TWO VERY DIFFERENT PRESIDENTIAL LEGACIES: A stained dress vs. a stained finger

Historians are inevitably going to compare the presidencies of George W. Bush and William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.

They do have a few things in common. Each won two terms, each was involved in a military campaign, each was married and had a family, each was a consummate politician, and each was loved by his fans and loathed by his political enemies.

Perhaps they have a few similarities, but it is the differences that are most important. One is a man who respects the office. The other is a man who defiled the office.

President Bush is a man with vision and purpose. He does not put up his finger in the wind and make a decision because it will be popular and enhance his political power. To say Clinton was disingenuous, cunning, and Machiavellian is to understate his attributes. There have never been politicians like Bill and his wife.

Yesterday's historic election in Iraq, an election that would have never happened if the other side were in charge, is a part of a legacy being carved out by President Bush that may well have historians calling him one of the greatest presidents.

We all saw the pictures. The fingers were either blue or purple, depending on the clarity of the photos and your own interpretation. Those who voted didn't get an I VOTED sticker as we do when we vote. No, they were branded for all to see with some ink that would stay there for awhile and prevent them from voting multiple times. The Iraqis have paid attention to what the DemocRATS did in Washington, Wisconsin, and probably all of the other states. There would be no cheating in this election.

That stained finger also had another consequence. It made all who voted subject to being beheaded by the bad guys. In this part of the world, the bad guys are serious about voter suppression. Unlike here, it is real and it is deadly.

As we celebrate the historic day let us remember the stark contrast of two presidencies. One will have the legacy of a stained finger that represents the greatest gift that can be given to the oppressed Iraqi people -- their freedom.

The other stain was on a blue dress. It represents a failed eight years. Anyone good CEO and any number of Democrats or Republicans could have presided over the economy in the 1990s. It just so happens that a man without character or conscience, a man who is truly a sociopath, was at the helm during an economic expansion. Terrorism grew around the world while he spent his time thinking about satisfying his sexual needs, intimidating witnesses, commiting perjury, suborning perjury, and trying to deny a lowly state employee her day in court.

President Bush is changing the world for the better. Freedom will not be stopped because man yearns to live free. Bill Clinton just watched it go by while he spent his time taking down his pants in Oval Office.

Let us continue to pray for the safety of those brave warriors who are in danger and for the souls of those whose lives were cut short because they were brave enough to want to make a difference in the world. You can know for certain that, when this president sheds tears for those we have lost and for the families left behind, those tears are not for a photo-op. They are real.

The legacy of the stained finger or the legacy of the stained dress. Which man do you admire?

I'm glad doug mentioned the "any good CEO" part.

Like the Reagan period 1982-1990, the up-segment of an economic cycle is normal for being eight-nine years long, as it was 1991 to March 2000. Bush #41 was president when the up-segment started in 1991. Scumbag was president when the stock market crashed in 2000 and when the economy hit the skids in 2000. Scumbag just happened to be president in the meaty middle part of an economic cycle on the upside.

Presidents have very little to do with economic expansion or contraction. To give Scumbag credit for something out of his control is childish thinking. To place blame on Scumbag for the stock market crash or economic downturn is also childish thinking.

There are plenty of items to roast Scumbag over, including the multiple terrorist attacks and bin Laden's declaration of war against America that occurred during his filthy regime in which he did absolutely nothing about.

As doug implied, CEO management creating supply and demand has more to do with the economic boom than anything Scumbag ever did. We would not have had the economic boom in the 1990s if CEOs did not create products to feed the Internet explosion and personal computer explosion during that period, and likewise if the CEOs had not created products to fix the Y2K problem. Techology spending for Y2K was the single biggest factor in the explosive economic growth that occurred in the 1997-2000 period. It is also the excess capacity that built up in this period from the CEOs that was the biggest factor in making the crash that occurred post Y2K. Had lousy CEOs been running most the major tech companies in the 1990s, we never would have had the economic boom Scumbag falsely wants to take credit for.

Scumbag had nothing to do with any of this, but everything to do with his lies, his corruption, his marriage to that ugly swine Hillary and all her corrupt actions and cronies and his failure to be a good Commander in Chief and protect America after attack.

Scumbag will forever carry the stain of the blood from 911.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.