Quote:
Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Clinton would have bombed Serbia, been credited with all good in Katrina and given an award for civil rights, nominated far-left Justices without nary a peep out of Republicans, gave his buddies in Dubai (FYI, they have given 100s of thousands to the Clinton liebury) a better deal than Bush (the press would have provided cover fire), the NSA wiretapping would be hailed as brilliance, etc., etc., etc.
Clinton was not Bush. Clinton bombed Serbia after the WTC-1, Kobar, Embassy bombings and the Cole. Clinton appointed an ACLU head to the Supreme Court, Clinton actually used the IRS and illegally obtained 900 FBI files on his enemies, Clinton sold missile technology to the Chinese Military for campaign contributions, and as a piece de resistance he pardoned corporate crooks, cocaine traffickers and terrorists.
Really no comparison, but to answer your question..NO...Clinton could not be trusted, Bush has proven himself a man of his word.
|
I guess my attempt to set up this "what if" example failed to communicate, but thanks for the gaze into your crystal ball. Let's get back to reality.
I'll gather from your response it's not the actions of a president that count - it's really George Bush, the man you admire, although I suspect the term, "admire", is too soft a description. By minimizing the very same Bush scenarios as performed by a different person (Clinton, joe blow or whoever), you're showing more loyalty to a person than to your country or its institutions. I'm glad there's only 31.99% of us who agree with you. Hang in there.
Sherwood