we get a leader that'll admit when he's wrong?
and wtf's up with this we can weapons but u cant bs?
Bush then attacks Iraq and can't show Bin Laden after 6 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
Uh yeah.:dry:
I feel much safer.
If you want your post not to be read, make it blue, lengthy, and with multiple word bricks.:ermm:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Nice going.
I dunno this ad nauseum complaint and whatnot but most people I know complain about Bush leading the charge to attack a country that had shit all to do with terrorism or 9/11.
Pretty simple.
:yup:
As a foreigner, I can't tell the difference between the two. :idunno:
Funny, huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Clinton has multiple shots at Bin Laden but can't pull the trigger, and Bush can't find him now that Bin Laden is actually hiding from us.
It would be even more embarrassing for Clinton's legacy if Bin Laden had been hiding from him, too, I suppose. :whistling
As to the "safer" thing?
To the extent we haven't suffered any attacks since then, it should be plain the reason is not that we've deterred them by dint of new policy (witness airport "security"...witness our porous borders), but because they've found us willing to "return fire", as it were.
There is no other reason.
I'd say this is the proper objective response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
Thank you, Barbie. :)
I think Clinton made some bad choices, like bombing Sudan for, what seemed to me, no good reason. The US led coalition also killed thousand of civillians in response for Iraqi planes violating no fly zones in the latter years of his tenure.
This, however, pales with Bush's seemingly idiotic policy of completely alienating whole countries. Of course, I mean his 'axis of evil' soundbite. Invading Iraq citing one reason at the time and then justifying it with another is also much worse than any foreign policy faux-pas commited by the Clinton administration.
The whole Iraq war was a debacle - and I'm pleased to see in recent elections that the American people agree with me.
The general apathy displayed by the US public during the Clinton years concerning his foreign policy irritated me - under Bush, the groundswell of displeasure has influenced my perception of the American people for the better.
We are talking about perception of American people as a whole, rather than basing an opinion of a whole country on one man, I take it.
===
That's a clever trick.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
If it's just an opinion you're after, mine is that Clinton tried to make a few friends and gave some thought to the point of view of other countries.
Bush just couldn't give a shit what anyone except the USA thinks.
That's the overriding difference between the two.
We shall ignore the anthrax thing then and just say that nobody has been blown up (on US soil).:whistlingQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
How many years passed after the first WTC attack and the next terrorist attack on the US? Could it just be a matter of time?
But it's funny how you say they have been deterred when worldwide terrorist attacks are way up. I would say that we are less safe because of Bush's policies simply because we are hated more.
We are also more at risk from terrorist attacks from right wing bloggers
hold on, I've just been handed my fauxnews internal memo.........
Seems we can stop blaming clinton now and instead blame pelosi..... that will be a refreshing change:rolleyes:
It didn't seem so "in our faces" during clinton.
:glag:Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
He had no confirmation as to who did it until he was about to hand over to Bush. I know you repubs like to attack (well get the troops to attack) anyone because they "look suspicious", but had clinton attacked at that point then you would be blaming him for handing a war over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
On the other hand Bush had all the evidence confirmed, just what did he do?
You have to look at timescales to say he was a threat. I mean at one point we not only armed him but provided training. A habit the US has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
:blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
You have to look at timescales to say he was a threat. I mean at one point we not only armed him but provided training. A habit the US has.
Surely that comment is directed at ram82....
No it was directed at your question and how I read his post. The point being that bin laden wasn't really known by the population at large during the clinton years and before that he was being funded by the US because of politics and his fighting the soviet occupation in Afghanistan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
So my comment on timescale is that we didn't "fear" bin laden at that time. Let's face it, until 911 happened the average joe probably never once gave a thought to terrorism. In fact it was amazing how many seemed to think that terrorism was new to the world, living in the bubbles as they do.
Now it seems you consider any attempt to blame Ms. Pelosi and her cohort for America's problems to be a "terrorist attack"?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccWe shall ignore the anthrax thing then and just say that nobody has been blown up (on US soil).:whistlingQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
The "anthrax" thing?
Oh, you mean the widespread dissemination of the anthrax envelopes?
I just threw mine in the garbage, as did everyone else I know who received one.
What did you do with yours? :dry:
How many years passed after the first WTC attack and the next terrorist attack on the US? Could it just be a matter of time?
I think you'd have to agree 9/11 signalled the lid had come off on terrorist intentions, and in light of that, what came before was small potatoes.
But it's funny how you say they have been deterred when worldwide terrorist attacks are way up. I would say that we are less safe because of Bush's policies simply because we are hated more.
Here's what I think about terrorist attacks on other countries, in a nutshell:
If Spain, or the U.K., or who-have-you, suffers a terrorist attack, they should retaliate, as we have, against the terrorists...what better way to dissociate themselves from the U.S.?
If Spain, for instance, prefers to make a case they are suffering attacks over their relationship with the U.S., it only makes sense to retaliate against the terrorists.
Unless they want to fuck with us, instead...
See, even if you don't agree with U.S. foreign policy, we generally try to twist arms through the cunning influence of aid and money, rather than bombing the subways and trains of our allies.
You apparently see a moral equivalence between the two, but I do not.
We are also more at risk from terrorist attacks from right wing bloggers
hold on, I've just been handed my fauxnews internal memo.........
Seems we can stop blaming clinton now and instead blame pelosi..... that will be a refreshing change:rolleyes:
Figures...
Oh... did a plane fly into your house....can't have been widespead on 911 then.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
What is your death toll level at which you will call something terrorism and what do you think terrorism is?. I mean it left 5 americans dead and a few seriously ill. But to you that doesn't matter as you didn't get one.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5960215/
seems you are not up to date on your news about packages of white powder being sent through the mail by regular contributors of right wing blogsQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
It also seems you didn't get the fauxnews election talking points memo
Clinton trod the foreign stage well and was popular although he did not seem to do much. Ireland and Bosnia/Kosova might be considered successes of sorts (although I think we have been rather heavy handed with the Serbs who have long been our stoutest allies in the region - they weren't all Milosovics). Bill mainly appeared to be concerned with domestic economics and interns. Nevertheless, he has a charm and easy intelligent manner that still makes him popular abroad
Bush came onto the scene and eschewed nation building and said he wanted to concentrate on domestic issues but has actually spent most of his time attempting to nation building (with, it must be said, limited results). On the international front he had an unfortunate manner (I say had as he appears to be undergoing some sort of transformation at the moment) and tended to come across as boorish and unsympathetic "Dead or Alive" "Bring it on". At best he appeared ill-advised.
Bush rightly or wrongly will be defined by the outcome of the Iraq war and not his economic policy or war against AQ. Bill rightly or wrongly will be remembered for relative peace and prosperity and that dress, his rougishness enhancing his image rather than diminishing it.
I pretty much agree with that. Bush's attitude seems to be something like "we don't have to listen to other people, so we won't".Quote:
Originally Posted by Skillian
I also agree with Les' point that Clinton could claim some international success. He and his chaps did appear to play a fairly vital part in the whole Irish thing.
Let's be honest here tho', his popliarity is probably because he is an intelligent, eloquent and charismatic man. Bush may be intelligent, I don't know however he is certainly neither eloquent or charismatic.
I will give Clinton that much, he was a great speaker. By that, I simply mean that he was comfortable in front of the cameras, and a smooth talker.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Bush on the other hand, just has a different way about him. To me, it's natural. We're both Texans and so I see his posture and body language as normal. It really is a cultural thing. Though I can also see how others have percieved it as being different, or as I read once, "unprofessional".
Skizo,Quote:
Originally Posted by SkizoI will give Clinton that much, he was a great speaker. By that, I simply mean that he was comfortable in front of the cameras, and a smooth talker.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Bush on the other hand, just has a different way about him. To me, it's natural. We're both Texans and so I see his posture and body language as normal. It really is a cultural thing. Though I can also see how others have percieved it as being different, or as I read once, "unprofessional".
With the best will in the World it isn't a cultural thing. Sometimes he talks absolute shite.
"The only way we can win is to leave before the job is done." --George W. Bush, Greeley, Colo., Nov. 4, 2006
"You know, when I campaigned here in 2000, I said, I want to be a war President. No President wants to be a war President, but I am one." --George W. Bush, Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 26, 2006
"One has a stronger hand when there's more people playing your same cards." --George W. Bush, on holding six-party talks with North Korea, Washington, D.C., Oct. 11, 2006
"I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is -- my point is, there's a strong will for democracy." --George W. Bush, interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Sept. 24, 2006
"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --George W. Bush, interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006
"And I suspect that what you'll see, Toby, is there will be a momentum, momentum will be gathered. Houses will begat jobs, jobs will begat houses." --George W. Bush, talking to reporters along the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast, Gulfport, Miss., Aug. 28, 2006
"I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?" --George W. Bush, asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006
It's not like it's a one-off mate. He's at it all the time.
I said his "posture and body language" was cultural, not his speaking abilities.
It's no secret to anyone that he fumbles all over his words.
I haven't noticed his posture or body language as being in any way out of the ordinary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
It's just that he talks shite, on regular occassions. It's a bit more than him fumbling over his words.
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."
"The law I sign today directs new funds and new focus to the task of collecting vital intelligence on terrorist threats and on weapons of mass production."
"I was proud the other day when both Republicans and Democrats stood with me in the Rose Garden to announce their support for a clear statement of purpose: you disarm, or we will."
"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."
"I want to thank the President and the CEO of Constellation Energy, Mayo Shattuck. That's a pretty cool first name, isn't it, Mayo. Pass the Mayo."
"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."
"To those of you who received honors, awards and distinctions, I say well done. And to the C students, I say: You, too, can be president of the United States."
That last was actually because he was a "C" student...poking a bit of fun at himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Do you think the items on Bush's plate (as compared with Clinton's) are at all different after 9/11?
Do you think the inaction of the U.N. in the face Iraqi intransigence may have had any bearing on international perceptions of U.S. foreign policy?
Do you think Tony Blair aligned himself with Bush because he was sucking up, or because he thought it in England's best interest to do so?
That's 'cuz he got his oil changed every day. :naughty:Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
You suspect he didn't really care about the rest of the United Kingdom then.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I think that's a bit harsh.
Oh and there are options other than the two you proposed. For example he may have just thought it was the right thing to do.
Or he may have discussed it with other members of the Government and acted out the democratic process.
Or it may have been debated in Parliament.
Or he could have done it because it seemed like a bit of a larf at the time.
Oh, absolutely correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Those words were all intentionally scripted and accurately recited, in an attempt to shed the cloak of presumptive U.S. superiority.
That's what I hear, anyhow.
A magnificent success, too. :yup:
Can something be unintentionally scripted.
I don't doubt that last.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaulYou suspect he didn't really care about the rest of the United Kingdom then.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I think that's a bit harsh.
My apologies for the oversight...I didn't think you'd appreciate his speaking for you.
Oh and there are options other than the two you proposed. For example he may have just thought it was the right thing to do.
That's impossible, ask anybody.
No one in his right mind would so conclude.
He wanted to be Bush's bitch, pure and simple, and wasn't about to pass up the chance.
So I've heard.
Or he may have discussed it with other members of the Government and acted out the democratic process.
I think we'd have heard, if that were the case.
Or it may have been debated in Parliament.
And advocated by Galloway, too...
Or he could have done it because it seemed like a bit of a larf at the time.
Ironic, huh?
Given his confident mien and facility with words, I don't doubt he departs from the script when it suits him, no worries.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
He means what he says, and he's a man of his word(s).
Now, if you will excuse me, I have to go chase men wielding high-powered weapons through a heavily-wooded area.
It's great fun; I hear you can't do this in the U.K.
Sorry to hear it.
No, not really.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4I don't doubt that last.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Ironic, huh?
What makes you think this. It's a regular occurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Given his confident mien and facility with words, I don't doubt he departs from the script when it suits him, no worries.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
He means what he says, and he's a man of his word(s).
Now, if you will excuse me, I have to go chase men wielding high-powered weapons through a heavily-wooded area.
It's great fun; I hear you can't do this in the U.K.
Sorry to hear it.
One can find this kind of shit about anyone though. You can't single Bush out as if he's the only one. :dabs:Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaulI haven't noticed his posture or body language as being in any way out of the ordinary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
It's just that he talks shite, on regular occassions. It's a bit more than him fumbling over his words.
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."
"The law I sign today directs new funds and new focus to the task of collecting vital intelligence on terrorist threats and on weapons of mass production."
"I was proud the other day when both Republicans and Democrats stood with me in the Rose Garden to announce their support for a clear statement of purpose: you disarm, or we will."
"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."
"I want to thank the President and the CEO of Constellation Energy, Mayo Shattuck. That's a pretty cool first name, isn't it, Mayo. Pass the Mayo."
"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."
"To those of you who received honors, awards and distinctions, I say well done. And to the C students, I say: You, too, can be president of the United States."
Clinton has been a topic of the forums as of late, so I'll pick on him a bit.
"I can spend your money better than you can."
"You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say."
"The last time I checked, the Constitution said, 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' That's what the Declaration of Independence says."
"It has not worked. No one can say it has worked, so I decided we're either going to do what we said we're going to do with the U.N., or we're going to do something else."
"African-Americans watch the same news at night that ordinary Americans do."
"It depends on how you define "alone" ... there were a lot of times when we were alone, but I never really thought we were."
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is".