I think G.W. Bush would have beaten Carter.

The fact of the matter is that while Clinton is a divisive figure in politics, the effect is mittigated because Clinton remains wildly popular for a major politician. Far more so than W.

 

I know that most Limbaugh listeners don't recognize this, but Bill would have won again in 2000 were it legal, and he would win today.

Perhaps that's due to the number of voters who are in fear of having their welfare benefits cut/reduced!

So where do you draw the line? That's a poor argument IMO. The guys at Enron were still performing their job just fine too, they made a "moral miscue". Perhaps we should have just overlooked that as well.

No, the Enron guys practiced fraud in a scheme that cost thousands of people billions of dollars and/or their jobs. What did Bill Clinton's transgressions cost the taxpayers, other than the expense of his ensuing impeachment?

Perhaps that's due to the number of voters who are in fear of having their welfare benefits cut/reduced!

Wow, might have been clever except Bill Clinton signed welfare benefit cuts, reductions, and time limits...:thumb:

Wow, might have been clever except Bill Clinton signed welfare benefit cuts, reductions, and time limits...:thumb:

That were passed by a Republican Congress. The Democrats cryed foul over it.

That were passed by a Republican Congress. The Democrats cryed foul over it.

Did Clinton veto it or sign it? This isn't a discussion on Congressional Democrats, we're talking about Clinton.

Here's an NPR article on the welfare reform Clinton teamed with Republicans to pass.

 

"Welfare should be a second chance, not a way of life," then-President Bill Clinton said as he approved the bill.

Perhaps that's due to the number of voters who are in fear of having their welfare benefits cut/reduced!

Just another "red herring" response ...

Just another "red herring" response ...

I prefer "largemouth bass" response, thank you! All of this Clinton nostalgia makes me wish Hillary would run!

Seems that those in this thread with support for Clinton are willing to overlook all of his transgressions regardless of what they may be. We all place a standard that I would doubt that any man can meet as a sitting president. The only thing that would concern me as a voter, if Clinton would have been president during 9/11, what would be different? The Dems have never been a fave of military families for what reason? I question, along with his supporters in this thread, his military decisions as well. I'd guess Sadam would still be in power, which I think most would agree would be bad. And please, don't give me the "there were no WMD found" act, bottom line is that we'd have one more terrorist with limitless funds in power.

Seems that those in this thread with support for Clinton are willing to overlook all of his transgressions regardless of what they may be.

We're not overlooking his transgressions ... we're simply pointing out that we don't they were worthy of impeachment.

The only thing that would concern me as a voter, if Clinton would have been president during 9/11, what would be different?

I assume he would have did much of what Bush did in the beginning ... send troops to Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban, clean the place up and search for Osama bin Laden. I doubt he would have continued on into Iraq. Frankly, that's a positive in my book.

The Dems have never been a fave of military families for what reason?

My question is why the military seems so supportive of this adminsitration, which was so eager to send our troops into a war that seems unnecessary and not vital to our national security.

I'd guess Sadam would still be in power, which I think most would agree would be bad. And please, don't give me the "there were no WMD found" act, bottom line is that we'd have one more terrorist with limitless funds in power.

But Saddam, even in the words of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, was contained by sanctions ... "in the box," in their phrasing. Who is to say that wouldn't still be the case today?

 

As for the "there were no WMD found act" ... it is the truth, after all.

We're not overlooking his transgressions ... we're simply pointing out that we don't they were worthy of impeachment.

I assume he would have did much of what Bush did in the beginning ... send troops to Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban, clean the place up and search for Osama bin Laden. I doubt he would have continued on into Iraq. Frankly, that's a positive in my book.

My question is why the military seems so supportive of this adminsitration, which was so eager to send our troops into a war that seems unnecessary and not vital to our national security.

But Saddam, even in the words of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, was contained by sanctions ... "in the box," in their phrasing. Who is to say that wouldn't still be the case today?

 

As for the "there were no WMD found act" ... it is the truth, after all.

I'd guess if you look, which I'm sure you will, that the majority of defense cuts have come on the watch of Dems, not Reps. With regards to Sadam, no sanctions were going to keep him "in the box". He showed total disregard to sanctions, inspectors, etc.

With regards to Sadam, no sanctions were going to keep him "in the box". He showed total disregard to sanctions, inspectors, etc.

That wasn't the opinion of the Bush administration, until it started beating the war drums.

 

Dick Cheney: "Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned." ... on "Meet the Press" (9/16/01)

 

Colin Powell: "I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box. ... [saddam] is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." (2/23/01)

 

Condoleezza Rice: "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." (July 2001)

That wasn't the opinion of the Bush administration, until it started beating the war drums.

 

Dick Cheney: "Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned." ... on "Meet the Press" (9/16/01)

 

Colin Powell: "I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box. ... [saddam] is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." (2/23/01)

 

Condoleezza Rice: "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." (July 2001)

I'd guess after 9/11 some of the responses may have been somewhat different. And from a financial standpoint, was he funding terrorism? I guarantee you can't google the answer to that. You may be able to find some opinion, but can as easily find opinion that he was funnelling moneys to support terrorist sects.

I'd guess after 9/11 some of the responses may have been somewhat different. And from a financial standpoint, was he funding terrorism? I guarantee you can't google the answer to that. You may be able to find some opinion, but can as easily find opinion that he was funnelling moneys to support terrorist sects.

Dick Cheney's comment that I posted was made five days after 9/11. My point is and has always been that the administration's comments about Saddam were that he was contained ... until they started to make the case for invading Iraq.