i wish he could run again.
I agree Sherry, we sure could use him now.
Pitty though Blue Gal,both Clinton & Gorelacked the backbone or the courage of their convictions to be truly what they had the potential to be.Real 'civilian' Presidents, with a foreign policy that sought Peace, not wars and military history.
And now Blue Galsome light humour:Photoshop Magic: Alternate Universes***
do you suppose it could be a gore-clinton ticket in '08? :) just dreaming again.
A President with a brain...*sigh*
The most surprising thing about this "study" was that Dumbya's score was in triple digits. That right there is enough to disbelieve the findings. Betcha Warren Harding never mangled the language and brought down an empire like incurious George.
By the way, where is the Wizard when you need him? Is it possible that a man can be missing a brain, a heart and courage all in the same go 'round? Yup. Just what we didn't need.
I'd contest that IQ score for Bush. IQ stands for intelligence quotient, or what percentage of normal development for a person's age is achieved at the age taken, or at the very least, as compared to the norm set by and expected in that person's group of peers.Leaping RIGHT over the question of whether this score has any meaning beyond teens (and a good case can be made for both possibile answers), it seems clear that Bush has not mastered some of the basic things that a person of his age and stage in life (a.k.a. American politican) need to master.Some examples are speaking English (including English words), planning ahead and following through on tasks (such as the Iraq war, to name one), and arithmetic (Social Security? Medicare Part D? The deficit?) and problem solving (the Iraq war...)A person of average intelligence would be able to do any of those. A person we'd call "smart" would never have gotten into any of those difficulties, in the first place.
Wow. He's talking tough. He's taking a stand. He seems to have an actual, real live, deeply held principle here.Too bad he couldn't do that when he was actually president.Pardon me if I don't join the love fest. I am glad Bill Clinton is gone. I despise his replacement with a passion unlike anything I have ever felt in my life, but Bill was a sellout and a purely political animal, and he could have done so much more as president that he simply did not do.AND he cheated on his wife. I hate that. I'm old-fashioned that way. I don't think adultery is okay.Yes, he is smart. Yes, he is charming. Yes, the man has charisma. Yes, he did nothing to make the world hate us.But.He campaigned talking tough on China, and then was the friendliest American president that vicious dictatorship has ever seen. He stabbed gays and lesbians in the back with "don't ask, don't tell" (not that I want ANYONE to go into the military, but...). He caved on Lani Guernier because of a column in the Wall Street Journal. He sat on his butt while 900,000 people died in Rwanda, when one brigade of Marines could've stopped the killing cold. He did next to nothing to fix our broken, disgraceful health care system. He signed a draconian Republican welfare "reform" bill. He - of all people - signed something called "The Defense of Marriage Act" (I still chuckle over that one). The list goes on too long.I voted for him, once. He lied to me and let me down. The second time around, I voted for Nader.I'm glad he's doing good things as an ex-president. He has much for which he needs to atone. But I don't miss him, no. And when he comes on television now, I change the channel.
I think it's a question of comparison, Dave. Was he a better President than Bush? (don't answer that one). I voted for Nader in 2000. But I don't think he would have made an effective President. Not at all.
That's easy. Compared the The Decider, Clinton was a flippin' Thomas Jefferson (who also wasn't exactly Tom McFaithful...). Of course four more years of Clinton would've been better than five minutes of Herr George.And the Nader vote was strictly a protest vote. The longer HE hangs around, the more annoying he is becoming as well.Man, these days, how I do miss Paul Wellstone...
Quaker Dave, I agree with many of your points about Clinton, but I also agree with Blue Gal that its worth taking a look at the comparision. But you are completely and 100% wrong about Rwanda. He did NOT hit on his hands about anything, but was largely responsible for the massacre that occured there. And not by passive inactivity, but by active engagement from well before the conflagration started. But if you care about it, don't take my word for it, but read Wayne Madsen's: Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa. And if that's too hard to find then read his Congressional testimony here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD111A.htmlAnd if you don't have the patience for that, well . . . At some point people will stop staring through the looking glass and see that so much has been stolen and violated, that the US is not the country that most Americans think it is. Then and only then when people look at the disease that really has killed the democracy will people ever have a chance of reclaiming it. Until then, we're all just spectators, and shouldn't do much more than simply laugh at the idiocies of a dry drunk aphasiac, while he drives/has driven the nation headlong into the ditch. And maybe we can give a simple knowing sigh . . .
But just for the record, weazl really doesn't give a poop about him getting a hummer. That is the least relevant and most silly piece of information out there. How that compares to the crimes of SO MANY PRESIDENTS is simply absurd. Sorry. We're not in Victorian England anymore . . .
Isaid: Clinton, by comparison, if that's the issue here, is/was superior to Bush in every possible way. I said that. We agree on that much.My point regarding Clinton's infidelity wasn't to be prudish or Victorian. I'm not quite that naive. But it is a bit ironic (at best) for a president to be a serial adulterer and THEN sign that bigoted nonsense known as the "Defense of Marriage Act," supposedly "protecting" the institution of marriage from those darn annoying gay people.And I'll definitely pursue the suggested readings on Rwanda. Thanks for the information. I do have the patience for new information, always.
Dear Dave, No problem on the info. And if you like it, you can always stop by the weazl's home at weazlsrevenge.blogspot.com, for more information of the same sort. Not to detract from Blue Gal's site one bit, but there's room for more than one stopping point in this vast world of the blogosphere.
I really look forward to hearing what you have to say. I do moderate comments, but non-spam comments will take less than 24 hours to appear... Thanks!