quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Thanks for the kind words in my defense, T-Dave.

And I appreciate your apology as well, Jack. I understand your passion on the subject.

I also have problems with G.W. Bush. But as I said, pending further evidence, I don't think he's guilty of an oil-based war conspiracy. Although anything's possible.
I haven't really been enthusiastic about any President since Reagan, and even Reagan was woven into some criminally devious corruption and power-brokering (the "October Surprise" deal with Iran, to delay release of the embassy hostages until after Reagan was elected; Iran Contra ; and Oliver North taking the fall for charges that I think most of us believe went much higher.)
I really think the only boy-scout President we've had since Eisenhower was Jimmy Carter. And Carter wan't a very effective leader.

One thing that really bothers me though, is why liberals (and I mean that in general, not specifically you, Jack, or anyone else here) seem to overlook these things when they're done by a Democrat in the White House, or candidate, and so eager to crucify a Republican as Satan in the flesh for very similar charges?

I mean, Bush Sr. was demonized by Democrats in 1992, and Clinton had a lengthy list of criminally and ethically suspect red flags on his resume, both prior to and during his term as President, and yet the Democrats, and the Democrat-biased press constantly downplayed Clinton's record.
Among my conservative friends, we said for 8 years that on so many of the under-reported transgressions of Clinton, that if it were Bush Sr., the media would have gone for blood and aggressively tipped the balance of public opinion to have him removed. Whereas with Clinton, the media stayed its hand and let Clinton squeak by unscathed.

There was a lot of speculation that all the sabre-rattling over Kosovo and Iraq, for instance, (which was a perfect case of life imitating art, in the simultaneously released movie Wag the Dog) where there was considerable speculation that Clinton would start a war just to take public opinion away from Monica Lewinsky, and make his popularity rise as a war-time President.

And there's so many other issues under Clinton: Travelgate, Whitewater, and the larger connection to huge losses in the savings and loan scandal, Filegate, Vince Foster's death, allowing China to steal nuclear missile technology secrets despite repeated warnings by military advisors to improve security, etc.

I wonder how you feel about Clinton, as opposed to Bush.

Like I said, even though I'm a Republican, I haven't voted for a Republican President since 1988, because I'm all too aware that the two major parties are bought and paid for with corporate campaign contributions, and that those interests far outweigh those of the people.

In 1992, I voted Perot, the only candidate to address the real issues.
In 1996, I wanted Phil Gramm, we were given Bob Dole, I again voted Perot(less enthusiastically).
In 2000, I wanted John McCain, we were given G.W.Bush, I voted Ralph Nader
(again, the only candidate to address the real issues).

I really don't think Gore would be any better. His candidacy was bought and paid for only a few million less than Bush's.
I don't think there is any "real democracy", the same as there can't be any pure communism. The democracy we all have is an elected oligarchy, in which the candidates are promoted through advterising paid for by special interest groups.

And sure, Clinton had suspect issues. He was morally bankrupt in some ways. As a non-American, I'm willing to forgive him for his transgressions because he tried to fix many things wrong with the world. He came as close as anyone got to secure a peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians and he took the blame for not interceding in Rwanda. He had enough courage to send troops to Somalia to try and bring peace there (it was a mess, but his motives were good).

Gore was willing to do something about Africa, and to stop global warming.

Bush has little to offer me: he is the epitomy of self-interest.