Clinton, Kerry, Bush and the Europeans
Check this item at FoxNews.com for an interview between the former US President Bill Clinton and delightful Greta Van Susteren. Don't ask why John Kerry lost last November. We Europeans like to think that we used to love Clinton - but it's funny how we didn't say that until Bush took the office. Clinton is without a doubt one of the best presidents the US ever had - he took crime down (homicides dropped by at least 30% during his presidency), turned budget deficit into surplus, played a major role in ending genocide in the former Yogoslavia region, brought unemployment rates down and worked hard to solve problems in the Middle-East and North Korea (well - at least he tried).
But when he jumped into some extra-marital relationship the conservatives jumped off their seats and spent millions of taxpayer dollars (and forced him to take a stand when his time should have been reserved for his real job) to find out about a blowjob.
Kerry on the other hand seemed dry and had no clear vision for the future. This is the guy who voted against the Gulf War (if Saddam had not been stopped then the consequences would have been devastating) and had some bad votes in the Congress during the Cold War. We Europeans thought that he's the smart one - but latest news items indicate that he was no smarter than Bush.
Bush on the other hand has a clear vision for the future and is working hard to shape that future. There's nothing Bush can do to stop the European whine about nation building. But it's funny how silent Europe remains about
the simple fact that during Bush the US-to-Africa aid has increased and now he's working with Blair and G8 countries to forget the African debt (and once again - increased the US aid to Africa). What anti-Bush people seem to care about more is how the detainees at Gitmo Bay are being treated (and even there they're wrong):
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159260,00.html
And some more items I want you to pay attention to:
Flash animation:
For Europeans who're sceptic abour our belowed union
No free bloggers in China:
Nice work China
Harsh living conditions at Guantanamo:
Gitmo Bay - not as bad as you'd think
But when he jumped into some extra-marital relationship the conservatives jumped off their seats and spent millions of taxpayer dollars (and forced him to take a stand when his time should have been reserved for his real job) to find out about a blowjob.
Kerry on the other hand seemed dry and had no clear vision for the future. This is the guy who voted against the Gulf War (if Saddam had not been stopped then the consequences would have been devastating) and had some bad votes in the Congress during the Cold War. We Europeans thought that he's the smart one - but latest news items indicate that he was no smarter than Bush.
Bush on the other hand has a clear vision for the future and is working hard to shape that future. There's nothing Bush can do to stop the European whine about nation building. But it's funny how silent Europe remains about
the simple fact that during Bush the US-to-Africa aid has increased and now he's working with Blair and G8 countries to forget the African debt (and once again - increased the US aid to Africa). What anti-Bush people seem to care about more is how the detainees at Gitmo Bay are being treated (and even there they're wrong):
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159260,00.html
And some more items I want you to pay attention to:
Flash animation:
For Europeans who're sceptic abour our belowed union
No free bloggers in China:
Nice work China
Harsh living conditions at Guantanamo:
Gitmo Bay - not as bad as you'd think
Labels: english
posted by MSandt at 9:52 PM
6 Comments:
Heh, Clinton had nothing to do with budget surpluses, crime, or unemployment. If my dog Oggie was President during the most prosperous decade in recent history - he would have seen surpluses, lower crime and unemployment.
That's because Phil's dog wouldn't have made any bad decisions as President. Most politicians would have, though.
I'd say that appointing the right kind of people does have an effect.
You're wrong - most Americans support the war on terror. Here's some fun for you: http://www.kimmershow.com/Links--and--Downloads.html
Scroll down to MOVIES, AUDIO, & MORE!!!, and click the 50 Cal. Sniper vs. Enemy link.
Regardless of what you hear form the media, it was not Iraq supporting terror like al-Quada (they were) which led to the US invasion in 2003, but 12 years of holding off Saddam whom continued to defy UN resolutions to which he agreed at the end of the 1991 war. How many resolutions did he defy? And the US congress listed over 30 reasons for invading Iraq. And why should America continue to be the brunt of the world's policing duties? It's time for the EU to step up and start spending money on their own defense, if only they were man enough.
I know you're a young know-it-all political science major. You'll learn the real deal when you grow up. So continue being an ankle biter while we Americans defend you the world. Europe is kaputt anyway - good riddance.
Clinton was one of the worst presidents the US ever had. No reporter cares to look into how and why Ross Perot ran for president to split the republican leaning vote. Crime dropped because low lifes that spawn unwanted children which tend to become criminals were instead aborted after 1973 - it's called the Roe effect. In fact, liberal types like Europeans don't reproduce, which will lead us conservative types to rule the future because we do have children and inculcate them with our tried-and-true values.
Clinton gave us surpluses, or was it the republican majority US Congress? You should read the US constitution and maybe you'll begin to know what you're talking about. You should stick to European affairs. Yea, Clinton tried to bring peace to the world - by throwing money at the problem and signing useless pieces of paper during a photo op like Jimmy Carter. Clinton's blow job? Where there's smoke, there's fire. Clinton is dishonest to the point of criminality, and he was impeached and disbarrred from practicing law. Clinton's view of the future was the same as the past 40 years - spend money. Bush is shaking the world up! I'm no fan of Bush, but given the alternatives ...
John Ashcroft for US President in 2008!
Oh yeah, and what is the Republican majority Congress doing now? They have abandoned all the fiscal principles they had ten years ago. I don't think John Ashcroft will run because even he must know his candidacy would guarantee a Democratic victory in 2008.
Vic
Asscroft for president? He's pure religion from his feet to his head. If you want a president who will surely mix religion with politics in every single issue then sure go ahead and vote for him - that just wouldn't be very American thing to do.
And even O'Reilly says that the majority is now against the war in Iraq.
I do agree that there were many (good) reasons to go to Iraq. And the EU definitely should be more serious about its defense policies - in my ideal world the EU shares global responsibilities with the US. That just won't happen for a while.
If your abortion theory proves the lowering crime rates then how come this development stopped the year Bush took the office? Every year since 2001 homicide rates have grown (not much but they still have).
And conservatives won't rule the future. This is a historical fact. Conservatism has always been forced to change along with new liberal/reformist ideas.
Note that I'm not really anti-Bush at all. I support his economical views (which are showing signs of a success - unemployment and deficit growth are both decreasing at the moment) and I support his foreign policy very much.
Post a Comment
<< Home