<p>and Bush is a dry drunk and a very ungifted speaker</p>
<p>ever listen to him talk off script…pretty funny desperate stuff</p>
<p>and a liar, at that- stay the course…just follow the quotes</p>
<p>No one died when Clinton lied.</p>
<p>Unlike bush.</p>
<h2>Kosovo & Serbia, Mogadishu, USS Cole, World Trade Center I, Sudanese aspirin factory, Marine barracks in Saudi, American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, Branch Davidians in Waco…</h2>
<p>Many people were dying while Clinton was lying lealdragon.</p>
<p>Uh, people dying while Clinton was in office is quite different than people dying as a direct result of lies.</p>
<p>I believe leal meant that Bush’s lies led us into a war that has cost us many lives, while Clinton’s lies led to a sex scandal that really didn’t hurt anyone.</p>
<p>Okay BusinessGuy -</p>
<p>How about people dying as a direct result of a policy of avoidance. That would be 9-11.</p>
<hr>
<p>From a ‘liberal’ source:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.commondreams.org/views/083000-106.htm[/url]”>http://www.commondreams.org/views/083000-106.htm</a></p>
<p>Thanks BusinessGuy. That’s exactly what I meant.</p>
<p>It always amazes me when people blame Clinton MORE for not cathing bin Laden BEFORE 911 than they do bush for not catching him AFTER 911. </p>
<p>bush wins the lies contest, hands down. Yet people still think he is ‘godly’???</p>
<p>It’s even worse for bush, because he gets his support from people who think he is somehow ‘above all that’, that he has ‘integrity’ yet he is just as politically corrupt, actually much more so.</p>
<p>for starters:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-1257207-5266541?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=bush+lies&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-1257207-5266541?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=bush+lies&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go</a></p>
<p>Also check out ‘Worse Than Watergate’ and there’s a new one - something about Faith, can’t remember the title - about the scam bush & cheny have pulled on their Christian base.</p>
<p>Then, idmom, you might want to watch ‘911 Mysteries’ if you think bush is so innocent about 911.</p>
<p><a href=“http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003[/url]”>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003</a></p>
<p>It’s LDmom leal. 
I’ll pass. I think I have a very unbiased realistic pov on both Bush’s and Clinton’s service records. They’re both morons. I don’t need extra footage or links to confirm that. But, I do take issue when people start canonizing Bill Clinton.</p>
<p>LDmom…Policy avoidance??? Do you recall what Bush did when he heard about the first plane hitting the World Trade Center…He looked like a deer in the headlights and went back to reading to the kids in Florida. Cheney and Rove weren’t with him to tell him to respond.</p>
<p>Given that my uncle is a retired Secret Service man, I have a pretty good idea what was going on for those first hours after the WTC. Bush was pretty much in the hands of his security as they went into their safety protocol. I don’t fault him at all for that. He did a fine job handling the situation as did Mayor Guiliani and all of members of our Congress, both Democrat and Republican.</p>
<p>btw…I think the whole world had the look of a deer in the headlights in those first few hours. I was on the phone with my sister as we both watched the second plane hit in real time. I will never ever forget that I witnessed, with my own eyes, the murder of thousands of innocent people.</p>
<p>Again, I expect more from the president of the greatest nation on earth than sitting for 20 minutes and doing nothing, while the country was being attacked. His behavior was nothing short of bizarre.</p>
<p>I am pretty sure the secret service didn’t say “uh, Mr. President, a jet just hit the WTC, but you just keep on reading that story to these little kids.” One would think he would have politely excused himself and gone to find out what was going on, maybe put in a call to get first hand information, or even, perhaps turn on the TV that the rest of us were watching in horror.</p>
<p>I am always amazed by justifications made for GWB’s behavior, whether it is his inaction in the case of the early minutes after the WTC, his communication blunders, or calling his “stay the course” mantra courage and patriotism, when it is really just ignoring reality and stubbornly sticking to a failing plan. You can still like your president’s policies and politics and still acknowledge his foibles. Most Clinton supporters concurred that he used really stupid judgement in his personal life, while supported his policies.</p>
<p>Allmusic, please enlighten us. What exactly should Bush have done, immediately following the ss man whispering in his ear? Run screaming from the room? Demanded immediate transport to NYC so he could stop the attack himself? </p>
<p>Please tell us what you think Bush should have done in those first few minutes, and why.</p>
<p><i>What’s your point? Do you think it’s amusing to make fun of the speech patterns of people from a different region of the country than you?</i></p><i>
<p>I’m sensitive to this issue, because I’m close to people from Texas, and they DO use idioms that are different to mine. My parents were not American, and they also used figures of speech that were different.</p>
</i><p><i>If you want to disagree with the President’s policies, that’s one thing. But ridiculing someone’s pronunciation or figures of speech is just petty.</i></p>
<p>Ive lived in Texas my entire life, and Ive never talked like that. Its an unnecessary modifier. Now when people make fun of him for regional accepted pronunciations like “nu-ku-lar” I think theyre being tards, but I think he deserves what he gets on this one.</p>
<p>LTS, the president could have acted “presidential”. One expects a person in such a high level of authority to act as such. No screaming from the room, but calmly excusing himself. The country needed fast action as airplanes were slamming into buildings. We didn’t need a president who had no idea what to do. In the face of an emergency a president must show action, fortitude, and like he is in total control of the situation. </p>
<p>His actions that day were downright deplorable.</p>
<p>BTW, it wasn’t only “a few minutes”. Bush sat for almost 20, if I recall, doing absolutely nothing. That was nothing short of ridiculous, as our country was being attacked.</p>
<p>Please give more detail. Excusing himself to do go to exactly what? What exactly should he have gone off to do?</p>
<p>Allmusic - For those first minutes right before the second plane hit, the news was still reporting that it was a smaller general aircraft and that it was an accident. When the second plane hit…we all realized that it was a large plane that seemed to deliberately fly into a building…and then we all wondered it this wasn’t an act of terrorism. Even air traffic controllers responsible for monitoring the planes were still uninformed at that point.</p>
<p>I’m confused Allmusic. Are you discrediting Bush for remaining calm in front of a classroom of children? Are you discrediting Bush for not immediately and intuitively knowing from 1000 miles away, something that know one else knew…that it was an airliner and an act of terrorism? Are you discrediting him for being removed according to safety protocols? Do you have some secret presidential behavior handbook that states exactly what should occur when? Have you ever considered you really don’t have a clue as to what was actually going on behind the scenes at all?</p>
<p>Man, I just wanna know one thing…where do you go to sign up to be perfect?</p>
<p>Vyse - “tards”?</p>
<p>blucroo - Here’s the Clinton deal in a nutshell. Bright man who despite being shown the upmost respect of the people of the United States in being elected as our leader was incapable of returning that respect by behaving appropriately. Clearly demonstrated he was weak and incapable of good judgement on a most basic level. Wasted his talent and opportunity; and for that, he is forever diminished in the eyes of millions of his constituents.</p>
<p>Can you say the same about Bush? Yes. </p>
<p>One is not better than the other. Both have proven their mediocrity. I’m embarrassed by both of them. And all I can say is at least they aren’t as ridiculous as most of the other current world leaders. Small satisfaction.</p>
<p>Seriously - the very best possible thing Bush could have done was continue to read to those children. He could issue no orders and make no decisions without complete information - or at least information more complete than what typically arrives in very early reports. As commander in chief, he has an entire military at his disposal, not to mention the local NYC first responder infrastructure. His subordinates, which include intelligence personnel, military and secret service, have procedures and protocols to follow, which they did, as he surely knew they would. </p>
<p>The LAST thing he should have done is aborted his reading session with the children. I EXPECT a competent leader to allow his or her subordinates to do their jobs. </p>
<p>But hey, I’m open minded. If someone here has reason to believe he should have run screaming from the room, panicked at the news, or began issuing randoms orders absent facts, or done some other thing, bring it. I’m curious to know exactly what it is he should have done differently.</p>
<p>How about removing himself from the classroom and going to a location where he could be supplied with direct information and where he could offer direct supervision. Where he , and not Cheney, would be in a position to order that domestic aircraft be shot down.</p>
<p>Why? Cheney is perfectly capable of issuing orders, and he has the authority to do so.</p>