You think President Bush reached him by example?
1 posted on
01/19/2004 9:36:46 AM PST by
Kaslin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
To: Kaslin
Jimmy Carter - a far better ex-president than president. I dunno. Jimmy Carter's been pretty bad lately.
2 posted on
01/19/2004 9:38:27 AM PST by
Eala
(Sacrificing tagline fame for... TRAD ANGLICAN RESOURCE PAGE: http://eala.freeservers.com/anglican)
To: Kaslin
Yeah, they love him abroad. He let them attack the US with impunity.
3 posted on
01/19/2004 9:42:09 AM PST by
Az Joe
(Hey Howard the Coward!----Bush IS MY neighbor!)
To: Kaslin
a super-charged Jimmy Carter - a far better ex-president than president. I had no problems with the article up until this comment. Jimmy Carter has been 1,000x worse and more damaging to the U.S. as ex-President than he was as President (which is not to downplay how bad he was as President).
To: Kaslin
If Peters wrote this, the speech must have been really excellent and insightful.
The only conclusion I can reach is that, like Saddam, Clinton has a stable of body doubles, many more statesman-like and classy than their employer.
Or maybe Bush sent him a few hookers and some coke. I'd imagine those things are a little tough to come by in Qatar.
5 posted on
01/19/2004 9:44:14 AM PST by
dead
(I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
To: Kaslin
"a far better ex-president than president."Clinton shouldn't have to strive very hard to reach that mark...
To: Kaslin
Is this from the Onion?
8 posted on
01/19/2004 9:45:39 AM PST by
HIDEK6
To: Kaslin
"he scolded the crowd that blaming others for their own failings was useless and destructive - warning that even when others truly are at fault for our misfortunes, wallowing in blame only paralyzes us." What a hilarious sicko.
I bet there are hundreds of authors, liberal ones even, dying to psychoananlyze this deluded egomaniac.
9 posted on
01/19/2004 9:45:50 AM PST by
mrsmith
To: Kaslin
Asked by an eager-to-Bush-bash delegate if he, Bill Clinton, would have behaved differently after 9/11, our former president said he would have followed an identical course, pursuing our enemies into Afghanistan and beyond. Queried about his position on Iraq, he stated that any disagreements he might have would be most appropriately expressed at home in the U.S., not before a foreign audience.*FAINT*
To: Kaslin
By nature a salesman, not a leader, he lacked the guts to act then accept the consequences. I can't argue with this statement.
To: Kaslin
It's hard to explain this.
He's been away from Hillary for awhile and the venom has had some time to wear off?
I always thought him a venal man, and a lazy one. He was the perfect President if you value showmanship over substance. And he did move toward the center as his Presidency wore on and his far-left positions flopped and flopped and flopped. He could be taught, like a puppy who finally stopped peeing on the rug. It's only a pity that his worst offenses against national security did not come to light until he was already out. By the end of his Presidency I think only Monicagate had managed to seriously tarnish him. (But O, what a tarnish that was!)
He has escaped blame for the recession that started during his administration--but I don't really think that is unjust, as I think blaming the President for every percentage point shift the economy makes is simpleminded. I give him credit--by failing to push the programs he advocated hard enough, he managed to avoid damaging the economy as much as he could have.
He's in legacy-rescuing mode and obviously has been taught, finally, that bashing the current administration only makes him look bad. He also knows darn well that 9/11 was as much his fault as it could be any American's--OBL should have been blown to shreds immediately after Cole, if not sooner. Put up with a bully and bullying escalates. Everybody knows this on a personal level, but Clinton was too lazy.
No, Clinton is a shallow man who can project depth, and a failed President, but he is and has been only a pawn for evil. It's his wife who *is* evil.
To: Kaslin
Toon's an opportunist extraordinaire. Next week he could be saying something completely different if he thinks it expedient to do so. Anyone who thinks Toon has seen the light should let me know, 'cause I have a bridge in Brooklyn I wouldn't mind unloading.
14 posted on
01/19/2004 9:48:38 AM PST by
mewzilla
To: Kaslin
Asked by an eager-to-Bush-bash delegate if he, Bill Clinton, would have behaved differently after 9/11, our former president said he would have followed an identical course, pursuing our enemies into Afghanistan and beyond. Queried about his position on Iraq, he stated that any disagreements he might have would be most appropriately expressed at home in the U.S., not before a foreign audience. He had plenty of opportunities to do so during his own watch--his own Twin Towers, OKC, Riyadh, the embassy in Africa... and pursing Lin Laden into Sudan when he was invited to do so. He is seeing what Pres. Bush is doing well and is piggy-backing onto it. "Me to -- me to ...I would have done that!" It's no different than the way he "led" by following polls when he was president. That his writer could actually be impressed with this nonsense is rediculous. But of course, I'm not surprised.
16 posted on
01/19/2004 9:50:46 AM PST by
twigs
To: Kaslin
Queried about his position on Iraq, he stated that any disagreements he might have would be most appropriately expressed at home in the U.S., not before a foreign audience.
17 posted on
01/19/2004 9:50:58 AM PST by
smith288
(Secret member of the VRWC elite forces)
To: Kaslin
......."Bush administration should lose no opportunity to send Clinton to represent us abroad,.....
A triple decker, large chunk, no holds barred:
BARF
18 posted on
01/19/2004 9:52:19 AM PST by
aShepard
To: Kaslin
The problem with this is that Clinton is erratic.
You say he refused to criticize Bush abroad on this occasion? Just wait. Next week or next month he'll trash the American President on foreign soil, just as eloquently as he here defended him.
Too intelligent to be president? I suppose that might comfort those who saw Camelot in him in 1992. Intelligence, in the service of lousy character, is worse than simply stupid.
The truth is more like what those hated Republicans said: Clinton is not stupid. He is a used car salesman. Whatever he said today he will happily contradict tomorrow.
19 posted on
01/19/2004 9:53:06 AM PST by
Taliesan
To: Kaslin
" By nature a salesman, not a leader, he lacked the guts to act then accept the consequences."
The Clinton legacy
20 posted on
01/19/2004 9:53:39 AM PST by
LADY J
To: Kaslin
It was the famous Clinton magic. It failed us in the White House, but may have found its proper stage in the world beyond our shores. I agree. If we can just keep Clinton offshore, it will be better for the U.S.
The farther the better.
21 posted on
01/19/2004 9:53:43 AM PST by
Jim Cane
To: Kaslin
Why does Clinton back Clark for Prez?
......
Democrats are so delirious about finding a general who is a pacifist scaredy-cat that no one seems to have bothered to investigate whether Wesley Clark is sane. ... Clark recently said that the 'two greatest lies that have been told in the last three years' are: 'You couldn't have prevented 9-11 and there's another one that's bound to happen.' If he were president, Clark says, there would be no more terrorist attacks. ... Democrats...are so happy to have a pacifist in uniform, they ignore his Norman Bates moments. ... Under Clark's command, the U.S. bombed the Chinese Embassy by mistake, killing three Chinese journalists. Other NATO air strikes under Clark mistakenly damaged the Swiss, Spanish, Swedish, Norwegian and Hungarian ambassadors' residences. Despite the absence of ground troops, Yugoslavia took three American POWs, whose release was eventually brokered by Jesse Jackson. America was standing tall. ... Clark's forces bombed a civilian convoy by mistake, killing more than 70 ethnic Albanians, and then Clark openly lied about it to the press. First he denied NATO had done it, and when forced to retract that, Clark pinned the blame on an innocent U.S. pilot. ... Eventually, even a model of probity like Bill Clinton was shocked by Clark's mendacity and fired him. ... At the end of major combat operations led by NATO Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Wesley Clark, arch-villain Slobodan Milosevic was still in power. ... Today, almost a decade and $15 billion later, U.S. troops are still bogged down in the Balkans. No quagmire there! ... That's the Democrats' idea of a general." --Ann Coulter
To: Kaslin
One question for Ralph Peters: Does he think that the Toon would have sounded the same message if he thought a different message would have helped Hillary's chances for the White House? After eight years of these two we've learned one thing about them: they do nothing without the ulterior motive of entrenching their own power. One speech does not change that!
To: Kaslin
Bush to Clinton.You go over there and Bash the usa and the President and We will not allow your plane to land and your passport will be void "getit".
24 posted on
01/19/2004 9:56:59 AM PST by
solo gringo
(Always Ranting Always Rite)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson