Bill Clinton is still very powerfull and influental in American politics. I suspect he will remain active as long as he can do what he can to make what he belives to be a better America.
Obama one of the Greats!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Bill Clinton is still very powerfull and influental in American politics. I suspect he will remain active as long as he can do what he can to make what he belives to be a better America.
You mean socialism by incrementalism!
Rocketman
American Worker
FDR destroyed even more small businesses than Obama has. FDR tried to regulate commerce with his NRA legislation, SCOTUS stepped in and stopped it but it was too late for thousands of businesses.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Only in this case you know they didn't mean the day before.
You're just being another partisan Rightie who can't admit when he's wrong.
Now you get it, Mr. dident.
Hes very influential with Democrats....and is in his glory getting in front of adoring crowds ......
Do you think, in your limited capacity to do so, that ANY of the Bush clan couldn't get a gig on Leno or Letterman or MTV or any other venue, in a heartbeat if they craved the spotlight like Bill Clinton and Obama ?
Last edited:
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Im sure they could get on any comedy show, I dont belive they can get a gig at a Republican Convention or campaign event.
Crashk
Unite or Die
At least it's safe for Bush to travel... maybe...
Bush not at risk of arrest in Europe, experts say
European law enforcement officials and other experts say the chances of George W. Bush being arrested on war crimes charges in Switzerland--or anyplace else on the continent--are almost nil.
Headlines and assertions by human rights groups that the former president risked a “possible arrest warrant” if he traveled to Geneva to give a speech this weekend were overblown, those with direct experience in such matters said.
But Amnesty International insisted that “Anywhere in the world that he travels, President Bush could face investigation and potential prosecution for his responsibility for torture and other crimes in international law, particularly in any of the 147 countries that are party to the U.N. convention against torture."
"From a legal point of view, I believe it could be possible,” said Dick Marty, a Swiss prosecutor who led Council of Europe’s investigation into alleged illegal CIA secret prisons. “But I'm convinced that the political reality is that there are no chances for such a step."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2011/02/bush_not_at_risk_of_arrest_in.html
It's good to know that your hero is safe from being prosecuted for his past deeds if he wants to take a cruise.
Bush not at risk of arrest in Europe, experts say
European law enforcement officials and other experts say the chances of George W. Bush being arrested on war crimes charges in Switzerland--or anyplace else on the continent--are almost nil.
Headlines and assertions by human rights groups that the former president risked a “possible arrest warrant” if he traveled to Geneva to give a speech this weekend were overblown, those with direct experience in such matters said.
But Amnesty International insisted that “Anywhere in the world that he travels, President Bush could face investigation and potential prosecution for his responsibility for torture and other crimes in international law, particularly in any of the 147 countries that are party to the U.N. convention against torture."
"From a legal point of view, I believe it could be possible,” said Dick Marty, a Swiss prosecutor who led Council of Europe’s investigation into alleged illegal CIA secret prisons. “But I'm convinced that the political reality is that there are no chances for such a step."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2011/02/bush_not_at_risk_of_arrest_in.html
It's good to know that your hero is safe from being prosecuted for his past deeds if he wants to take a cruise.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Bush SHOULD face investigation. He caused more needless suffering than Truman or LBJ.
That's why it's so ridiculous to say that Congress "voted to invade." It shifts the responsibility for the decision; it takes accountability away from where it should be. I don't give Congress a pass, but people forget why they voted to give Bush such authority. It was a show of unity, to demonstrate to Saddam that Americans weren't divided on this, and force his hand on inspections.
Yes, most knew that Bush would abuse the new power Congress gave him, and do the wrong thing. But that doesn't change the fact that it was Bush who abused the power, and did the wrong thing. No one forced him to invade. Many begged him not to. He was reckless, and stupid, and yes - criminal.
The very least we owe history is to hold him accountable for his actions - not characterize him as helpless to the whims of Congress. Congress never "voted to invade."
That's why it's so ridiculous to say that Congress "voted to invade." It shifts the responsibility for the decision; it takes accountability away from where it should be. I don't give Congress a pass, but people forget why they voted to give Bush such authority. It was a show of unity, to demonstrate to Saddam that Americans weren't divided on this, and force his hand on inspections.
Yes, most knew that Bush would abuse the new power Congress gave him, and do the wrong thing. But that doesn't change the fact that it was Bush who abused the power, and did the wrong thing. No one forced him to invade. Many begged him not to. He was reckless, and stupid, and yes - criminal.
The very least we owe history is to hold him accountable for his actions - not characterize him as helpless to the whims of Congress. Congress never "voted to invade."
Wise Old Man
Banned
You're a damn idiot. Not one Democrat who voted to use force said one word against the invasion. You're stupid and can't accept reality.
Last edited:
Still insist on making a fool of yourself.....tell us, does the vote to use military force prohibit anything ?....Air strikes, bombing from 20,000 feet, cruise missiles, INVASION ?.....Bush made the choice and in no dodges that fact....it was voted on and passed that as president, he makes the decision on WHAT military
force to use.....
So any rational person KNOWS that the vote was for all of the above. Only a fool like insists otherwise.....
H
What about the "leader leads" and all the stuff they have spouted, lately!
What about the "leader leads" and all the stuff they have spouted, lately!
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
The apologism for Bush on this issue is some of the worst that I've seen. We already know how they'd be if Iraq was a success. We don't have to guess, because they THOUGHT it was a success when Saddam's statue fell - and at that time, Democrats were on the "wrong side of history," and Bush was a bold visionary in the mold of Lincoln.
Now that we know what a disastrous decision Iraq was, they can't give enough "credit" to Democrats. Bush, and Bush alone, made that decision. No one forced him to invade. No one even really suggested it outside of PNAC and those in his admin.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Who made the decision to invade?
No rambling answer on that. Just tell me who made the decision.
Is a leader not supposed to lead ?
WTF do you think is the job of a president ?.....to fly in AF1 4 or 5 times a week a give speeches....make tv appearances....campaign for the entire term ?
The Congress made the decision to use military force (WAR), by whatever tactics the President and US military deamed appropriate to use.....be it air strikes, missile attack, and/or ground troops.....
I'm through playing word games with idiots like you.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
That's your most ridiculous assertion to date.
No, bravo - Congress did not decide to invade, or even use military force. They gave Bush that authority, only if necessary.
You're tripping over yourself to protect Bush from accountability. The correct answer to my question was a) Bush. Bush made the decision to invade. The actual decision. No one else.
Your assertion is the ridiculous one.
Bush requested the resolution to use military force....his decision to oust Saddam using force, was made before the resolution was voted on....it didn't originate in Congress....
So Congress knew exactly what they were voting on...i.e., war(military force) with Iraq, and they approved it with the full knowledge it meant war, .... they decided it.....they had the last and final on word on the matter....
It would not have happened without the consent of Congress, therefore, THEY made the FINAL DECISION, Bush only requested it.
Thats the way issues are supposed to be deceided in this country, by asking Congress to deceide....
Bush requested the resolution to use military force....his decision to oust Saddam using force, was made before the resolution was voted on....it didn't originate in Congress....
So Congress knew exactly what they were voting on...i.e., war(military force) with Iraq, and they approved it with the full knowledge it meant war, .... they decided it.....they had the last and final on word on the matter....
It would not have happened without the consent of Congress, therefore, THEY made the FINAL DECISION, Bush only requested it.
Thats the way issues are supposed to be deceided in this country, by asking Congress to deceide....
Last edited: